Is the US Electoral System really democratic?

[Perinquus]

Let me get this straight. You say that making policies to benefit the interests of farmers hurts the nation. In the first place, I would like to see you offer some proof of this. But leaving that aside for the moment, are you saying we should not make policies that benefit the interests of farmers? Fuck 'em. I mean, they're American citizens and all, and their interests are supposed to be looked after too, but fuck 'em. They're only a minority. Who the fuck cares what they want?

The traditional farmer is dying out, and has been for some time. To cater to their whims and delay their inevitable extinction and the triumph of huge agro-businesses would only serve to retard progress.

Yet another false dillema. Every resident of a rural area (and probably not even a majority) is not a traditional farmer, and their interests and concerns are still different from that of city dwellers. Are you seriously advocating the position that the concerns of a segment of the American population do not count?

[Darth Wong]

Bullshit. This is a false dillema fallacy if I ever saw one. Protecting the rights and interests of rural citizens does not result in a "tyranny of the minority", it merely results in the protections of the rights and interests of rural citizens. I see no evidence that looking after the interests of that segment of the population overrides the interest of the urban majority.

Excuse me, but "looking after the interests of" is political doublespeak for entitlement programs, farm subsidies, and other government-spending bullshit, and government spending is a zero-sum game. You spend disproportionately on farmers, this is unfair by definition to the city-dwellers who make up a larger proportion of the population. They either end up with less of the pie or stuck with a share of the resulting debt bill. Either way, it's unfair.

[Perinquus]

Bullshit. This is a false dillema fallacy if I ever saw one. Protecting the rights and interests of rural citizens does not result in a "tyranny of the minority", it merely results in the protections of the rights and interests of rural citizens. I see no evidence that looking after the interests of that segment of the population overrides the interest of the urban majority.

Excuse me, but "looking after the interests of" is political doublespeak for entitlement programs, farm subsidies, and other government-spending bullshit, and government spending is a zero-sum game. You spend disproportionately on farmers, this is unfair by definition to the city-dwellers who make up a larger proportion of the population. They either end up with less of the pie or stuck with a share of the resulting debt bill. Either way, it's unfair.

I am not talking about spending disproportionately. But in a scheme where straight, unrestricted majority rules democracy is in play, which is what a few people here seem to be advocating, you may not get spending proportionately. You might all too likely get the majority voting its way every time, and the minority gets shafted again and again. The system we have, with its checks on unrestricted democracy, works and has worked for over two hundred years. We seem to have struck a reasonable balance between carrying out the will of the majority, while protecting the rights and the interests of the minority. As things are right now, we may well have too many farm subsidies and entitlement programs for farmers, or we may not: I have looked into the issue in sufficient depth to say. But even if we are erring a bit too much on the side of the farmers, I don't see any evidence that we have weighted the scales so heavily in their favor that it has placed a harsh burden on the rest of the population, or seriously encroached upon the interests of urbanites. And since our system does have a large element of "majority rules", limited though it may be, it is most unlikely that the rural minority today ever could encroach too seriously on the urban majority.

For all it's faults, the democratic republican system we've got has been pretty stable for a couple of centuries now, and for the most part answers its purpose of carrying out the will of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority. You will find exceptions running both ways, no doubt. But the system we have works well enough most of the time. If we had pure democracy, it is all too likely that the rights and interests of the minority would not be safeguarded.

[Andrew J.]

Let me get this straight. You say that making policies to benefit the interests of farmers hurts the nation. In the first place, I would like to see you offer some proof of this. But leaving that aside for the moment, are you saying we should not make policies that benefit the interests of farmers? Fuck 'em. I mean, they're American citizens and all, and their interests are supposed to be looked after too, but fuck 'em. They're only a minority. Who the fuck cares what they want?

The traditional farmer is dying out, and has been for some time. To cater to their whims and delay their inevitable extinction and the triumph of huge agro-businesses would only serve to retard progress.

Yet another false dillema. Every resident of a rural area (and probably not even a majority) is not a traditional farmer, and their interests and concerns are still different from that of city dwellers. Are you seriously advocating the position that the concerns of a segment of the American population do not count?

Their opinions will still count whether or not presidents are elected electorally or directly. There will still be senators and representatives willing and able to provide pork-barrel money for whatever middle-of-nowhere hellholes represent their constituency.

You're blowing this out of proportion, I think. Someone suggests direct presidential elections and you act like they want to abolish government and have everything decided by nation-wide referendums.

[Vendetta]

So if I were voting in a Westminster style system, my vote for MP would be based on which party leader I'd like to see sit in the PM's office, even if I think the local MP candidate for that party is a total loon?

If you wanted to vote that way.

The concept of the system is that you vote for the local candidate who you feel best represents your political needs and views, and they are responsible to you to support them in Parliament.

Unfortunately, with the general decline of interest and involvement in politics, too many people are voting for the party as a whole, not local representation. (IE they won't vote for someone and then keep writing haranguing letters to them until they make good on their policies at election time).

[LadyTevar]

IIRC, don't they only need 51% of the vote to get all the EC votes for that state? If that's the case, they can essentially say "fuck you" to the other 49% couldn't they? And they'd still get that state's EC votes. So, the minority vote in a state is, essentially, ignored under the EC system, isn't it?

Indeed they are. Bush won West Virginia last time by a mere six percent.. yet one hundred percent of the EC votes from WV went to him. Bush and Gore are damn near dead even in Florida.. Yet instead of splitting the votes in half, we get a damn farce which goes all the way to supreme court, because we can't let the half which didn't vote for the 'winner' have a voice.

There is only one real way to 'fix' the Electorial College, and make EVERY state's total of EC votes count:
Break the bloc-voting.

As long as all EC votes go to the person with the majority of the vote (which doesn't have to be 51% anymore, due to the small influence of third party candidates), the Electorial College is broken, and 'swing states' will still be the deciding factors in any election.
But if Every State broke down their EC votes by percentage, then each candidate would have to work harder to get that quorum of votes to become president. A win of a majority of votes in one state could be broken by winning several smaller states to equal or surpass the larger state's EC tally.

An example, using West Virignia and the last Election: Bush cleared WV with just enough votes to be the 'clear winner', giving him all 5 of WV's EC votes. Under my suggestion, Bush would have received 3 EC votes, and Gore 2. (or, if the third party had enough to swing it, Bush 2, Gore 2, Other 1.) A small change, yes... but two less votes for Bush tilts it in Gore's favor. Even with the Florida Fiasco, such a small change would determine the next president.

Now, imagine that kind of change with California. The third parties are more active in that state, which means a lesser tally of votes available for the Democrats and Republicans to fight over. Candidates would have to campaign harder in each state to get a quorom of votes to take the majority of the EC... and the division of votes would also make third party candidates even more of a threat than they are now. Instead of being outsiders with little hope of winning, third party candidates could start collecting EC votes of their own and becoming the deciding factor in every presidential election.

Yes, this leads to the possibility of ties in the Electorial College. There would have to be arrangements to handle this... perhaps by dropping the candidate with the lowest tally, and splitting the votes fairly between those remaining. It's not a perfect idea, but it could be a better idea than what we have currently.

Just my two cents, as a frustrated voter.

[Glocksman]

IIRC, if the EC is tied then the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide.

[CelesKnight]

IIRC, if the EC is tied then the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide.

The House decides on the president. The Senate decides on the Vice-President. Hence, if the 2000 election had gone that way, there was the possibility of a Bush/Lieberman term. I think that there is some more wierd ass rules that go with that--something like each state only gets one vote, not one vote per Representative.