Is the US Electoral System really democratic?

[Stravo]

We see this happen in almost every election that I can recall. Two big candidates, both have serious issues where you end up choosing the lesser of two evils when you vote. Considering how the US chooses its candidates, namely the big two's political machines is the US presidential election system (HOW we choose candidates not how we vote for them) really a democratic process? Does the system encourage strong vocal candidates or simply reward those that play it safe?

Democratic and Republican candidates invariably pander to their base during the nomination process then spend the rest of the race trying to distance themselves from some of those stances making it all same like such a game.

Is there a better system out there to choose national candidates? And are we just fooling ourselves when we say this is a democratic process?

[Alyeska]

The system is democratic. The problem is voters are currently apathetic. Once voter disasisfaction rises enough, more vocal and contraversial canadites will rise.

[Col. Crackpot]

i would say it is more Democratic than the Parlimentary system. We almost always get to vote for a head of state where in places such as Canada, the controlling party in Parliment can choose a successor and he/she is appointed.

that being said, it in no way means that our system needs reform. The primary process is a joke and should be replaced with a multi party primary on one day to eliminate all but two candidates followed by a runoff election a few weeks later.

[Col. Crackpot]

urrrgghhhh!

it in no way means that our system needs reform

should read:

it in no way means that our system doesn't need reform

[Vendetta]

i would say it is more Democratic than the Parlimentary system. We almost always get to vote for a head of state where in places such as Canada, the controlling party in Parliment can choose a successor and he/she is appointed.

The parliamentary system does, however, allow you to vote for the party of your choice, and it allows smaller parties and independents to get representation far more easily.

A parliamentary system should encourage you to vote for the policies of the party, not for personality of the candidate. This, obviously, isn't always or even often the case, but that's the principle.

And don't forget that presidential candidates are also elected by their parties, you only get to vote on the shortlist at the polling booth anyway.

[Rogue 9]

Nope, the U.S. system isn't democratic. Its a federal republic.

[Col. Crackpot]

Nope, the U.S. system isn't democratic. Its a federal republic.

Constitutional Republic

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its not democratic.

Currently, hicks are worth more than city dwellers in the eyes of the Government.

Constantly, supporters of the Electoral College shriek about this, but quite frankly, other than simply defining that fact (they prefer "it gives small states a significant voice" which is the same thing as "everyone's vote is equal, but hicks' votes are more equal") as a good thing.

Quite frankly, it needs to be discarded.

[Howedar]

Except at that point we have California, Texas, and New York getting all of the attention and the hick vote truly becomes worthless.

There is no solution to this problem.

[MKSheppard]

Is there a better system out there to choose national candidates?

No. Someone who flies in California will not fucking Fly in Texas, and vice
versa between Maryland and Virginia.

If you want real combative politics, go to state level.

[MKSheppard]

Quite frankly, it needs to be discarded.

As a Marylander......

[HemlockGrey]

Why the holy fuck can't we have primaries in every state simultaneously? What the fuck is the point of voting in, say, the Pennslyvania presidential primary?

[The Kernel]

Except at that point we have California, Texas, and New York getting all of the attention and the hick vote truly becomes worthless.

There is no solution to this problem.

Better to appeal to the interests of the larger group of voters then the smaller group of geographically placed voters.

[The Kernel]

Quite frankly, it needs to be discarded.

As a Marylander......

And as a Californian...

You think I like knowing the fact that Bush doesn't care about my vote and that it won't matter just because I don't live in a swing state? Fuck you indeed.

[Stuart Mackey]

i would say it is more Democratic than the Parlimentary system. We almost always get to vote for a head of state where in places such as Canada, the controlling party in Parliment can choose a successor and he/she is appointed.

snip.

Rubbish. USA always votes for the head of State, Canada has the Westminster system and doesnot..being a monarchy but the government is always elected and the government governs.

[Howedar]

Except at that point we have California, Texas, and New York getting all of the attention and the hick vote truly becomes worthless.

There is no solution to this problem.

Better to appeal to the interests of the larger group of voters then the smaller group of geographically placed voters.

So your vote is worth more. Gotcha.

[The Kernel]

Except at that point we have California, Texas, and New York getting all of the attention and the hick vote truly becomes worthless.

There is no solution to this problem.

Better to appeal to the interests of the larger group of voters then the smaller group of geographically placed voters.

So your vote is worth more. Gotcha.

Fuck you asshole. My vote is worth the exact same amount as yours. The electoral college system is what renders my vote useless because it places undue importance on swing states as opposed to winning the popular election which is what SHOULD matter.

True, the areas with the highest population density will get more attention, but that is exactly how it should be as more voters = more citizens = more imporant according to the principles of a Democracy.

[Uraniun235]

I don't know what the hick states have to worry about in a non-electoral system anyway. So they become irrelevant in Presidential elections. So what? They can still wield considerable power in Congress, which is where the real power lays anyway.

Whatever happened to the days where Congress could screw the President over and render him nearly powerless?

True, the areas with the highest population density will get more attention, but that is exactly how it should be as more voters = more citizens = more imporant according to the principles of a Democracy.

But (and I say this only to provide perspective) we have to keep in mind that this can lead to a tyranny of the majority:

"Hey, let's pass some dipshit law about requiring a fuckton of permits just to trap and kill pests on your property, because I'm a PETArd and I care about the po' widdle gophers. Not that I ever have to worry about them, living in my studio apartment, and fuck all those ignorant hicks who get to contend with a shitton of paperwork just to take care of some pests."

[Crown]

i would say it is more Democratic than the Parlimentary system. We almost always get to vote for a head of state where in places such as Canada, the controlling party in Parliment can choose a successor and he/she is appointed.<snip>

Yeah but in places like say; Canada, Australia, NZ, and a lot of European countries who have the parlimentary system, it is the Prime Minister who governs, and not the President/Governor General/Monarchy, who are nothing more than a rubber stamp on any real level.

The primary difference is that your Head of Government also happens to be your Head of State. Whereas in the Parlimentary system (as Stuart pointed out especially in the Westminster system) the HoG is the Prime Minister, and the HoS just signs off on laws and occasionaly dissolves cabinet if they are taking actions which are deemed to be un-constitutional.

[Keevan_Colton]

Except at that point we have California, Texas, and New York getting all of the attention and the hick vote truly becomes worthless.

There is no solution to this problem.

Better to appeal to the interests of the larger group of voters then the smaller group of geographically placed voters.

So your vote is worth more. Gotcha.

Why should one persons vote be worth more because of where they live?

You seem to have caught on the idea that by equalising the value of votes those whos votes are currently worth less would then be worth more...of course, the fact is it doesnt mean they are worth more than anyone elses...just worth the SAME...

[Glocksman]

Looks like Shep and The Kernel are reenacting the disagreements that led to The Great Compromise

[Glocksman]

As far as the question posed in the OP, I'd say that the primary system as it stands isn't very democratic at all. Just look at the outsized influence that places like Iowa and New Hampshire have on the process.

My solution would be a single national primary election day.

That way, at least everyone would have a voice in who the candidates are. As it stands, my vote Tuesday for Dean didn't count because the winner had already been decided months before Indiana's May 4 primary.

A national primary would have let my vote count.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Except at that point we have California, Texas, and New York getting all of the attention and the hick vote truly becomes worthless.

There is no solution to this problem.

Better to appeal to the interests of the larger group of voters then the smaller group of geographically placed voters.

So your vote is worth more. Gotcha.

Bullshit. The very fact that anti-popular vote people admit that the heavily-populated states and city centers would carry election when everyone's vote is completely equal is a de facto admission that you think that hicks and people in small states deserve a bigger vote just because. That phenomenon you're describing is exactly why it needs to be changed. You guys don't need disporportionate representation because almost no one fucking lives there.

Can someone establish the "give small states a bigger voice" and "hicks should have bigger votes than NYC dwellers" for a good reason, rather than just defining it as good?

[Keevan_Colton]

Better to appeal to the interests of the larger group of voters then the smaller group of geographically placed voters.

So your vote is worth more. Gotcha.

Bullshit. The very fact that anti-popular vote people admit that the heavily-populated states and city centers would carry election when everyone's vote is completely equal is a de facto admission that you think that hicks and people in small states deserve a bigger vote just because. That phenomenon you're describing is exactly why it needs to be changed. You guys don't need disporportionate representation because almost no one fucking lives there.

Can someone establish the "give small states a bigger voice" and "hicks should have bigger votes than NYC dwellers" for a good reason, rather than just defining it as good?

In short, no...as the link up there shows, the entire thing was a comitte compromise to stop whiney little hicks like Howedar from being bitches and refusing to play.

Suprise, the whiney hicks are still whiney little shits...as Howie-boy is clearly demonstrating.

It's an amazingly stupid system, where you vote for a vote...so, even if you gain 100% of the people in a large populous area with a vote, a 51% in a small area could counter it...rank fucking stupidity.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Looks like Shep and The Kernel are reenacting the disagreements that led to The Great Compromise

Well we had to iron out something to create a nation, but that does not make it fair.

The hicks have always had a bigger vote than city dwellers and when you hint of removing it they just state that as an a priori good.

Places of higher population concentration should hold proportionally greater political power in a democratic society by definition.

And don't fool yourself with the "its a federation, the states should be a part of the voting system." If it really was about states electing presidents, your legislatures would get together and send their votes or a single vote to Washington. The way it does now we just vote and tally at the state level in such a way that inflates the worth of hick votes over those of city dwellers. And besides, the true balance of federal-state power is long dead and not very teniable in a modern society anyway.

So make my vote count equal to some idiot in Wyoming.

Oh, and by the way: the Right specifically always whines about this, because one of the reasons for the strong Right in this country is the fact that the collective dumbfuck rural vote is given worth out of proportion with what they warrant by population, and they are unwilling to give up their unfair advantage.