Is the US Electoral System really democratic?

[MKSheppard]

No, it requires three fourths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment.

My bad. Well then, there's no way in hell the EC will ever be modified or
abolished, since it's laid out in the constitution, what the hell will you guys
do? Have the Supreme Court declare the Constitution unconstitutional?

[tharkûn]

Learn your state's rights. This is complete and utter BS.

Except you'd have to change the fucking constutution to do away or
modfiy the Electoral college. And that requires ratification by
two thirds of the states

Assigning electors can be done however the state legislature wants it to be done. Two states do not have winner take all rules (damned if I recall which). If a state wants to abolish its winner take all policy then I know of no reason you need to go for a federal amendment.

A helluvalot of discretion is left to individual state government and significant changes can be made without touching the federal system; which is why I find it so humerous that people constantly bitch about how undemocratic the EC is; but hear so few people bitch about the senate itself or taking changes within their power to make the system more democratic.

[Stuart Mackey]

ooh! In a thread about the US system stuff about the Westminster system..I couldnt possiblly let this go without comment

The Parliamentary system as shown in Canada isn't all that great either. No direct election of the PM (who has far greater domestic power relatively than the US President).

False. The PM, as a Member of Parliment is, by law, directly elected.

Parties winning seats with 40% of the vote or less.

In a FPP system a party can gain government on 40% of the vote but have won a majority of seats

Most of the parties have MPs who are severely cowed (you aren't going to get Cabinet revolts ala Margaret Thatcher - piss them off, and you get quickly dumped) and are pretty impotent.

The Canadas back benchers need to grow a spine

The Governor General is a figure head and would be hard pressed to deal with a constitutional crisis. She'd probably have to fall back on the Queen for help.

You should quantify this, put up a senario. Hint, There is an interesting senario dating to 1975 in Australaia.
Why would the GG fall back on the Queen?
Also I think you will find that that all GG's have all the authority they need to deal with a constitional crisis and as far as I know the Palace is of the opinion that as the respective Kingdoms effectivly appoint there own nationals to the position that they must deal with there own problems{hint, Australia 1975}.

[Glocksman]

False. The PM, as a Member of Parliment is, by law, directly elected.

Directly elected by a vote of the people of the entire nation, or is he elected to Parliament to represent a particular district and then elected PM by the members of the party holding the majority?

[EmperorSolo51]

False. The PM, as a Member of Parliment is, by law, directly elected.

Directly elected by a vote of the people of the entire nation, or is he elected to Parliament to represent a particular district and then elected PM by the members of the party holding the majority?

It's the latter.

[Stuart Mackey]

False. The PM, as a Member of Parliment is, by law, directly elected.

Directly elected by a vote of the people of the entire nation, or is he elected to Parliament to represent a particular district and then elected PM by the members of the party holding the majority?

More or less the latter. One must also remember that the leader of the party will have been the leader well befor the general election, MP's do not elect the PM after the election.

[Stuart Mackey]

False. The PM, as a Member of Parliment is, by law, directly elected.

Directly elected by a vote of the people of the entire nation, or is he elected to Parliament to represent a particular district and then elected PM by the members of the party holding the majority?

snip, MP's do not elect the PM after the election.

Unless the caucus is dissatisfied with the PM's performance and depose the PM for someone else .

[Glocksman]

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?

[Glocksman]

Directly elected by a vote of the people of the entire nation, or is he elected to Parliament to represent a particular district and then elected PM by the members of the party holding the majority?

snip, MP's do not elect the PM after the election.

Unless the caucus is dissatisfied with the PM's performance and depose the PM for someone else .

As the Iron Lady found out.

[Stuart Mackey]

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?

Most people vote on party policy and the overall perceived ability of the party to put its programme into effect.
The nature of the PM assits in this as they are the main public face of the party and its policy.
I should point out that policy is developed by the parlimentry wing of a party and its overall buacracy.
Most partys strive to feild good canidates as they must help in policy formulation etc but some of them may one day be a party leader so selecting a loon is a 'Very Bad Thing'.

[Stuart Mackey]

As the Iron Lady found out.

yep
I will never forget the day when Jenny Shiply ousted Jim Bolger as PM of NZ..one day Jimbo was the PM the next he was on the back bench wondering what the hell had happned

[Crown]

Besides, you get the best fights in the Parliament system (think Congress with a 2 drink minimum);

The BBC Reports

Canada MPs argue over sex symbol
Canada's parliament, scene of many worthy debates, was plunged into uproar after the alleged mispronunciation of a sexy Italian film actress' name.

Tempers flared when an MP accused an ex-minister of "rubbing shoulders with Gina Lollobreegeeda", reports said.

The apparent mispronunciation prompted Human Resources Minister Joe Volpe to yell: "It's Gina Lollobrigida, idiot!"

Opposition MP Jason Kenney hit back, saying he was sorry for "offending the ageing sex-kitten community".

Mr Volpe later told reporters he too had some regrets over the row.

"I'm sorry I called him an idiot. I should have referred to him as an imbecile," he said.

Gina Lollobrigida achieved fame for her portrayal of alluring, buxom heroines in the Italian cinema of the 1950s and 1960s.

Now 76 years old, she is known in Italy by her nickname, "La Lollo".

Canada's governing party argued that Mr Kenney's bad pronunciation constituted an insult to the honour of the country's sizeable Italian community.

Mr Kenney had accused former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano of misusing public funds when he travelled to Italy to launch a commemorative coin with Ms Lollobrigida.

Yes I know, Taiwanese parliament is better, but hey!

[Illuminatus Primus]

"I'm sorry I called him an idiot. I should have referred to him as an imbecile."

American Politics is never this fun.

[Andrew J.]

The electoral college is merely a symptom of the idea that America is made of several sovereign countries that agree to work together, rather than a single nation. That's not really true anymore, not since the Civil War and the illegality of nullification and secession were firmly established.

[MKSheppard]

The electoral college is merely a symptom of the idea that America is made of several sovereign countries that agree to work together, rather than a single nation. That's not really true anymore, not since the Civil War and the illegality of nullification and secession were firmly established.

You've never seen the way Maryland and Virgina fight each other
over control of the Potomac, have you? Really long legal battle
has been going on the last couple of years based on documents hundreds
of years old by the Crown

[Joe]

*snip*

That was pretty funny, but how the fuck does pronouncing a last name wrong make you racist?

[Keevan_Colton]

*snip*

That was pretty funny, but how the fuck does pronouncing a last name wrong make you racist?

Suffering reading problems?

[Illuminatus Primus]

The electoral college is merely a symptom of the idea that America is made of several sovereign countries that agree to work together, rather than a single nation. That's not really true anymore, not since the Civil War and the illegality of nullification and secession were firmly established.

You've never seen the way Maryland and Virgina fight each other
over control of the Potomac, have you? Really long legal battle
has been going on the last couple of years based on documents hundreds
of years old by the Crown

What does that have to do with anything? So the states are legal units which obviously have monetary benefit by controlling the Potomac. So what? This is yet another of your red herrings.

[Iceberg]

Mob rule is another way of saying tyranny of the majority. If the large population centers are the only parts of the country a candidate is worried about campaigning in, he is going to tailor his campaign, and his policies once elected, to their interests.

Not seeing the problem with this, since urban areas have - GASP! MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN THEM! Making policy to benefit farmers hurts the nation when you consider that rural population makes up a grand total of ten percent of the population overall.

The present system encourages the tyranny of the minority. Unfortunately, the minority retains just enough power to prevent the majority from correcting this.

[Perinquus]

Mob rule is another way of saying tyranny of the majority. If the large population centers are the only parts of the country a candidate is worried about campaigning in, he is going to tailor his campaign, and his policies once elected, to their interests.

Not seeing the problem with this, since urban areas have - GASP! MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN THEM! Making policy to benefit farmers hurts the nation when you consider that rural population makes up a grand total of ten percent of the population overall.

The present system encourages the tyranny of the minority. Unfortunately, the minority retains just enough power to prevent the majority from correcting this.

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. (You certainly haven't provided any.) Why don't you back up this assertion with a little evidence, and show how enacting government policies that address the interests of rural citizens in any way infringes upon the liberties of urbanites?

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?

Now of course, you can use exactly this same logic to discriminate against any minority. Thank god Jefferson and Madison and the rest had sense enough not to think like you do.

I'll say it again: the founding father were wise to be suspicious of pure democracy, and they were wise to put checks on it. They were right to call it tyranny of the mob. How anyone can look at the history of this country, and look at the blatantly unjust laws that had wide popular support (e.g. segregation, and Jim Crow laws, which I already mentioned, and things like internment of the Nisei during WWII, which I haven't), and seriously maintain that simple, unchecked "majority rules" government is a good thing is beyond me. It really is. I'm honestly stupefied that any supposedly intelligent person can hold such a view in light of the historical record. And it just goes to prove that people really are idiots who don't learn from history.

It ought to be obvious that there are certain things that should not be done simply by the will of the people; else imagine what a large-spread but temporary panic could do to a democracy. The system of checks and balances instituted into our government was not put there merely because of a difficulty in speedy communication that made pure democracy unworkable in the 18th century; it was put there to place limits on the will of the people. These days it's quite common for people to revere democracy to the point where they often assume that things such as representation (as opposed to legislation through direct voting by the people, etc.) and checks & balances are out-dated relics. They're not. The founders of this country knew that direct democracy would never work, not because of slowness of communication, but because human nature doesn't really change, and people are often misled, often misinformed, often selfish, and always fallible.

[CelesKnight]

[quote="tharkûn"]So tell me this, if a great people like you want the president elected in the most democratic manner as possible; why does no one actually do anything where they have power to? For instance why do so many states have clearly undemocratic winner take all rules for distribution of EC votes? Why doesn't California, Hawii or some of the other state come out and opt to split its EC votes based upon the relative strength of the candidate in the state?[/quote]

If I had to guess, I would say that the states leaders don't want to do it because it would weaken "their" party's power.

If Cal. decided to distribute its EC votes proportionally, the voice of the people of the state would be more important (since the candidates would actually have a reason to campaign there), but it would weaken the Democratic party because some of the votes that are now guaranteed Democratic would go to the Republican candidate. I suspect that even many of Cal.'s Republicans don't want that since they likely have more in common with National Democrats than they do with National Republicans. The same logic applies to why a Republican stronghold like Texas wouldn't want to do it.

I don't really know how valid that explanation is, it's just one possible explanation that occurred to me.

BTW, Maine is one of the states that does distribute votes proportionally, I don't recall the other one, but I think it's a small SW one like Nevada or New Mexico. Even in those two, I don't think that the votes are distributed based on the actual popular vote within the state. I think that they use some weird system of the votes being based on the popular vote within the Congressional Districts (so if you win each district by 51%, you still get 100% of the state's votes) or based on the party of each districts representative.


The Electoral College does have one important benefit that no one has mentioned: stability. The 2000 election was incredibly close, but the EC system kept the crisis limited to Florida. Moreover, under the current system, if either candidate had gotten 50,000 extra votes in Florida, or if Gore had won even one other state, there would never have been any question of who won.

If we did not have an EC, the 2000 election crisis could have been much, much bigger since fraud or unfairness or error in any district in any state could have push the popular vote from Gore to Bush. Can you imagine the monkey-politics that we saw in Florida taking place across the country?

In that sense, the 2000 election was an example of the excellence of the EC system, not a failure. As for whether or not the stability is worth the cost, I have no comment.

[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.

[Glocksman]

If we did not have an EC, the 2000 election crisis could have been much, much bigger since fraud or unfairness or error in any district in any state could have push the popular vote from Gore to Bush. Can you imagine the monkey-politics that we saw in Florida taking place across the country?

Just imagine the chaos in Chicago when the Daleys lose the graveyard precincts.

[Keevan_Colton]

If we did not have an EC, the 2000 election crisis could have been much, much bigger since fraud or unfairness or error in any district in any state could have push the popular vote from Gore to Bush. Can you imagine the monkey-politics that we saw in Florida taking place across the country?

I'd say half a million when the countings done would be considered a reasonably clear thing. Frankly the Florida thing was a fucking fiasco, why the fuck you cant take the approach of every other civilized nation and count til you've counted them all no matter if it takes a while is beyond me.

[CelesKnight]

I'd say half a million when the countings done would be considered a reasonably clear thing.

I wouldn't. Half a million may sound like a lot, but it was just .5% of the total votes. You don't need much fraud to cover that.

Whether or not you agree that the 2000 election was close enough to be in doubt, my point remains. Suppose the popular vote was within .1%. With the EC system, as long as sufficent states are won by a sufficent margin, the outcome is not in doubt.