posted
If you've been following the US primary elections you've certainly become increasingly aware of some of the really byzantine election practices we've got in the country. The rules themselves seem to be screaming for reform.
In the past 8 years we've had
1. an election for president won by the person who lost the popular vote.
2. a long series of voter disenfranchisement issues where voters were unfairly removed from election roles.
3. wide spread debate over and accusation of voter fraud.
4. debate and extensive accusations over vote counting and voting machines.
5. A manufacturer of proprietary voting machines promising the elections to a candidate.
6. big discrepancies between exit polls and final vote tallies.
Anyone of those things would lead to people marching in the streets in most of the world.
So why aren't Americans screaming for election reform? It gets talked about on internet forums and the like (sort of like impeaching Bush) but to the best of my knowledge there are no serious proposals moving forward out there and that doesn't seem to bother most Americans.
Are we simply so complacent about our democracy that we don't care enough to improve the system?
Are Americans just blindly accepting that "it (stolen elections) can't happen here"?
Is the media remiss in cover election problems?
Is this related to 911? Has the threat of terrorism made it harder for Americans to critically evaluate our institutions? Or would it be this way anyway?
Are candidates afraid to raise the issue for fear of being labeled unpatriotic because they are critical of the US system?
To me it seems shameful that a country which sees itself as a promoter of democracy through out the world, doesn't even have democratic direct election of its own leader. It seems shameful that we spend so much time defending a system which was designed to guarantee unequal representation of the voters.
So why aren't the people of this country screaming for electoral reform?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I've seen several good proposals out there for replacing the electoral college and every one of them is without question more democratic than current system.
For example, what would be wrong with having nation wide primary elections all on the same day? The only objections I've heard to this are from IO and NH residents who feel that they deserve an unfair representation in the primary race and pundits who worry that it would make the primaries too expensive. (I think the real object is from donors who don't want to have to pony up too much money for a candidate before they find out in the early primaries if they are truly viable (aka Guiliani). This system would make it harder to buy a political official, but no one wants to come out and state that as an objection.
Maybe we Americans don't really care that much about democracy.
Is the real problem that despite the lip service we give to democracy we vastly prefer stability?
Do we fear (as did our founding fathers) that genuine democracy might lead to bigger differences between the candidates and major swings of power that could threaten our economic stability?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's a big part of it. People look at the status quo and say two things: 1. What am I supposed to do about it? and 2. Even if I could change it, what is the better way?
I think we need to get rid of the electoral college. I think the primaries should all be actual primaries, not caucuses, with no delegates, and no superdelegates, it should all be straight up popular votes. I think states should vote by geographic regional blocs on the same day, so there'll be maybe 5 or 6 voting dates with 10 or so states each. One state from each region will get to vote early in January (or near enough), and the first state to vote will be rotated every four years so it's never the same state. This makes sure that no state has a strangehold on retail politics or having their issues be up front and center. It also ensures that lesser known candidates CAN use retail politics to actually get something done.
But that's the process. I don't know how to fix the actual physical process of voting, tallying, and reporting. I don't have a problem with electronic voting so long as there is a paper trail in case of a recount being needed. That's why I like the ballots we have here, which are scanned like a college scantron sheet, and then the actual ballot is still there for recordkeeping. I don't have a problem with instant reporting via electronic machines, but there MUST be something other than 1's and 0's to keep track of something like a national election.
I think Americans are generally in one of three circles on this issue. 1. They don't know and don't care. 2. They know but don't think they can fix the problem. 3. They know, they're screaming their heads off, but they're the smallest group and no one listens.
We're a nation easily placated by lip service.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: For example, what would be wrong with having nation wide primary elections all on the same day? The only objections I've heard to this are from IO and NH residents who feel that they deserve an unfair representation in the primary race and pundits who worry that it would make the primaries too expensive. (I think the real object is from donors who don't want to have to pony up too much money for a candidate before they find out in the early primaries if they are truly viable (aka Guiliani). This system would make it harder to buy a political official, but no one wants to come out and state that as an objection.
The real objection to that is that it'd be impossible for a candidate with less name recognition to campaign in that situation without several hundred million dollars. They need to be able to spend some time in a single state and get to know the people and vice versa, so if they do well they get the free media that comes with it. It's the only way a less established less well funded candidate can break out of obscurity. The variation I offered in my post above I think is the better solution. It's a little more complicated, but it's more fair to the candidates I think, and by extension gives better options to the voters.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. an election for president won by the person who lost the popular vote.
I'd probably feel different if I were on the other side, but I don't feel like someone should be able to win an election just by spamming the big cities.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a couple of reasons for the electoral college. Some good, some less so. It was important for states with smaller populations and may still be. I don't have a problem with the electoral college, but I do have a problem with "winner-take-all" state elections. If we want to get away from the red/blue states and have national candidates who have to govern the whole country, electoral votes should be awarded proportionally.
This would be a state level decision, though. So lobby your state government.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the staggered primaries, because a big national day would simply the candidate with the most money and name recognition going in would win. I think the ordering of which states go when should change every four years.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The real objection to that is that it'd be impossible for a candidate with less name recognition to campaign in that situation without several hundred million dollars.
I've heard that point before and I don't give it much weight. First off, when was the last time the current process lead to the nomination of a candidate that didn't have name recognition before primaries? Not in my lifetime.
Second, never in my lifetime (until this year) has a candidate spent time in my state prior to the primaries. Despite that, I've never had trouble (even before the internet) getting information about who the primary candidates were and what their stands were. That has been true even for minor unknown candidates. The problem in primaries in this country hasn't been getting the information to the people. Its been getting the people to care enough to look at the information available.
Third: This year when the primaries are coming far closer than ever before to being simultaneous, candidates have finally started visiting everywhere. And rather than having that narrow the field sooner to the most well known candidate, we are getting one of the best primary races in a long time and people who've never been interested in primaries before are participating. If this is working so well, then I suspect a single national primary would work even better.
Forth: Other countries, even other large countries are able to do it. What is so different here that makes it impossible for us?
Fifth: Rather than eliminating all the candidates who couldn't spend hundreds of millions on a primary campaign, a national primary might force candidates to take a more grass roots approach to campaigning. The internet makes that easier and in fact several candidates including Obama and Paul started their campaigns that way this season. The idea that a candidate couldn't campaign everywhere at once might have been true 50 years ago. Its not true with modern technology.
Sixth: I heard several of the early democratic and republican candidate debates broadcast either on radio or podcast this year. They were broadcast nationally already. No big change is needed. This years close primaries already had candidates crisscrossing the nation all fall. No big change is needed to more the vote to one day.
Seventh: Perhaps I'm just not like the average voter and am more likely to cast my vote based on what I hear in the debates and am able to research myself than on expensive TV adds. Wouldn't it be great if we had a process that favored informed voters who did their own research rather than those who vote based on a good theme song from a TV add? Wouldn't it be great if we had a process that had people excited enough about elections to do their own research?
Eighth: There are only two real advantages to the current system. 1. They virtually insure the winner will have a majority. If we went to a single primary nation wide with say 10 candidates from each party, its likely no one would win even close to a majority of the votes. We would have to adopt some sort of instant run off ballot for the system to work.
2. The current system favors corporate and special interests who donate to campaigns (often to both sides) in order to buy influence rather than to really support a particular candidate. I've learned from friends in politics that in order to get donations from these types, you have to make them believe you will win. They don't want to buy influence from people who aren't going to have any influence. That's a big part of why incumbents find it so much easier to raise money than their challengers. The current primary system gives these people a chance to sit back and see whose in the lead before they bet their money on a single horse. I think loosing this is what people are really worried about when they claim that a nation wide primary would be too expensive for lesser known candidates. I think eliminating this advantage could be the best reason for having a nation wide primary election.
Finally: Exactly the same argument could be made for the final election. Third party candidates with smaller bank rolls would have a much better chance if they could focus their campaign on one or two states at a time. We don't do that because we understand how undemocratic that is. Its bad enough that voters on the west coast are hearing results from the east coast before they go to the polls. If we know how bad this is for the final elections, why do continue to tolerate much worse in the primaries?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: You forgot the Dead vote, Tire slashing of Republican "get out the vote" vans, and double-registered Florida/NY residents and attempts to change the rules of the election after it was already in progress (Algore, Hillary, and the NJ Democratic party), Disenfranchisement of the Military. Just to name a few. Your list seems focused on the alleged crimes of Republicans and disregards the alleged crimes of the Democrats.
But YES, we could do something to fix elections. Make sure every ballot has a paper trail would be a good start. Another would be requiring photo ID to vote. No more going to your polling place, claiming to be Jane Q Deadchick and getting another vote.
I'm also for having every primary on the same day and settling it between the top 2 at the Conventions. But I'm not for getting rid of the Electoral College.
But we'll never get any sort of reform because those in power will do ANYTHING to keep it and don't want to make their favorite dirty tricks more easy to catch. They have gone to great lengths to give the gov't more and more control over people's every day life. They don't want to go from being one of the Controllers to one of the Controlled.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I'm not for getting rid of the electoral college.
Why not? The electoral college if fundamentally unfair. The electoral college guarantees extreme unequal value of votes depending on their region. One vote in a close swing state may be worth hundreds of times one vote in a state where the candidate is already winning by a large majority. This is a violation of the basic democratic principle of one person one vote. Eliminating the electoral college would make winning votes in California (or Utah) just as important as winning votes in Florida and Ohio. Its sort of ridiculous to nit pick over issues like whether photo ID should be required to vote when the basis of the system is as unfair as the electoral college.
As a side benefit, eliminating the electoral college would reduce the power of regional special interests and focus national elections on those issues which influence all Americans. If there is one thing the US could do to reduce the big pork projects both parties favor, it would be eliminating the electoral college. There would no longer be any reason for the parties to cater to particular regions just to hold the Presidency.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This year when the primaries are coming far closer than ever before to being simultaneous, candidates have finally started visiting everywhere.
It isn't that the primaries are closer together - it's because it's close.
McCain certainly hasn't visited everywhere - not even close.
quote: Other countries, even other large countries are able to do it. What is so different here that makes it impossible for us?
This is a specious argument. Other countries do lots of stuff - good and bad - that we don't. That other countries do it is not a good reason. I can't believe that even has to be said.
quote:Rather than eliminating all the candidates who couldn't spend hundreds of millions on a primary campaign, a national primary might force candidates to take a more grass roots approach to campaigning. The internet makes that easier and in fact several candidates including Obama and Paul started their campaigns that way this season.
There's still selection over what gets broadcast.
In other words, if we didn't have a free media who could put who they wanted on the news, then it might be fair. If the tradeoff of giving all candidates equal coverage is to regulate the media, it's not worth it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:One vote in a close swing state may be worth hundreds of times one vote in a state where the candidate is already winning by a large majority.
This can be ameliorated if the states allocated their electoral votes proportionally or by district. Since the voters in a state could force this if they cared, it's hard to see how their disenfranchised.
Moreover, the electoral college (along with 2-Senators-per-state) was one of the fundamental compromises that led the states - fully sovereign entities at the time - to relinquish part of their sovereignty and ratify the Constitution. The Constitution contains the mechanism for changing this, and that mechanism pretty much guarantees that it won't happen. Nor should the citizens of a state be viewed as undemocratic because they won't forgo one of the core protections that protect it from domination by larger states - a core protection that was a key reason such states were willing to sacrifice a measure of independence in a union that would otherwise greatly favor larger entities.
I know federalism has become unfashionable, but it is one of the core underlying structural protections we as citizens have.
quote:As a side benefit, eliminating the electoral college would reduce the power of regional special interests and focus national elections on those issues which influence all Americans. If there is one thing the US could do to reduce the big pork projects both parties favor, it would be eliminating the electoral college.
It might have some impact, but not as big an impact as getting rid of fixed state representation in the Senate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget state election officials also working for campaigns on both sides (Katherine Harris and Bob Butterworth in Florida during the 2000 election, for example).
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit: You forgot the Dead vote, Tire slashing of Republican "get out the vote" vans, and double-registered Florida/NY residents and attempts to change the rules of the election after it was already in progress (Algore, Hillary, and the NJ Democratic party), Disenfranchisement of the Military. Just to name a few.
No most of those points were covered under "voter fraud" and "voter disenfranchisement". I didn't get into the specifics in any of my categories (except perhaps the voting machine issue).
I would add one more category. I thinks its shameful that our votes are certified by partisan elected officials. In the last two elections the people certifying the votes in key states were running the state campaigns for Bush. Now I'm not arguing that they falsified the elections, I doubt that happened but even republicans should see how bad that looks.
If this were a high school student body election, do you think anyone would accept having one candidate campaign manager count the votes -- no way. If the election were taking place in Russis and Yeltsin's campaign manager were counting the votes -- the US and every member of the UN would be protesting. Why do we put up with that here.
I suppose that its unlikely that you would be able to find any responsible US citizen who was truly a fair unbiased broker in US elections but certainly we can do better than choosing campaign managers for one of the candidates. We could also do like the encourage the rest of the world to do and invite outside officials from the UN to monitor our elections.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This year when the primaries are coming far closer than ever before to being simultaneous, candidates have finally started visiting everywhere.
It isn't that the primaries are closer together - it's because it's close.
McCain certainly hasn't visited everywhere - not even close.
Candidates from both parties were visiting many western states that they have never visited before last fall when the major news media had already anointed Clinton and Guiliani as shoe ins for the nomination. Those visits were happening because of Super-Tuesday and other closely timed primaries even before anyone knew how close the democratic race would be.
I will agree, that the states that still haven't had their primaries wouldn't be getting visits now if the race were sewn up. All the more reason for one primary.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
That doesn't make sense - if it was all one day, since each candidate is still only one person, they'd concentrate on the big states.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the big difference is the proportional awarding of delegates. I think that this would be an improvement in the general election as well. And there is no reason we couldn't do it. Two (I think) states already do some form of this. And since it is up to the states, it would be a much easier change to make.
Getting rid of the electoral college would have the opposite effect. States with smaller populations would get ignored entirely.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why not? The electoral college if fundamentally unfair.
Dag and Boots (two of my favorite people) said what I was going to say. Probably better than I would have said it.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit asked:
quote: Why not? The electoral college if fundamentally unfair.
Dag and Boots (two of my favorite people) said what I was going to say. Probably better than I would have said it.
At the very least, the electoral college is fundamentally undemocratic. The biggest weakness of democratic systems is there tendency toward suppression of minorities. I can see how the electoral system may have served to reduce that tendency in the early days of the nation. But right now with a much larger and more homogenous nation, minorities tend to be distributed through the states not concentrated in a particular small state. As a result the electoral college doesn't serve to protect minorities in particularly. What it does do is raise regional issues to a national level in elections.
As best I can tell, the tree of you support the electoral college because you are conservatives and in recent years the electoral college system has favored the republican system.
It just goes to support my long time theory that Republicans don't really believe in democracy -- that is that they don't believe that having all voices heard most often leads to better decisions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: Having all voices heard is death to minorities. We must have constitutional limits on the power of democracy.
The Constitution is an enumeration of what the federal government MAY or MUST do, as well as some specific prohibitions against some of the things it might want to do.
Basically, it's our common values put down on paper.
When Democracy decides to do something that violates our common values, it MUST be struck down.
And here's the rub. It happens ALL the time. People are always voting for unconstitutional stuff. And sometimes, it actually gets struck down. A lot of the time, like McLame's campaign finance reform, it gets through.
PURE democracy is an abomination. It's the Tyranny of the Majority. And that's a Bad thing. Just ask any black person. Or any Native American. Or any Queerfolk.
So no, I'm not big on unrestrained democracy. And you aren't either, if you really think about it.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, I think that, from even the most fleeting glimpse of anything I have written in the political threads, it would be clear that I am neither a conservative or a Republican.
edit to add: and while I have many good reasons to admire Pixiest and Dag, you can be reasonably sure that our agreement on this is not likely because it would favor "our" side.
posted
I agree that pure democracy can lead to the tyranny of the majority. I understand what items like the 1st amendment do to curb that. I simply can't see in practice what the electoral college system does to the curb that problem.
I'm not at all a fan of unrestrained democracy. I'm fully in support of constraints that limit the power of the majority. My comment was actually directed at a different issue.
As I see it, the fundamental strength of democracy is that it requires the building of a majority opinion. I don't think "the majority" is something that exists naturally but it can be created by building consensus and seeking compromises that satisfy the desires of most people. That only works if all the different voices are being heard.
Having only the most powerful voices heard, is a death to minorities. Those who are actually seeking to have all voices heard want to hear minority voices as well.
My sense is that the democratic process in the US has become far to focused on winning fights rather than solving problems. As a result, both sides are too likely to demonize the opposition. If they win, there is little than effort spent at building real consensus. Battle lines are drawn so deeply that few people are willing to sit down and actually understand the values of the opposition and to try to find novel solutions to problems that might address the needs and desires of both sides. I recognize that this isn't always possible and that's why ultimately decisions must be made based on a majority rather than 100%. But I believe in the basic principle that better decisions are made when the attempt is made to listen to all voices.
I'm not sure that most Americans believe that principle. In fact the current administration has made a significant effort to restrict input in the many decisions making processes. Since they won't explain their reason, we don't really know why they reject my democratic principle. I suspect that they are so convinced that they know everything and so set on winning, that they can't see the value of listening to the opposition. That is, they don't believe that they will make better decisions if they listen to more voices.
The US system of regional representation is not without its strengths but most of those strengths have become diluted with the growth the nation. In our current system no minority voice is heard in congress unless it constitutes a majority in at least one congressional district in at least one state. Regional diversity is no longer the primary source of diversity in the US and so it is highly unlikely that any small majority will be a majority in a particular district. The way districts are drawn (by the majorities in power) makes that even more unlikely. There are democratic systems that do a better job of making sure minority voices are actually represented in the law making bodies.
My sense is that most Americans fear giving minority views more representation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think the big difference is the proportional awarding of delegates. I think that this would be an improvement in the general election as well. And there is no reason we couldn't do it. Two (I think) states already do some form of this. And since it is up to the states, it would be a much easier change to make.
Getting rid of the electoral college would have the opposite effect. States with smaller populations would get ignored entirely.
States with smaller populations already get ignored entirely unless they are swing states and its expected to be a close election.
The point is that without the electoral college, voters wouldn't belong to a particular state from the point of view of candidates. They would belong to ideological, sociological, and economic groups.
As best I can tell, all regions of the nation are quite diverse ideological, sociologically and economically. The electoral college assumes that states have unique issues that exist only within their borders and so we need to ensure that every state voice is heard even more than we need to ensure that every human voice is heard. I just don't think thats true.
For example, Private property rights are a big issue in many western states. But not all Montanans (for example) favor strong private property protection. In fact not all right wing republicans in Montana favor strong private property protection (access laws are supported by lots of conservative hunters and fisherman). What's more this issues break down more closely along economic divisions than state divisions. In other words, differences between the US states are largely smaller than the differences within the states. In that context, the electoral college system does more to suppress the voice of minorities than to amplify them.
Let's say for example that you are a "green voter" living in a brown state. Even if a candidate is catering to "your state", he/she still isn't going to cater to you, because you aren't in the majority in your region. But if the we eliminated the electoral college, candidates who shared your values would now have a reason to court your vote even though you aren't in the majority in your state.
I've lived in small states most of my life and I've found that the red state/ blue state dichotomy just doesn't fit the reality on the ground. The current system is one which truly marginalizes the minority (even very large minorities) in large regions of the country.
What's more even talking about "minorities" and "majorities" doesn't really describe what's going on.
In many respects, the elections have already gone national. They are covered in every state by national media. We think of ourselves as voting for a candidate not for an electoral college member. Why not make it so?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Rabbit, I think that, from even the most fleeting glimpse of anything I have written in the political threads, it would be clear that I am neither a conservative or a Republican.
edit to add: and while I have many good reasons to admire Pixiest and Dag, you can be reasonably sure that our agreement on this is not likely because it would favor "our" side.
Sorry kate, I simply hadn't connected pixiest's reference to "boots" clearly with you.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think Americans are generally in one of three circles on this issue. 1. They don't know and don't care. 2. They know but don't think they can fix the problem. 3. They know, they're screaming their heads off, but they're the smallest group and no one listens.
You forgot groups 4, 5, 6, and 7. Like 3, but with mutually exclusive ideas of what should be done.
I like your primary system, but I agree with Dags, kmb, and pooka on the electoral college.
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:1. an election for president won by the person who lost the popular vote.
I'd probably feel different if I were on the other side, but I don't feel like someone should be able to win an election just by spamming the big cities.
I'm in a big city (and I voted for Gore), and I agree.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I agree with most of that - at least the goals. I don't think, though, that a majority is the same thing as a consensus. In this country a majority is half plus one. What you are suggesting, I think, is that, instead of having an idea or a candidate achieve a majority in a state to be heard, they have to achieve a majority in the whole country. This would be a bigger hurdle for minorities.
What I am suggesting is smaller geographical regions. Awarding electoral voted by district or even precinct rather than by state. Proportional awarding of electoral votes.
edit to add: I also think that you should vote for Obama. Like me. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without the electoral college, America would just be made up of the types of states Clinton is winning.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As best I can tell, the tree of you support the electoral college because you are conservatives and in recent years the electoral college system has favored the republican system.
Rabbit, you've been regularly making statements like this in the recent past, and it's really starting to piss me off.
I quite simply don't believe you in this case, because I know you're smart enough that this isn't "as best you can tell." I gave a structural analysis of why I oppose changing the system, and you basically ignored it. Had you simply ignored my posts in this thread, this wouldn't be so bad. Instead, you proceeded to ignore what I've written and then claim that I have no reason you can see other than partisanship to believe what I believe about this issue.
quote:My sense is that the democratic process in the US has become far to focused on winning fights rather than solving problems.
You seem to have bought into this focus, judging by your casual dismissal of my views accomplished by invoking partisanship.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This can be ameliorated if the states allocated their electoral votes proportionally or by district. Since the voters in a state could force this if they cared, it's hard to see how their disenfranchised.
I largely agreed with what you said in your post, Dag, but I wanted to quibble with this. Proportional allocation of electoral votes would benefit the minority party in most states. For example, Washington (where I live), pretty consistently votes democratic. I have a hard time imagining the democrats in charge acquiescing to simply give away electoral votes to the GOP. I have almost as hard a time imagining the republicans mounting any kind of serious assault on the status quo.
Granted, I'm not exactly sure what the procedure would generally be to change allocation. Is it something that wouldn't be heavily affected by the political leanings of the state's population?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I gave a structural analysis of why I oppose changing the system, and you basically ignored it.
To be fair, you didn't actually express that opinion in your post (unless I am seriously misreading). You expressed why the electoral college was implemented in the first place but you didn't express explicit support for it.
I'd like to address the "tyranny of the majority" point presented earlier. I think it's a valid point but I don't think it's a good justification for permitting the minority opinion to have more weight than the majority opinion (as in the 2000 election). The filibuster technique sometimes employed in the senate is an effective protection against tyranny of the majority because it allows the minority to prevent unlawful laws from being passed while at the same time not granting them power to pass their own laws. The Condorcet voting method has effective built-in protection against tyranny of the majority.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:As best I can tell, the tree of you support the electoral college because you are conservatives and in recent years the electoral college system has favored the republican system.
It just goes to support my long time theory that Republicans don't really believe in democracy -- that is that they don't believe that having all voices heard most often leads to better decisions.
Good grief. I was interested in this discussion, because I think this controversy is an important one. I was looking forward to discussing it with you, Rabbit. Until I read this garbage.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally Posted by: pooka I'd probably feel different if I were on the other side, but I don't feel like someone should be able to win an election just by spamming the big cities.
Instead you support a system where both parties ignore half the electorate to pander to their bases? Or for that matter, a system where millions don’t vote because they know it’s pointless, and some states are ignored by both parties because there’s simply nothing to be gained there? I fail to see how either a pure popular vote or electoral college isn’t a lot of attention paid to larger and middle sized cities. You think the status quo is any different? All both sides do is spam largish cities, and that’s likely to not change, but the difference is that more cities would get attention paid to them, in general bringing more people into the process.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots There are a couple of reasons for the electoral college. Some good, some less so. It was important for states with smaller populations and may still be. I don't have a problem with the electoral college, but I do have a problem with "winner-take-all" state elections. If we want to get away from the red/blue states and have national candidates who have to govern the whole country, electoral votes should be awarded proportionally.
This has nothing to do with small states vs. big states. That argument only worked back in the 19th century, and I’ll tell you why. Back then, states tended to vote for their “favorite sons,” with the result being that it was impossible for a smaller state’s favorite son to garner enough votes to become president. So they changed the rule making it so every state had to vote for a president and vice president separately, instead of giving them two votes to cast as they would, and then the second place guy becomes VP by default. That was designed so big states had to choose from someone other than themselves. That situation doesn’t even slightly resemble the status quo currently. The idea that the electoral college somehow levels the playing field is a myth, and I really don’t know where it comes from, or how people even thing for a second that it makes sense. The only leveling done is ensuring that states with miniscule populations even get their three electoral college votes, but let’s be honest, serious campaigning isn’t done in “flyover states,” called that because you generally fly over them to go between the places where the votes and the delegates really are (well they are called that for other reasons too, but for this argument…). The electoral college does NOTHING to help smaller states in the 21st century, and I’ve never seen a halfway convincing argument that they do. The Senate vs. the House is where the equalizing and compromising was down to give equal voice to all the states, not the electoral college.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit I've heard that point before and I don't give it much weight. First off, when was the last time the current process lead to the nomination of a candidate that didn't have name recognition before primaries? Not in my lifetime.
Um, Obama? Prior to his speech at the 2004 DNC Convention, no one outside of Chicago had ever heard of Barrack Obama. And let’s be honest here, how many people REALLY watch those conventions? It’s about the same number of people who watch C-SPAN on a regular basis, which I’m convinced is about 25 people, and I know five of them personally. Seriously, my ex-girlfriend loves C-SPAN, and I like it too, but not that much. Anyway, the point is that few people watched. Even fewer of them were Republicans or Independents. Only the hardcore politicos watched. People in Illinois knew about him when they voted him into the Senate, and he had some minor recognition nationally, but come on, he wasn’t a household name. Few of the candidates were. If they hadn’t had the chance to make themselves known in Iowa or New Hampshire, Clinton would have walked away with this election, no contest, it would have been over months ago.
Same thing for your second point, you care about the process way, way more than the average person, who expected the candidates to woo them, rather than them figuring it out for themselves. Most of them don’t even start paying attention until the week before they actually have to vote.
quote: Third: This year when the primaries are coming far closer than ever before to being simultaneous, candidates have finally started visiting everywhere. And rather than having that narrow the field sooner to the most well known candidate, we are getting one of the best primary races in a long time and people who've never been interested in primaries before are participating. If this is working so well, then I suspect a single national primary would work even better.
Go back to the beginning, how did it all start? It all started with retail politics in New Hampshire and Iowa. A single national primary in January would have led to a Clinton coronation in February. Do you remember where national polls had everyone in January? Nationally Obama was getting smoked by 20 points or more in most states. He would have been eviscerated. You can’t say how great things are NOW and ignore how we got here.
I’m not going to point by point the rest of your post. I think you’re making a couple assumptions that aren’t really backed up by how things are going this year. I don’t like the status quo, but I think a national primary would severely, severely narrow the field of able candidates to a chosen few. And I think you greatly underestimate the resources necessary. It’s taken Obama a year to amass the fortune that he has, and he’s still spent most of it, and that’s with a fifth of the nation to go. A candidate would have to grass roots raise $200 million to have a prayer BEFORE the national primary day you propose. It’s just an insurmountable obstacle you’d create.
Kmb, riv, Dag –
If one of you would care to take a swing at it…how the does electoral college protect smaller states? I agree that that protection had some sway with how elections were held when the nation first started, although the necessary changes to protect smaller states weren’t made until after the first couple elections, and were gone by the last quarter of the 19th century, but as far as I can see, they’ve been outdated for years. The electoral college was created out of necessity, because holding a national election of a few million people across a territory as vast as the US’ eastern seaboard would’ve been a logistical nightmare, so they broke it down and had you vote for electors. This was back when you actually voted for an elector who supported a candidate, rather than vote for the candidate and then have your vote shuffled off into some shadowy system where you don’t even know the name of the guy you’re really voting for who will vote for your guy by proxy. In any case, the Founders were also extremely fearful of putting power directly into the hands of the people. They’d just witnessed the French Revolution, it wasn’t something they were eager about having happen here. It was far, far more logistical and philosophical than it was any bone to be thrown to smaller states. The small state vs. big state argument was primarily hashed out in Congress, and that’s how they came up with the Senate and the House, divesting and sharing powers so size gave them some advantage, but smaller states were still protected, and until they changed to the more modern delegate apportionment system, the second change to the electoral college I think provided some modest protections to small states. But today? Nope, not a factor. Small states are ignored by both parties: Because none of the small states are really swing stats, except maybe for New Hampshire. Most of the small states out west go Republican, so Democrats don’t waste a lot of time and money in states with little to gain and no real chance at taking, and Republicans don’t waste the effort because they don’t have to. Similar story in reverse for the couple small states that Democrats get like Vermont or Rhode Island. There are states that many know will go Democrats, know will go Republican and the stuff in between is what is really fought over. The electoral college I think is like the Titanic. When a candidate knows that certain parts of the ship are flooding, he closes the bulkheads to keep the ship afloat, and sacrifices everyone in those compartments he might have saved.
I’m more than willing to hear the other side of the argument though. In the meantime, I’m going to go searching for the post I did before on the electoral college, I think this’d be a good place to repost it.
quote:Originally posted by Threads The filibuster technique sometimes employed in the senate is an effective protection against tyranny of the majority because it allows the minority to prevent unlawful laws from being passed while at the same time not granting them power to pass their own laws.
See, I don't get that. Unlawful laws? If a law is unconstitutional, you challenge it in the courts, it's what they are there for. Otherwise there is no unlawful law. If it's not unconstitutional then it's fair game. Filibusters are a procedural loophole that I don't like at all. It allows a minority to stymie a majority, which I think is actually undemocratic. Our nation was founded on the principle of majority rule with respect for minority rights, which means you don't steamroll them, but the majority still gets to legislate. That's the same sort of justification I'd expect to say that recess appointments of controversial figures is fair, when recess appointments were really designed to fill vital vacancies while Congress went on long vacations. The recess appointment I think is an outdated power as well, as Congress no longer takes 3 month breaks and takes months to travel back to Washington from across the country. We have planes now, it's unnecessary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I gave a structural analysis of why I oppose changing the system, and you basically ignored it.
To be fair, you didn't actually express that opinion in your post (unless I am seriously misreading). You expressed why the electoral college was implemented in the first place but you didn't express explicit support for it.
Fine, then Rabbit's comment was even more ridiculous and wrong than it appeared at first.
I never expected to place something Rabbit said on the same level as what Ron Lambert posts, but that comment definitely was.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even with the electoral college being in need of reform it does in fact give a slight boost to smaller states in that electors match the number of representatives each state has in the house + 2 for their senators. That +2 benefits Utah or Alaska far more than it benefits New York or California.
The college was designed primarily to act as a buffer zone between the people and their president. You can say the protection of minorities is no longer necessary as they are spread throughout the country, but who is to say new minorities won't form, or that certain ones won't combine together in the same geographic location? Without some sort of check on stupid people voting in large numbers, I can't support simply removing the college and hoping nothing bad happens. This aspect of federalism I believe is indispensable for our democracy.
I think if we want to make the playing fields in all states more important we should eliminate the winner takes all rules in every state that stills has them. They guarantee a two party system and it's the reason certain states are totally ignored by one or both parties. If candidates have something to lose or gain by campaigning in any given state it will force a restructuring of their strategy. I also think it is beneficial to not have all the primaries on the same date but to spread them out throughout a period of a few months, thus allowing candidates to better micromanage their campaign.
I'm not sure if there is anything I would do about the fact that electors at the college are forced to pledge support to a party. It's wrong, but I'm not sure how to efficiently fix that.
I almost amusingly support Jeff Buckley's idea that stupid blacks and whites should be barred from voting.
edit
Rabbit:
quote:As best I can tell, the tree of you support the electoral college because you are conservatives and in recent years the electoral college system has favored the republican system.
That was pretty ridiculous. I have a hard time believing you seriously think that, or that you consider that an argument you can stand behind.
double edit: Or perhaps you were simply saying that the college has favored republicanism and the republican system rather than the "Republican party." You didn't capitalize the R, so it leaves one wondering.
posted
It would not be good to have all the primaries on one day. It is better for the nomination process to be strung out over many months, so the candidates--even those who may be the darlings of certain networks--can receive prolonged critical scrutiny and proper "vetting."
I have disliked the electoral college for a long time; but it could potentially have value as a last-stop means of saving the country from some candidate who is discovered at the last moment (even the day after the general election) to be something absolutely unacceptable to the general electorate--like a pedophile, serial killer, or undercover terrorist or "manchurian candidate."
Just because nothing like that has happened yet, does not mean that it could not. In fact, having the electoral college may even serve as a deterrent, since it means that much more difficulty for someone unworthy to maintain the fraud and deception.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either 8 regional primaries staggered over 6 months; or 6 regional primaries staggered over 4 months. Regions positions in the line-up are rotated every presidential election. All delegates are awarded proportionally. No super delegates. Absentee ballots only count if received 10 days or less before the regional election.
Keep the electoral college. I agree with Dagonee's federalism comments. I think federalism as well as the primacy of states as a governing body will become increasingly more important as America's population continues to congregate in metropolitan areas. Metropolitan areas should do more regional planning and sharing of resources -- states will be there to make sure that rural areas and smaller cities aren't wholly ignored.
Edit: Removed a repeated sentence.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:value as a last-stop means of saving the country from some candidate who is discovered at the last moment (even the day after the general election) to be something absolutely unacceptable to the general electorate--like a pedophile, serial killer, or undercover terrorist or "manchurian candidate."
And he'd be impeached the next day. Or just plain ole sent to jail. I know impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and there's been some contention in the past over what that means, but, I'm going to assume that if you commit a jailable offense, you don't get a free pass if you're elected. No other elected official has.
quote:The college was designed primarily to act as a buffer zone between the people and their president. You can say the protection of minorities is no longer necessary as they are spread throughout the country, but who is to say new minorities won't form, or that certain ones won't combine together in the same geographic location? Without some sort of check on stupid people voting in large numbers, I can't support simply removing the college and hoping nothing bad happens. This aspect of federalism I believe is indispensable for our democracy.
That some people are stupid is a thin excuse. First off, how do you know the actual electors themselves are any smarter? Besides, electors, the high grand majority of the time, vote for who the idiot electorate tell them to vote for. And in any event, it takes more than half a million people to get you an elector. It was 535,000 last time I checked, I don't know what it is now, but I assume it's gone up, ever since the electoral college's membership number was capped and they instead started raising the number of people you have to have to get electors. The higher that number goes, the less and less chance small parties will have to have ANY effect on the process, because even if they were to get large numbers of voters from all over the country, unless they can concentrate those votes in smaller areas, they'll still never get an elector out of it.
Besides, Bush was elected TWICE. I don't see any proof at all that the electoral college protects us from stupid voters. If anything, it's proven that stupid voters in the right geographic locations have MORE power than smart ones.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Besides, Bush was elected TWICE. I don't see any proof at all that the electoral college protects us from stupid voters.
Or from incredibly awful options.
Just because someone thinks that Kerry and Algore were Even Worse than Bush, doesn't make them stupid.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
People who voted for Bush may not have been stupid, but I think they were awfully neglectful in their judgement, most especially the second time around, and that's a valid opinion I'm entitled to. I'll apologize for calling people stupid, that was a bad choice of words. But I still think they made a horribly wrong decision, and that the electoral college does nothing to protect us from bad choices, regardless of the reasons they were made.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr: well, look on the bright side, from your point of view.
If Kerry had gotten elected 4 years ago, he'd be running for re-election right now and the Obama-nation never would have gotten out of the starting gate.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I go back and forth on something like that. On the one hand, Bush delivered Congress to the Democrats on a silver platter and the country is poised to elect a Democrat to the presidency, or at least give Democrats an arsenal of issues and support that they haven't had in more than a decade. But on the other hand, is having a Democrat in office now worth the wrongs and devastations committed by a Bush White House the last three years and change and the rest of this year? No, I don't think so. The man just vetoed a bill yesterday that would have outlawed waterboarding because he says it's a vital tool in the fight against terrorism, but also says that we don't torture. The man's willing to sacrifice morality and principles we hold dear to save lives, which might sound good on paper, but people have sacrificed their lives to achieve those principles. It seems wantonly dishonorable to then in turn sacrifice the principles to save lives (if in fact that's even true).
So that bright side is a double edged sword, and doesn't much make me feel better, especially since I'm not even a Democrat, I'm just extremely anti-Bush, and I think Republicans are disastrously wrong in almost all of their solutions to our problems. I think Democrats are horribly inept, but mostly right on policy issues.
But maybe I'll feel better about it a year from now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This can be ameliorated if the states allocated their electoral votes proportionally or by district. Since the voters in a state could force this if they cared, it's hard to see how their disenfranchised.
This strikes me as a dangerous precedent... Theoretically, a party could coordinate to make electoral votes winner-take-all in states where they had small majorities, and proportional in states where they did not. Effectively, gerrymandering on a nation-wide level.
I definitely think the election system is in need of reform, for many of the reasons Rabbit mentions and others. But I think the leadership of the two major political parties would feel they'd have far too much to lose. Which I guess puts me in the "would like to see change, believe I'm powerless to effect it" camp.
EDIT to ADD: I should make a note, also, that one should look well beyond race when considering the protection of "minorities" with regard to election systems. Historically, the divisions between agricultural and industrial America have played at least as great a role, for example.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it would be more fair for Florida to be split half and half, I have to admit, I like the football aspect of our votes. Who's going to pull ahead at the last minute? Did the liberals in the big cities turn out in enough numbers to override the rural voters? Who's going to win?
I'll admit, it's gone my way the last couple times. (I still like Bush. I think he's doing ok.) But if it doesn't go my way this time, that's ok too. I like the excitement of seeing what happens next more than getting my fair share.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's precisely what the Republicans are trying to do by splitting California's electoral votes through the inititative process. Note that they have no interest in splitting electoral votes in Republican-majority states.
More interestingly through the initiative process, Schwarzenegger&Company are trying to gerrymander California by forbiddingcompanies which have provided the California legislature with demographic data for redistricting from providing data or even bidding on contracts to provide data to a new redistricting board that would be set up by the same ballot measure. Nor would members of that new state redistricting board be elected into office.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's precisely what the Republicans are trying to do by splitting California's electoral votes through the inititative process. Note that they have no interest in splitting electoral votes in Republican-majority states.
Of course they don't have any interest. Naturally the Democrats have to haggle over what they want in exchange for something that benefits the Republican party so significantly. Or else the Republicans have to concentrate their support California and get it passed despite what the Democrats want.
Lyrhawn:
quote:That some people are stupid is a thin excuse. First off, how do you know the actual electors themselves are any smarter? Besides, electors, the high grand majority of the time, vote for who the idiot electorate tell them to vote for. And in any event, it takes more than half a million people to get you an elector. It was 535,000 last time I checked, I don't know what it is now, but I assume it's gone up, ever since the electoral college's membership number was capped and they instead started raising the number of people you have to have to get electors. The higher that number goes, the less and less chance small parties will have to have ANY effect on the process, because even if they were to get large numbers of voters from all over the country, unless they can concentrate those votes in smaller areas, they'll still never get an elector out of it.
The greater threat to small parties gaining any control is people's notions that third parties are villainous because they take votes away from THEIR candidate instead of the other candidate. Until people stop smirking at Nadar for his umpteenth candidacy and realize that what he is attempting to do is far more important and precedent changing than electing a woman or minority to office, there will only be so much we can do to foster smaller parties.
As for Bush's two terms proving that stupid people still vote in large numbers, it seems pointless to discuss with you the merits of my ideas when you have such a strong assumptions about certain people amongst your opposition.
And btw, I say that as somebody who voted for Kerry in 04.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a problem with awarding delegates proportionally. At first glance, this might seem better than "winner takes all." But the method of determining proportional delegates can be unjust. For example, this year's Texas Democratic caucuses awarded delegates on an unequal method having to do with senate votes that gave more delegates to the predominantly African-American neighborhoods in big cities. So even though Clinton won the popular vote by over three percentage points, Obama won more delegates in the caucuses which followed, since he wins around 90% of African-Americans' votes.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
the African American community isn't a solid block thats like "hey Obama is black lets for him" It would be more accurate to say "our parents want to vote for clinton, lets vote for Obama instead"
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
