How messed up is our system?

[pooky]

Before you all jump on me for dredging up old news, this is a thread about electoral reform, NOT about who won vs. who we wanted to win the election. Let's keep it that way.

Is this logical in an electoral system?

What if 66,000 people moved from Seattle to Anchorage? 22,000 from L.A. to Las Vegas? 100,000 from New York to West Virginia? 80,000 from WA to ND? 90,000 from CA to SD?

None of those moves would nudge the popular vote by even one vote, but all of them could change the electoral vote. All at once, and suddenly Kerry wins the election. Why should an election for nationwide office depend, when it comes down to it, on who lives where? I'm not saying the above could, or should happen, but it strikes me as a huge logical hole in our system. No other democracy in the world (that I know of - correct me if I'm wrong) uses something like this. Nor do the countries in which we've forcefully installed democracy. Does this mean we don't believe in our own system? Seems to me that we all know it's silly and antiquated, but as a culture we're too lazy to fight the people who live off the status quo for some kind of reform.

If someone can tell me why the system makes sense for a 21st century democracy, I'd love to hear it.

[miloblithe]

The argument is that this way, each state matters. If the vote were simply the popular vote, candidates would have a huge incentive to campaign in LA, NYC, DC, Chicago, etc, but less incentive to campaign anywhere in say, Wyoming. The problem with this argument is that currently, there is only incentive to campaign in the battleground states. No one campaigns in Wyoming or DC because the result of that state is assured.

Regardless, however, the system is all but unchangable. It would have to be in the majority of the state's interests to change the constitution, and small states will never vote for this. Currently, a vote in Wyoming is worth more than 3 times a vote in California (in terms of population per electoral vote). So Wyoming is not going to vote to reduce its power. The same applies to every small state, and there are enough of them to keep the constitution from ever changing.

[Lyle]

No other democracy in the world (that I know of - correct me if I'm wrong) uses something like this.Correct, as far as I know.

Seems to me that we all know it's silly and antiquated, but as a culture we're too lazy to fight the people who live off the status quo for some kind of reform.I've never thought about it as a matter of someone "living off the status quo" and thereby actively suppressing efforts to change the system (although legislators from smaller states would probably oppose it since those states currently enjoy disproportionate influence). I definitely agree with the first part of your assertion, however: the problem is that we're too lazy to do anything to change it. I mean, when's the last time you mentioned this problem to your congressman? ;)

[cluthz]

The scary part about the system is that there are only a few debates and people mostly makes their opinions after watching TV commercials.
Its also questionable that the president, governors and senators are all millionaires.. A system that is based "the survival of the fittest/richest".

[takao]

Before you all jump on me for dredging up old news, this is a thread about electoral reform, NOT about who won vs. who we wanted to win the election. Let's keep it that way.

Is this logical in an electoral system?

What if 66,000 people moved from Seattle to Anchorage? 22,000 from L.A. to Las Vegas? 100,000 from New York to West Virginia? 80,000 from WA to ND? 90,000 from CA to SD?

None of those moves would nudge the popular vote by even one vote, but all of them could change the electoral vote. All at once, and suddenly Kerry wins the election. Why should an election for nationwide office depend, when it comes down to it, on who lives where? I'm not saying the above could, or should happen, but it strikes me as a huge logical hole in our system. No other democracy in the world (that I know of - correct me if I'm wrong) uses something like this. Nor do the countries in which we've forcefully installed democracy. Does this mean we don't believe in our own system? Seems to me that we all know it's silly and antiquated, but as a culture we're too lazy to fight the people who live off the status quo for some kind of reform.

If someone can tell me why the system makes sense for a 21st century democracy, I'd love to hear it.


doesn't have the UK a similiar "the winner takes it all" system ?

of course add to the discussion the different ways of voting in the US (electronic,paper,punch cards etc.)
i saw a map of the US where every county was coloured in a color if voting was doen different...needless to say that it looked like a patch work

and i was even more shocked when i heard that on some voting cards you have to fill it out with a _pencil_ (i hope that is a wrong rumour/myth ...)

seriously the whole voting system needs to be standarised not only the ellectoral system

[pooky]

The argument is that this way, each state matters. If the vote were simply the popular vote, candidates would have a huge incentive to campaign in LA, NYC, DC, Chicago, etc, but less incentive to campaign anywhere in say, Wyoming. The problem with this argument is that currently, there is only incentive to campaign in the battleground states. No one campaigns in Wyoming or DC because the result of that state is assured.


I would argue that NYC and LA, both of which are democratic strongholds, wouldn't get much more attention. Bush wouldn't have gone to San Francisco no matter what system we had. The majority of the country, where things are much more even, would get much more attention.

I guess what irritates me is that the rights of, say, the ~500,000 people in Wyoming, outweigh those of the ~55,000,000 in California.

[miloblithe]

Clinton didn't come from wealth.

[miloblithe]

I would argue that NYC and LA, both of which are democratic strongholds, wouldn't get much more attention. Bush wouldn't have gone to San Francisco no matter what system we had. The majority of the country, where things are much more even, would get much more attention.

I guess what irritates me is that the rights of, say, the ~500,000 people in Wyoming, outweigh those of the ~55,000,000 in California.

You may be right. It might more clearly divide the US between (as I believe Zim suggested) a rural party and a city party. Democrats would campaign in cities to rally their troops, Republicans would comb the countryside (and burbs) for theirs. It's hard to know exactly how changing the system would change the incentives. But it does seem that more and more people are having doubts about the legitimacy of our system. I was taught that the success of a government (and its ability to stay in power) relies on three pillars: perceved legitimacy, the ability to provide (or provide for the provision) of services, and the ability to ensure security. I'd say the US system is a long way from goin' down, but all three pillars have been taking big hits.

[skunk]

doesn't have the UK a similiar "the winner takes it all" system ?
Yes. "First past the post" is the usual term. It could work like that. But in the States you have the ridiculous gerrymandering thing going on as well, which accentuates the weakness in the system. It's practically designed to be abused.

[pseudobrit]

The argument is that this way, each state matters. If the vote were simply the popular vote, candidates would have a huge incentive to campaign in LA, NYC, DC, Chicago, etc, but less incentive to campaign anywhere in say, Wyoming.

What the hell does it matter where candidates campaign? Like it matters one Goddamn bit to the people of X state if a candidate comes to town?

[skunk]

What the hell does it matter where candidates campaign? Like it matters one Goddamn bit to the people of X state if a candidate comes to town?
Doesn't it encourage a more inclusive agenda?

[Lyle]

What the hell does it matter where candidates campaign? Like it matters one Goddamn bit to the people of X state if a candidate comes to town?I think milo merely meant that if it were the popular vote that decided things, candidates would tend to adopt positions that appealed more to areas with large populations (e.g. the big cities he mentioned) and pay less attention to areas with smaller dense populations. It's not so much about physically visiting those places as doing things to pander to them.

[pseudobrit]

Doesn't it encourage a more inclusive agenda?

Then why is Bush president twice?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Yes. "First past the post" is the usual term. It could work like that. But in the States you have the ridiculous gerrymandering thing going on as well, which accentuates the weakness in the system. It's practically designed to be abused.

You should see some of the districts. I seem to remember one in the south that was like 75 to 100 miles long, and only about 6 to miles at the widest point.

Hopefully the SCOTUS case about Texas will force some real changes in that regard.

But the districts don't have much on an impact on Presidential races IMO. For most states the Electoral votes goes by the popular vote for that state. The only benefit from more diverse districts, is that the candidates might have some more battleground areas they would focus attention on.

[Chip NoVaMac]

What I find interesting is that when the US brings democracy and free elections to another country, it is by the popular vote. Guess we aren't good enough for that system here.

[Lyle]

What I find interesting is that when the US brings democracy and free elections to another country, it is by the popular vote. Guess we aren't good enough for that system here.I think it's just easier to get it right when you're starting from scratch. ;)

[mactastic]

I think it's just easier to get it right when you're starting from scratch. ;)

Ummm... 1776?

[Lyle]

Ummm... 1776?Hey, they didn't ask me. ;)

[Ugg]

I think it's just easier to get it right when you're starting from scratch. ;)

I think there's a lot of truth in that actually. What worked in 1776 is not necessarily the best for 2004. If you look at all the countries that have written new constitutions in the past twenty years, it's obvious that most have avoided the mistakes of those written in the 18th century. South Africa is one that comes to mind. It ensures the rights of all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, creed, etc, etc.

Wouldn't it be nice to totally revise the Constitution every century or so? Sure, the founding fathers allowed us to amend the Constitution but that was when there were only 13 states.

[Chappers]

I'd be more interested in finding a country that does have democracy.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I think there's a lot of truth in that actually. What worked in 1776 is not necessarily the best for 2004. If you look at all the countries that have written new constitutions in the past twenty years, it's obvious that most have avoided the mistakes of those written in the 18th century. South Africa is one that comes to mind. It ensures the rights of all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, creed, etc, etc.

Wouldn't it be nice to totally revise the Constitution every century or so? Sure, the founding fathers allowed us to amend the Constitution but that was when there were only 13 states.

I think that is why both side fight every mention of a Constitutional Convention, which if I remember correctly is an option open the the American people. Along with the standard amendment process.

[stubeeef]

Wouldn't it be nice to totally revise the Constitution every century or so?

Revolution? Happens often, especially in those small African countries that write so well.

Amendments? Happens occasionnally, even in the US of A.

[skunk]

Wouldn't it be nice to totally revise the Constitution every century or so?
How about revising the Bible and the Quran every century or so? Gotta keep in fashion.

[skunk]

Revolution? Happens often, especially in those small African countries that write so well.
?? That one went right over my head, I'm afraid. :confused:

[Chappers]

me too

[miloblithe]

I think Stu is equating changing the constitution to revolution, which seems a bit overdramatic. You can change the constitution without throwing the country into chaos.

This reminds me of a little pro-America dig I like to get in on people from other "old" countries that think of America as being such a "young" country. I like to point out that America is the second oldest country in the world, which I define as a country run generally in one continuous way under a single constitution.* (of course, it's a somewhat silly definition, but there is a point: Politically, America is a very old and I would say relatively mature country.)

*Which would make San Marino the oldest country in the world, which would make the US the oldest significant country in the world. Also, this definition excludes England, which as I understand it, and am no doubt wrong, has no constitution.

[skunk]

No written Constitution. Correct.

[miloblithe]

No written Constitution. Correct.

So it has a sort of implied constitution by a long history of law?

[skunk]

Exactly: Common Law, Precedent and Magna Carta.
You could add to that the Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights (1688 and 1699)

[IJ Reilly]

The English Common Law is one of the cornerstones of the American legal system too (FWIW). Still, I think milo's point is probably valid. When did political power in the UK shift from the monarchy to the Parliament?

[skunk]

1649: Chuck the First lost it big-time.
1688: Chuck the Second became a Constitutional Monarch with the passage of the Bill of Rights.

[IJ Reilly]

1649: Chuck the First lost it big-time.
1688: Chuck the Second became a Constitutional Monarch with the passage of the Bill of Rights.

Charles I lost it literally. Charles II represented the restoration of the monarchy, but even in reduced capacity it remained central to British political system. Correct? So I suppose what I'm asking is when the monarchy was reduced to its current figurehead status.

[skunk]

Charles I lost it literally. Charles II represented the restoration of the monarchy, but even in reduced capacity it remained central to British political system. Correct? So I suppose what I'm asking is when the monarchy was reduced to its current figurehead status.
Not really correct, no: from C2 onwards, the monarch merely assented to legislation and taxation, rather than initiating.
Incidentally, the last English King to lead his troops into battle was George II, who lost control of his horse and bolted unintentionally towards enemy lines, followed by the entire army, and won the Battle of Dettingen (1743).

[IJ Reilly]

Was it all so cut and dried? I seem to dimly recall some challenges to the authority of Parliament from monarchs after Charles II. And when did the monarch lose the authority to assent to legislation?

In any, I thought milo's point was an interesting one. By any objective measure, the US political system is not youthful -- and is in fact one of the oldest in the world.

[miloblithe]

Which I would say makes the US system both arguably out of date and commendably stable. Also, it's not like the US system is exactly the same as it was 200 years ago. Tons of very specific rules have altered the nitty gritty of things, and large scale changes include who can vote and what they can vote for (like Senators). Still, overall the system has been remarkably stable, at least if you ignore that little breakdown in the 1860s.

[skunk]

And when did the monarch lose the authority to assent to legislation?
She hasn't.

[IJ Reilly]

She hasn't.

Okay then, when did the monarch stop asserting this power, and why?

(I can see how many other people are fascinated by this subject.)

[skunk]

Okay then, when did the monarch stop asserting this power, and why?

(I can see how many other people are fascinated by this subject.)
Every law still has to receive Royal Assent. She has to sign "Lilibet R" on every Act of Parliament.

[IJ Reilly]

Every law still has to receive Royal Assent. She has to sign "Lilibet R" on every Act of Parliament.

You have to know what my next question is going to be.

[skunk]

"Regina" :)

[blackfox]

I am rather interested by this subject also. As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong, Skunk) but although the Monarch theoretically has the power to appoint the Prime Minister and other Cabinet-level positions, in practice, he/she has always deferred to the decisions of the Parliament on these matters to avoid a conflict with Democratic Principles.

Likewise, the Monarch has assented to every piece of legislation since the early 18th Century. To do otherwise would cause a Constitutional crisis, as again it would create a conflict with Democratic principles.

In many ways governing by convention seems like a way to negotiate the obvious paradoxical problems of a Constitutional Monarchy, as officially, no-one's toes are stepped on.

[IJ Reilly]

"Regina" :)

He-frigging-larious. :p

[atszyman]

Ok, I'm a bit late into this discussion but it has been brought up that eliminating the EC will be opposed by the smaller states because it increases their voting power. This article (http://www.slate.com/id/2105055/) which references the Electoral College Primer 2000 by Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce.

But this advantage is outweighed by the advantage conferred on large states by the winner-take-all allocation of electors in every state save Nebraska and Maine. In their book Electoral College Primer 2000 (which, alas, was not updated for 2004), Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce calculated that the states enjoying higher-than-average voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in declining order):

California
Texas
New York
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois

The states with the least voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in ascending order):

Montana
Kansas
West Virginia
Maine
Arkansas
Utah
Nevada

I know that everyone seems to think that by eliminating the EC the candidates would have no incentive to visit the small states. How many visits did the candidates make to the Dakotas or Wyoming for that matter?

By eliminating the EC it would force the candidates to campaign on a more national level. Rather than run their ads/press conferences on a local basis they would have to think nationally. This would get their message out to more of the American people. Living in Texas I really believe that this would be a good thing. It seems everyone down here just believed everything the Bush campaign said about Kerry and Kerry made no effort to fight those perceptions here since it was a lost cause. I imagine the California and New York were the same with the candidates reversed. The winner has to run the whole country why shouldn't they have to campaign across the whole country?