|
Post by Nachtrafe-Tyrant Jr on Oct 30, 2001 17:15:04 GMT -5
1: Practicality. For the reason that Falkirk stated above. 2: Its still a good system. We live in a Representative Democracy. We need an election system that is based on that principle. 3: If it aint broke, dont fix it. Granted, its a little bent, but a little bondo and duct tape will take care of that. We dont need a complete overhaul of the US voting system. With a few improvements, the current system can and will work just fine. 4: OK...I've given you my reason...your turn. Why should the current system be abolished in favor of a simple mayority vote? In what way would it be better? BTW...To those in other countries what is the process there? Simple majorities? Something like our Electoral College? Other systems? The information would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Silmarillion on Oct 30, 2001 17:39:41 GMT -5
Because I sit and watch elections being won before all the votes are counted. THAT is wrong. Basically tells me, and everyone, that my vote DOESN'T matter. My little measly state doesn't mean shit when it comes to electoral votes.
And this pretty much sums it up for me and saves me a helluva lot of typing...LOL
1) The candidate who loses the popular vote can win the election by being unpopular in the most populous states. This is not necessarily a problem. The framers quite deliberately chose this rule, giving voters in sparsely populated states more weight than voters in heavily populated ones, so that the interests of smaller states would not be overwhelmed. It was a compromise between backers of states (the existing power structure at the time, which many were reluctant to see weakened) and advocates of the people.
2) The candidate who loses the popular vote can win the election if he happens to get small wins in many states while his opponent gets larger wins in fewer states, regardless of the size of the states involved. This is because of the "winner take all" rule that most states use in choosing their electors. It means that the proportion of the electoral vote often bears little resemblance to the popular vote.
3) The small number of electoral votes causes a certain amount of random round-off error. The winner-take-all rule makes this random error larger.
4) The winner-take-all rule also leads to voter apathy or disgruntlement in states where one party is dominant, because their vote will have no effect on the electoral vote totals.
5) When no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, the vote is settled by the House of Representatives, throwing out the people's vote entirely. This generally leads to a purely partisan battle that loses all sight of whatever popular mandate really exists. Often the only resolution is some kind of back-room deal like the "corrupt bargains" of 1824 and 1876.
6) The electoral college tends to enforce a two party structure, freezing out alternatives, because nobody wants the election thrown to the House of Representatives. Third party candidacies are generally seen only as "spoilers" instead of as real choices. (The framers did not expect a two party system to arise; some cynics say they really intended to leave the choice up to the House of Representatives whenever nobody was overwhelmingly popular.)
7) The forces upholding the two party system also bring about the necessity of primary elections, which have a host of shortcomings. Or, if we don't have primary elections, the result is that most of the candidate selection process is done before voters have a voice.
8) One problem with the primary system as it currently exists is: The parties are supposed to be private, independent organizations, not part of our legal apparatus of government. Mixing the party's internal choice of candidates with the state election process is a bad compromise. It violates private associations' right to choose their own candidates and platforms, and gives excess legitimacy to a side of the political process that doesn't deserve it.
9) Another problem with primaries is that everything depends on the states that hold their primaries earliest. States that vote late usually end up with no voice at all, because most of the candidates have conceded by then. This leads to states constantly moving their primary dates backwards to get a more advantageous position, which in turn leads to the whole campaign season becoming more and more prolonged.
10) The candidate that wins a party's primaries is often not the one who would best serve that party in the general election. An ideologue tends to score better within the party than a moderate centrist does (though the current fad is for everybody to try to be centrist, since it worked so well for Clinton).
11) You don't know anything about the individual electors you are voting to send to the electoral college, and in many states they are free to go against what the voters told them to do. This creates an opening for a capricious individual to violate the voting rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens.
12) And finally, the electoral college makes America look stupid to foreigners, especially when we talk about how we're the bastion of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Silmarillion on Oct 30, 2001 17:40:29 GMT -5
Damn thing wouldn't let me post my whole message....told me it was too long. ROFL Anyway......
I don't know the answer, but your suggestion of a proportional electoral vote is a helluva lot better than what we have.
Also, another suggestion: popular approval vote--giving a "yes" vote for every candidate that you can stand, and a "no" vote for all those you can't. In essence, you can vote for as few or as many of the candidates as you wish. The winner is the candidate with the most total "yes" votes.
Advantages: simpler, imposing no extra difficulties with counting or requiring new fancy voting machinery. Split vote problems are eliminated, primaries and two-party constraints are eliminated, everybody can vote for who they really like best, and the one who is most broadly acceptable wins.
|
|
|
Post by Falkirk on Oct 30, 2001 19:41:52 GMT -5
Probably the most equitable way I have heard of doing it is basically making it representative. If, for example, your state has 10 Electoral votes and 60% or your population votes for cantidate A, 30% for cantidate B and 10% for cantidate C then the electoral votes should be divided that way: Cantidate A: 6 Electoral Votes Cantidate B: 3 Electoral Votes Cantidate C: 1 Electoral Vote Actually, the electoral college worked that way when it was first established. I don't know why they changed it.
|
|
|
Post by Aradia on Oct 30, 2001 20:33:18 GMT -5
I've just always been bothered by the idea that a state could have a large influx of people between a census, or maybe a large portion of people leave the state, and this would mean that the electoral vote was inaccurate. Electoral vote is just a silly concept. Sure, the proportion approach of electoral votes is better than the current approach. Woopie. It's still not the ideal solution, because the electoral votes do not always accurately reflect how the majority of folks voted. And sure, the majority of folks might be idiots...but what else is new? We're a democracy, and as HL Menken says, "Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want...and they deserve to get it, good and hard" As far as Elric's proposition that we have to be property owners to vote....I'm completely floored by that one. Just as Diogenes said, we ALL pay taxes for things we don't want anything to do with at some point or another. And we ALL pay taxes, even if we don't want to do so. There's no reason to single out property taxes as the "key" to the one that lets us "deserve" the right to vote. I can't choose not to pay a sales tax....but I can choose not to own property. Or I can be so damned poor that I don't have a choice but to be penniless anyway. Just because I might be a starving college student doesn't mean that I shouldn't vote, nor have the right to do so. Hell, even if I'm a homeless bum, I still think I have a right to vote. It's one of the bonuses of being an American citizen, and I'm happy that they have it set up that way. Yes, Elric, I own a house and a car, so I'm a property owner. I still won't go for your system because it's plain not right. Should we force the vote? Nope. I don't believe in forcing folks to do much of anything, actually. The idea that forcing the vote makes a population more politically aware is silly to me (sorry LB . Ignorant folks with an IQ of 70 aren't any more politically aware because they have to vote. Neither are folks who don't give a rat's ass about the election process but just turn out because they have to...I've had some morons tell me they've voted in ways incomprehensible to me: that they voted for all the women, or they voted for all the men, or they just automatically voted for all from this one particular party they liked without looking into ANY of the candidates. Astoundingly STUPID. I vote sporatically and only when I've looked into the candidates offered and have a genuine preference. Who cares if some folks choose not to vote? I wish I could choose which folks stayed home, actually.....heh And the idea that folks who don't vote don't have a right to whine? Bah, I don't buy that either. Not voting can be a form of protest. It doesn't automatically mean that the person can't voice negative opinions about the elected officials, just like it doesn't mean that the person is then made to say only positive things about the gov't. Sheesh, like the vote is the "money" which you use to "buy" your right to bitch! I don't believe it.
|
|
|
Post by pedro2112 on Oct 30, 2001 22:38:20 GMT -5
Talk about people pissing into a fan. Why even debate something that is physically impossible to change?
|
|
Zoras
Minion
Burn with the Dragon's soul
Posts: 203
|
Post by Zoras on Oct 31, 2001 4:53:05 GMT -5
I don't really have much to add, although I am going to vote in the Singapore elections this Saturday. I, however, have little doubts that the reigning party, the People's Action Party (PAP) will win again, continuing its UNDEFEATED governing of Singapore since independence in 1965!
There was some talk back of giving University graduates TWO votes instead of one, giving them a greater influence in the polls. What are your thoughts on this? Is it a good idea, since the educated would have a better idea of how things should be run? Or is it being unfairly discriminatory to the less well-off who cannot afford to go to University?
|
|
|
Post by Kothoses the Tyrant on Oct 31, 2001 5:09:12 GMT -5
I vote sporatically and only when I've looked into the candidates offered and have a genuine preference. Who cares if some folks choose not to vote? I wish I could choose which folks stayed home, actually.....heh And the idea that folks who don't vote don't have a right to whine? Bah, I don't buy that either. Not voting can be a form of protest. It doesn't automatically mean that the person can't voice negative opinions about the elected officials, just like it doesn't mean that the person is then made to say only positive things about the gov't. Sheesh, like the vote is the "money" which you use to "buy" your right to bitch! I don't believe it. My point Exactly I dont vote because I dont have confidence in any of the canditates who present them selves to Run my country, by not voteing I am stateing that belief, I refuse to choose the lesser of two evils. The fact I dont vote doesnt mean I cant complain if anything it gives me even more incentive because I dont have a pollitical alliance a such, people over here are generally aligned to Liberal Labour or Tory polarisation, I refuse to be Partisan, and that allows me to look at all the candidates on offer with an open mind, and at the moment my mind rejects them all as makeing empty promises they have every intention of keeping but will find them selves un able to. People often suggest I vote for a special interest party, but again I dont do special interes polatics, for some one to get my vote they have to present a Viable practical vision of how my country should be run and how they are going to set about doing it, and no one at present does that, untill some one does, I will continue to shout out in silence against them.
|
|
|
Post by Silmarillion on Oct 31, 2001 5:34:19 GMT -5
Talk about people pissing into a fan. Why even debate something that is physically impossible to change? Impossible to change? Not true.
|
|
|
Post by Aradia on Oct 31, 2001 6:11:52 GMT -5
Talk about people pissing into a fan. Why even debate something that is physically impossible to change? I disagree. In the end, all is flux. Change happens, and the way it happens is for a few folks to disagree with the system and start talking to others who also disagree. Eventually, things DO change. Sometimes it just takes longer than others. NICE mental image, btw. Pissing into a fan....*shudders*
|
|
|
Post by Kothoses the Tyrant on Oct 31, 2001 6:14:45 GMT -5
Talk about people pissing into a fan. Why even debate something that is physically impossible to change? Hmm if the Suffragettes had thought like that, then women still would not be able to vote, if the french had thought like that there would not have been a revolution, if the Yougoslavians had thought like that, then Slobadan Milosavich would still be in power, if the Russians had then they would still be a communism, Look back through history, change and revolution only come about through people striveing to acheive it. Above all Pedro as an American think to your countries Civil war, it was only because people wanted a better more free form of rule that they were able to acheive it, so to say its impossable is in retrospect not only wrong, but slightly hypocritical.
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Oct 31, 2001 7:34:42 GMT -5
This entire discussion basicly is about from which side you're looking at the problem. When you're "forced" to vote, you'll always think about it, even if it's only the minute you're about to vote, and then forget all about politics for the rest of the year. Sure, many votes'll go astray, lost to extremistic factions who proclaim exactly what certain people want to hear, without taking minor nuisances as reality in consideration, others will vote for women on the list, or for someone they know, simply because that's the only familiar name on the list. But some people'll actually start to think once they've made their vote, don't zap the news away when it starts about politics, or even read a newspaper. As such mandatory election will always make people political aware who weren't before (especially youngsters). However, if you start with the idea that your vote doesn't make a difference anyway, you'll enter a vicious circle which'll get you more and more politically ignorant. Which won't change since you don't have to pay any attention to who's in charge if you don't want to. And then you tell your kids "bah, no need to vote, doesn't make a difference", etc.. In the end there'll be but a small part of society left which's actually willing to vote.. and more dangerously, the strong activists. It can eventually suffice for a small party to just be convincing enough to its voters to actually go out and make their votes to get some extraordinary, totally irrepresentative results. Zoras, that idea absolutely sucks! No offense Thousands of people have died to get the electoral system we have now, making such a change would be a giant leap backwards in history and "civilization".
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Oct 31, 2001 9:57:59 GMT -5
Here are a few questions for you, because I am not sure I follow exactly what your point or position here is: If I choose not to own or drive a car, but walk everywhere, should I have to pay taxes for roads? If I am a non-violent pacifist, should I have to pay taxes for the absurdly large military that we insist on maintaining? If not, as a practical matter, how are we to divide up taxes between things that we are willing to pay for as individuals, and those that we are not? Awaiting your answers. <br> Answers: 1.) If you choose to walk instead of drive do you have to pay for roads? Yes. Unless you live in a remote area, without roads where you do your shopping at the local trading post, you will still use roads to "get around". 2.) If you're a non-violent pacifist should you pay for the US's "absurdly large" military? Yes. The military guarantees your freedom to be a non-violent pacifist. They protect you from enemies foreign and domestic that would threaten those very rights. As far as it being "absurdly large" thats a matter of opinion. And should be another thread IMO! 3.) As a practical matter how do we divide taxes between what we want and what we dont want. Simple! The majority of taxation is done on a state versus federal level. If you want pseudo-Socialism, go to "Tax-A-Chussetts!" Returning the power to the states would enable its citizenry have a more direct say in what is and what is not spent, taxed etc. With our freedoms of mobility here, if you dont like the system in the state you live, you can always move to one that meets your tastes.
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Oct 31, 2001 10:07:57 GMT -5
As far as Elric's proposition that we have to be property owners to vote....I'm completely floored by that one. <br> Aradia, you totally missed my point! What I am trying to say is in the example given, is that what isnt right are people levying taxes against property owners to pay for all the services they enjoy while NOT contributing like funds! The root of what I am saying is this. If EVERYONE had to pay an equal percentage for the services they demand from government and not just "shuck" off the bill to property owners, I think you'd definitely see a different outlook on how taxes get passed! To add to Dio's points, I'd also say that if I send my kid to private school, I still pay the taxes to support the local public ones. I own a car, but still pay taxes to subsidize bussing, I pay taxes to a plethora of social services that I never take advantage of etc...etc...etc...
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Oct 31, 2001 10:16:45 GMT -5
I agree that the electoral college is problematic, but it does help one problem: that of recounts. If we just had a nationwide popular vote, what would happen if the result were so close (as it was last year) that the losing candidate challenged the count? We'd have to recount every vote in the country! At least with the electoral college system you can limit it to recounting the votes in a given state. There may be a better way to do it, but I'm not sure what that might be. Also, Falkirk, with the Elec. College you have a more equal representation of your vote counting. In addition a great many of the states have laws that the Electoral Vote is cast in the direction of what the majority population of each state says! I dont have a run down handy, but I know of at least twenty states that have such a law. The Electoral College is a fine system if you live in a state other than New York or California! It gives the smaller states at least "SOME" say as to who is to be President. The College is more or less based on the same principles as the House of Representatives, but I dont hear anyone bitching about the House being an unfair system of Republic government! If you want to get rid of the Electoral College, you must also get rid of the House of Reps IMO. For that matter, if you want everything done by popular vote only, why are we a Republic in the first place? We should be a Democracy! And lets be honest about it, a pure Democracy will never work.
|
|