US Democracy, why I like it

[emprworm]

Edric has been criticizing American democracy for a long time now.

[Dude_Doc]

"pure democracy"

<----------

[Wolf]

Well... I don't think that Gore so much won states solidly, I think his margins of victory were within the 60-51% range in the states that he won. So, if a man won 51% of every state, what would that make him?

[SurlyPIG]

It would more than put him over the top, actually.  You only need to recieve 50% + 1 in the largest eight or nine states to win, as the electoral colleges in those states make up more than 50% of total colleges.

empworm, I'm afraid your beloved American voting system, which is actually an variation of the British "first-past-the-blocks" system, is just as flawed if not more so than popular vote.  One could campaign on the principle that overpopulation is the cause of all crime/poverty/unahppiness/whatever and push for the largest states and win with as little as 25% of Americans voting for him/her.

To me, that would be like finding the fastest sprinter in the world by holding a tournament of heats in which the athletes are eliminated round by round instead of by time (ie you could get Maurice Green and Tim Montgomery in the very first heat, and since one of them has to lose, one of the two fastest men is out in the first round).

To me, a popular vote election is preferrable to regional, winner-take-all electorates/constituencies (after all, are those 100% of Californians and 30% of others worth less than 70% of every other state despite the fact that they are in greater numbers, simply because of where most of them live?) but I won't argue that because there is a better way, though not necessarily for a separate leadership election, but for a congressional/parliamentry election.  Two words; proportional representation.  A fair system of majority rule, without majority tyranny or regional alienation.  And no wasted votes either.

Oh, and BTW, your numbers sound a bit off.

(california population * 1.00) + ((us population - california population) * 0.30) = 103.9 million people

(american population - california population) * 0.70 = 175.7 million people

103.9 million < 175.7 million

[Egeides]

emprworm: You wont suffer alot from a system until you oppose to it. We can judge a system by how it treats its dissenters, espescially comparatively to how it treats its supporters. In the case of W.Bush, I recall reading that dissenters simply there with a negative message on a card were put behind grids "for security reasons" while supporters (the ones doing the same thing) were staying.

[emprworm]

It would more than put him over the top, actually.

[Gobalopper]

emprworm isn't BC working on a new way of voting? I had a law prof mention that they were working on a new system that would be voted on in the next election. Have you heard anything about it?

[danielsh]

Ahh, that's an awesome way of looking at it, Egeides. Remember the name of that program? The Secret Service calls the permitted areas for dissenters---which are anywhere between 20 yards and a mile away---"free speech zones." I was under the impression that the entire country was a free speech zone, but what do I know?

The problem with the American system of government is that it's a representative democracy. A politician only has to appeal to the majority to keep himself in power. That's why so many of our politicians are wishy-washy cowards who make their decisions based upon the polls: keep appealing to the largest block of the American public and you'll keep getting elected. This is very much what Kerry does, and the Democrats think that makes him "electable." I think it makes him weak.

It's too easy for the polity to ignore minorities in America; too easy to sweep them under the metaphorical rug until convenient. (Like President Bush did with homosexuals: ignore gay rights for four years, then when your reelection bid is in trouble because you degraded the nation so severely, start a culture war over it. Or like he did with immigrants: fight against their rights for years, then pass a pseudo-amnesty policy to appease them.) That's why you don't see the polity coming up with progressive ideals to keep us moving forward: progressive change comes from the people.

Furthermore, the electoral college is an antiquated artifact of the federal government. It comes from a time in which people were hardly informed about the issues, had virtually no access to information about candidates, and were not as knowledgeable about the workings of their government. I say it's about time we moved into the future and started letting the people chose their leaders.

[Edric O]

The rule of the minority is NEVER superior to the rule of the majority.

Of course you must have safeguards against a "tyranny of the majority" (aka giving absolute power to the 50% + 1 majority), but this is achieved by giving people certain constitutional rights, not by letting the minority make decisions in the place of the majority!

You say that it's wrong to give the majority the ability to declare black people subhuman. I agree. But it is even worse to give a minority the ability to make the same decision.

The American electoral system is flawed because it allows a random minority to rule over the majority. It says that the voices of 49% of Americans are more important than the voices of the other 51%, which goes against the most basic principles of democracy.

Allow me to explain this flaw in more detail:

Let's say you have a population of 300 people, divided into 100 states of 3 people each. They use the American voting system to elect their leader. Now let's say there are two candidates, Ralph and George. George wins 2 votes in 51 states. Ralph wins all 3 votes in the other 49 states, plus 1 vote in each of the first 51 states. So the final results are:

George: 51 states

Ralph: 49 states

According to the American system, George won the elections. But let's count the actual number of votes each candidate got:

George: 2 x 51 = 102 votes

Ralph: 3 x 49 + 1 x 51 = 198 votes

Ralph didn't just win the popular vote, he won almost a 2/3 majority! And yet according to the American system, George gets to be President.

See the problem?

And that's not the only issue with your system. There is also the question of how many states you should have. In other words, if you want to cut the country into pieces called "states", at which point do you stop cutting?

Let's take your example with the EU and France. You say that it's unfair to give France a number of votes according to its population, because then the French could attract more people (and ruin their economy in the process, but you seem to ignore that) in order to get more votes in the EU. But why do you limit this policy at country level? By your logic, in the elections for the French president, Paris shouldn't get a number of votes according to its population, because it would be unfair to smaller cities! And within Paris, bigger neighborhoods shouldn't get more votes, because it would be unfair to the smaller neighborhoods! And within neighborhoods, more populated streets shouldn't get more votes than less populated streets... and so it goes on and on.

Where do you stop on this slippery slope? Why is France a single state instead of a multitude of states?

The fact is that this entire system of cutting up a country into "states" for electoral purposes is arbitrary, and it allows a tiny minority (almost 1/3) to dictate its wishes to the overwhelming majority (almost 2/3), as I explained further above.

[Inoculator9]

Guarding against mob rule does not automatically rule out popular otes for president, and it shouldn't. It's a damn important thing, and if the candidate the most people want isn't in the office, than something's wrong.

under a pure democracy, Gore would win.  But this would be aggregious and beyond absurd!!  No state...not california...not New York...NONE...should have the power to determine the destiny of all the others!

The problem with this is, these are still American people, with a right to fair representation and a right to democratically elect a president, which they have been denied. Especially considering there are still allegations of election fraud against Bush in key states, so I'm not entirely convinced he did win some of his states.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Guarding against mob rule does not automatically rule out popular otes for president, and it shouldn't. It's a damn important thing, and if the candidate the most people want isn't in the office, than something's wrong.

The problem with this is, these are still American people, with a right to fair representation and a right to democratically elect a president, which they have been denied. Especially considering there are still allegations of election fraud against Bush in key states, so I'm not entirely convinced he did win some of his states.

*Sigh* ....

[Edric O]

4.) Read my post above ^

[GUNWOUNDS]

4.) Read my post above ^

the problem with your post is that the US is so large that people begin to have different cultures...

you cant just say "you are all american"

The SOUTHERN Culture is  much different from the NORTHERN Culture and they are both different from the WESTERN Culture.

Hell in the south.... we eat grits and nobody in the north even knows what that is ...

Your example with dividing France up into states is absurd because it is so small...

[Inoculator9]

1.) Gore only wanted the democrat ballots recounted.. not the republican.... (whats he trying to pull)

Not talking about Gore. I'm talking about allegations from within the Florida State Government.

2.) Gore's

[GUNWOUNDS]

If we'd all just been Americans there probably wouldn't have been a civil war. And you certainly damn can say we're all American, because it's true. We all have the same rights.

you know i was referring to cultural differences .... nothing to do with "rights"

[VigilVirus]

What country doesn't have different ethnic groups composing it? You still refer to them as "the french" or "the british". Why do you not expect for people to refer to US residents as "the americans"?

[Inoculator9]

Gunwounds... you missed out on a big chunk of my post, I'd like my argument time :P

And cultural differences between states consist of food preferences, accents, and traditions that carry over from the particular nationality that state is mostly descended from. Rights are what matters, because cultural differences should play no part in a vote, since otherwise you'd be saying that racist candidates are common place? Why should a state that enjoys crawfish, spicy foods, and big parties feel any differently about a candidate than people that eat pizza, bagels, and revolve around a business culture? It's up to the mind of the individual.

[GUNWOUNDS]

What country doesn't have different ethnic groups composing it? You still refer to them as "the french" or "the british". Why do you not expect for people to refer to US residents as "the americans"?

Edrico said it was ok for other parts of the Nation to speak for other parts... i just know that Texas doesnt want Florida speaking for them... if you get what i mean..

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gunwounds... you missed out on a big chunk of my post, I'd like my argument time :P

And cultural differences between states consist of food preferences, accents, and traditions that carry over from the particular nationality that state is mostly descended from. Rights are what matters, because cultural differences should play no part in a vote, since otherwise you'd be saying that racist candidates are common place? Why should a state that enjoys crawfish, spicy foods, and big parties feel any differently about a candidate than people that eat pizza, bagels, and revolve around a business culture? It's up to the mind of the individual.

OMG yes culture does matter.... why do you think Hillary CLinton tried to "act like she was from NYC" and that she was a "NYC kinda gal"

[Inoculator9]

OMG yes culture does matter.... why do you think Hillary CLinton tried to "act like she was from NYC" and that she was a "NYC kinda gal" during the senate race .. cause they wouldnt vote for her otherwise...

Of course it matters when campaigning, but that fact is in no way a supporting argument against using a pure democratic popular vote as the means of electing a president.

Hilary Clinton had to act like she was from New York, because it's the biggest city in the country, second or third in the world, and you have to cater to the whims of people that want to know you know who they are. A senate race however, is far different from a presidential or even governor race. My state has always had democratic senators and a good many Republican governors at the same time.

Jesse Helms was notably racist, yes, and that obviously would appeal to the people of the time. Southern racism has lasted well into the 20th century, and I'd bet there are still areas that feel very strongly about it... KKK gatherings and what not.

[Edric O]

the problem with your post is that the US is so large that people begin to have different cultures...

And the smaller cultures should have the right to tell the larger cultures what to do?

Your example with dividing France up into states is absurd because it is so small...

France actually has a very large population, as countries go. About 50 million people.

And since "culture" can't be measured, any small group can demand special treatment because they believe they have a different "culture" than their neighbors. ::)

[Inoculator9]

And since "culture" can't be measured, any small group can demand special treatment because they believe they have a different "culture" than their neighbors.

Exactly. But I seriously think the US electorate should cater specifically to the Nazi Soccer Mom voting bloc :P

[Anathema]

Suppose:

-If group A disagrees with group B about 80% of all thinkable issues (meaning, A+B is not a homogeneous group)

-Groups A and B pretty much live in their own territories (are geographicly isolatable)

-Group A is significantly smaller in numbers then group B

then it wouldn't be reasonable to lump in group A with group B and let them vote directly about anything. Reasonable would be to either make A and B seperate states or create some sort of federal district system.

[Edric O]

It would be reasonable to lump in group A with group B and let them vote directly about anything that concerns them both. But one group should not be able to vote on matters that only concern the other group.

In other words, the two groups should form two separate autonomous districts, each with its own local government, but they should be lumped together when they vote on issues that concern the entire nation.

[Wolf]

Inoc, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement about media bias. Many teachers of government & law that I have had (who were, incidentially, on the left-er side of the political spectrum) admit, and in fact teach from the book, that the American media often has a leftward leaning view of politics, however, most often remains in a centrist point of view. Rarely does it lean right.

I am sorry if you disagree, there is nothing I have to argue this except to say that, having lived in the United States for quite some time, and having been taught, and having seen that this is so.

**************

Furthermore, the electoral system is easy to reform. Rather than give a candidate all electoral votes in a state, just give him the number of votes proportional to the votes he received. You might say, "Well, then, why not just nuke the electoral college?". In response, I would have to say that, in order to take into account margins of error, a conversion of votes would probably more accurately draw the line between who won and who lost, and be a logical place to "draw the line".