OT - VOTE!!! - (US Citizens)

[Storm Raven]

The problem with the electoral college (well, one of them) is that presidential candidates DON'T pay much attention to New York. Everyone knows that New York is gonna vote Democrat; why should they campaign there? In fact, there's no real reason to campaign in any state in which a solid majority of people vote for one party or the other.

However, the evidence is that the large States believe they benefit from the system as it is. How can you tell? Because the nature of how a State apportions it's electoral votes is entirely up to the State itself. A State does not have to adopt a winner take all system for their electoral votes, a few States use other systems (I think Maine and Montana have a different system, but I could be remembering which ones are different incorrectly).

So, the fact that New York's electoral votes go in a big chunk to the Democratic Party is fine with the New York legislature, who presumably represent the will of the New York electorate on the matter.

 

[drothgery]

I have heard, recently proposed, a voting option to allow voters to vote for a 3rd party candidate without throwing their vote away. It goes something like this (and somebody PLEASE correct the wrong bits in this. I know I don't have it entirely right):
You get to pick two candidates on the form, a first choice and a second choice. After the votes are counted, if your first choice did not do very well (in the top 2 I believe) your vote is automatically changed to your second choice. The votes are re-counted, and results are determined normally.

So, say you like the Greens, but don't want the Republicans to benefit from you voting 3rd party. You vote 1st choice Green candidate, 2nd choice Democratic candidate. When the Greens only secure 2% of the election, your vote is shifted to Democrat. No harm done.

The benefit to this is that people who want 3rd parties to represent them will not be afraid to vote with their conscience, and 3rd parties will get more than fractional amounts of the vote.

What do you all think of this concept?

The whole point of a republican (small r) government is to push extremist views to the margins of politics. I don't like systems that try to increase the influence of minor parties.

 

[drothgery]

However, the evidence is that the large States believe they benefit from the system as it is. How can you tell? Because the nature of how a State apportions it's electoral votes is entirely up to the State itself. A State does not have to adopt a winner take all system for their electoral votes, a few States use other systems (I think Maine and Montana have a different system, but I could be remembering which ones are different incorrectly).

Maine and Nebraska, actually. They chose electors by congressional district, with two going to whoever wins the whole state; neither has split their electoral slate recently, though. In 2000, Maine came very close to sending 1 Bush elector; Nebraska came within a few percent of sending 1 Gore elector.

 

[Piratecat]

Are you specifically worried about me, or are you just throwing your weight behind Henry's prior warning?

Whoops! I missed Henry's warnings, and my comment wasn't needed. Sorry 'bout that.

And Wulf, I may be worried about you, but it has everything to do with Bad Axe making gnomes cool, and nothing to do with politics.

 

[kenjib]

Re: Re: Re: Rights, voting, and off-year elections

Dead right, Rob. education is the key, and it shows in voter turnouts.

I think that's a bit of an idealistic problem to tackle though. I think the key is more candidate access rather than wishing that the population would become more motivated, because access is easier to address. For instance, in 2000 Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, and other small party candidates were not in the debates. They were very rarely in the media. They simply don't have access to the electoral machine. It's less likely for voters to really know much about these candidates. Ross Perot, on the other hand, was able to get on the radar dramatically some years back as an independent because he had the cash to bankroll the compaign without party support. The electoral machine runs on money. Who ever raises the most money wins the game, because they control access to information. Election is a media war.

I think that breaking open the two party system depends a lot on breaking the system whereby people buy elections. This would also reduce corruption in government and the undue influence of corporate power and special interests. Controlling information is the great power broker of our age. Current proposals for campaign finance reform don't address this problem though, as they try to limit contributions, which helps with corruption to some extent, but does not address the fundamental problem of money=access, and shifts the demographic of who has the money (therefore access) toward the Ross Perots of the world.

On the electoral college, I agree with these statements:

The point here is that the electoral college protects certain minorities that were of interest at the time it was created. However, it is not a flexible enough system to protect other minorities that are of interest now or that may become of interest in the future.

This means that if, for example, Delaware might go Republican or Democrat based on the votes of 10,000 people, those 10,000 will find their issues addressed a lot more heavily than the 10,000,000 people (or however many) that live in New York. And those people will be focus-grouped to death.

It doesn't really encourage a presidential candidate to get broad support from a disparate geographic area (which seems irrelevant to me anyway -- prairies and mountains don't vote, people do). Instead, it encourages them to focus on a narrow smattering of voters.

The electoral system reminds me of the tax system. People get disproportionate benefit from various loopholes that were not really designed to benefit those people. It's clumsy, inefficient, and doesn't accomplish what it is supposed to. The arguments for the electoral system are mostly ideological, whereas when you get down to the nuts and bolts of how it actually works in the real world it really starts to smell kinda bad.

 

[apsuman]

Then the Bundestag votes on it, the German president (yes, we have one of those, too - though they are usually content to play "moral authority" and only rarely involve themselves into daily politics) gives it his seal of approval, and the Kanzler, or chancellor (the German head of government - as opposed to the head of state, which is the German president) can get to work.

Thanks for the info.

I have a question. I have tried (not recently) to find an answer to this question. What is the difference between the head of government and the head of state?

In the US, the President is both. In the UK, the Queen is the head of state and the PM is the head of government, right?

Does a head of state do anything?

Also, I have an operational question: in the US, when a new president is sworn in (usually from election but from assassination, resignation etc.) she/he gets to appoint a whole new group of people to high office that are going to implement the president's vision. So, every president gets to appoint a slew of new people. This happens even if the new president is of the same party as the old president. Now while much of the government's work is predetermined (social security, welfare, forrest policy, etc.) the new people still have an enormous impact on operations.

(now my question) So, in parliamentary governments where a failed vote results in a dissolved government and new elections or in a new coalition, how does the rapidly shifting (yearly?) of government ministers effect government policy?

I read that after his re-election the German PM said that his new (coalition) government was so weak that he thought he would have to dissolve it in a year and have new elections. (As an American I can not understand that he was so unconcerned about this.) So the PM gets to appoint a new Foreign Minister from a different party, but he is only going to have the job for 9 months. How much impact can the Foreign Minister have on governemtn policy? Does he do something other than be our equivalent Secretary of State?

g!

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights, voting, and off-year elections

When you get down to the nuts and bolts of how it actually works in the real world it really starts to smell kinda bad.

That's the electoral college? Thank God -- I thought it was me!

Daniel

 

[Balgus]

storm raven:
Every State has a number of electors equal to the number of representatives it has in the overall Congress. Therefore, every State has two electoral votes for its Senators (regardless of population), and a number of additional electoral votes equal to the number of members of the House of Representatives it is entitled to.

But this isn't exactly fair either to the states with fast growing populations. The reason that The House has had 435 representatives for the last 100 years or so is because the house is at full capacity, and cannot fit anymore chairs in without remodeling. The gov't doesn't see it fit to tear down a wall and build a bigger room so they have been readjusting boundaries and county lines to fit.

Kinda sad, isn't?

edit:# of rep in house and years

 

[Paradigm]

The problem with the electoral college (well, one of them) is that presidential candidates DON'T pay much attention to New York. Everyone knows that New York is gonna vote Democrat; why should they campaign there? In fact, there's no real reason to campaign in any state in which a solid majority of people vote for one party or the other.

One could argue that the Democratic party holds certain values in their platform because of the base of the support of New York and California and therefore the rights and interests of the New Yorkers is accounted for long before anyone goes to the polls, precisely because of the electoral college.



I think the no politics rule should come back down here. This discussion is close to going south. Not because anyone has said anything out of line as of yet, but because we Americans are really vocal about our institutions.

 

[apsuman]

The gov't doesn't see it fit to tear down a wall and build a bigger room so they have been readjusting boundaries and county lines to fit.

Kinda sad, isn't?

How many Representatives do you think would be a good number?


g!