OT - VOTE!!! - (US Citizens)

[Wulf Ratbane]

Does anybody know the last time:

a) the President's party controlled both houses and,

b) Republicans controlled both the Presidency and the Congress?


Wulf

 

[Henry]

Where it gets interesting is when you look at racial demographics. Then you realize that blacks and hispanics are concentrated in the more populous states. This means the average hispanic or black is voting for a smaller chunk of an electoral college vote than the average white.

I think the point to be made there is not to look so much at the factor of race, as the factor of locality - what the electoral college DOES do over a popular vote is ensure that a candidate is more widely accepted geographically than popularly. Regional needs for each part of the U.S., because of its enormous size and diversity, are different from point to point. The specific needs of african-americans in the Chicago area, for example, are different than the needs for hispanics, or , african-americans, or caucasians in Florida. Even if the electoral college represented one vote per state, rather than a proportional amount, the election results favor the nation as a whole rather than population centers.

Voting from state to state in the U.S. mirrors voting in Europe from country to country, more than the US voting mirrors the leadership choice from one smaller country. Personally, I would want the choice to be favorable over the entire region, instead of just one small but densely packed area. The concerns of the rural voter do not match the concerns of an urban voter, and vice versa.

Hypothetical situation: Every nation of Europe, from Iceland to the Ukraine, from Finland to Italy, has united to form a single government. The time comes to pick a method of choosing leaders. How does one stage it so that one nation is not left out from the voting process because it does not have the same population as the larger centers or groups of people?

But that's my argument for the electoral college. Others' attitudes will vary.

 

[Henry]

Does anybody know the last time:

a) the President's party controlled both houses and,

b) Republicans controlled both the Presidency and the Congress?


Wulf

2000.

The republicans won the house and senate, and Bush was elected. This situation only lasted for approximately one month. In early January. Former Senate Republican John(?) Jeffords changed his party affiliation from Republican to independent, and as a result the Democrats gained control of the senate by one vote. The Republicans in theory held Congress until that point, even though there was never even a single house vote cast before the shift.

Now, the Republicans have kept the House, and regained control of the Senate.

Currently the spread in the Senate is something like 47 to 51, with a couple of independents in the mix. Unless something like 2 or three Republicans change affiliations, the situation won't be repeated.

 

[Henry]

One last reply:

I recognize this to be a tightrope thread, even though poignant currently. I wanted to say I appreciate everyone keeping candidate and party observations out of it, and continue to discuss the relevant issues. If it gets the least bit nasty, it must be shut down. But I hope it stays civil, for as long as it runs.

Thanks, all.

Henry

 

[Greatwyrm]

Does anybody know the last time:

a) the President's party controlled both houses and,

b) Republicans controlled both the Presidency and the Congress?


Wulf

a) I believe this was the first few years of Clinton's presidency. I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure.

b) About a year ago. Until Jim Jeffords (an Independant Sentator from Vermont, I belive) decided to vote with the Democrats, the Republican party held the Presidency, House of Representatives, and Senate.

Before the mid 90's, the last time the Republicans held the House of Representatives was in the 50's, IIRC. The mid-term election of '94 was the first time the Republicans won the House in roughly 40 years.

 

[Maraxle]

Voting from state to state in the U.S. mirrors voting in Europe from country to country, more than the US voting mirrors the leadership choice from one smaller country. Personally, I would want the choice to be favorable over the entire region, instead of just one small but densely packed area. The concerns of the rural voter do not match the concerns of an urban voter, and vice versa.

Hypothetical situation: Every nation of Europe, from Iceland to the Ukraine, from Finland to Italy, has united to form a single government. The time comes to pick a method of choosing leaders. How does one stage it so that one nation is not left out from the voting process because it does not have the same population as the larger centers or groups of people?

But that's my argument for the electoral college. Others' attitudes will vary.

Since the number of electors a state gets is based on its population, the electoral college solves nothing. If you had a state with a high enough population to have over half of the electors, that state would choose the president every time.

 

[ichabod]

I think the point to be made there is not to look so much at the factor of race, as the factor of locality

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.

 

[ichabod]

Since the number of electors a state gets is based on its population, the electoral college solves nothing. If you had a state with a high enough population to have over half of the electors, that state would choose the president every time.

Of course, that would require one state having about 75% of the total population in it. As of 1990 the biggest state had a little over 12%.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Speaking of electoral systems, I once wrote up a short description of the German one for my home page (yes, there is more to it than just my Urbis material... ) shortly before the recent German federal elections:

"Every voter, which is every German citizen of age 18 and older (no, you don't have to register to vote here, and being an ex-felon doesn't take your right to vote away, either) gets two votes. The first one is the Erststimme, or primary vote. With this, the voter can choose one of the candidates for the local voting district. The candidate with the most votes gets into the German parliament, or Bundestag (with certain exceptions... more on those later).
The Zweitstimme, or secondary vote, is actually more important. This vote goes to a specific party. If only directly elected candidates from the electoral districts could go to the Bundestag, only the biggest parties could get into the Bundestag at all (which is basically what happens in the USA and in the UK). But with the secondary votes the parties can get additional representatives from their party lists into the Bundestag until their percentage of representatives matches the percentage of their secondary votes. In other words, if a party gets roughly 8% of the votes, it will get roughly 8% of all seats in the Bundestag. (There are some arcane formulas for determining the exact number of seats, but that's the general principle...)
Not every party can get into the Bundestag, however. In the Weimar Republic, every 60,000 votes translated into one seat in the Reichstag - and predictably, the Reichstag was so full of different parties and splinter groups that it became almost impossible to form a stable government - yet another reason why that first experiment in German democracy failed so badly.
Today, a party can only get into the Bundestag if it gets at least 5% of all secondary votes, or at directly elected candidates from at least three voting districts. This means that the number of parties that can get into the Bundestag is fairly limited - unlike in Italy, where forming governments remains an art form of its own.
After the votes have been counted and the seats in the Bundestag have been distributed, someone needs to form a government. This government needs the approval of the majority of representatives in the Bundestag. In practice, this usually means that two parties that aren't too hostile to each other and have the majority of seats hammer out a coalition and distribute the various government departments among each other. 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.

Incidentally, readers from Florida might be interested to hear that you vote here by putting an "x" on a nationally standardized sheet of paper with the list of candidates and list of parties. The votes are then counted in the same building where the voting took place, under scrutiny of representatives from all parties that bother to send one - and nobody leaves the building until they can agree on the vote count (this is rarely later than three hours after the voting booths are closed). Mail-in votes are counted at the same time - they have to be sent in per mail in time for this."

Hope that this is interesting for your discussion...

 

[Maraxle]

That's actually illegal here in Vermont. I do not know offhand if the miscast vote would count, or if the elector's vote would be recast properly, or what happens if an elector chooses to break this law, but it's illegal. So here, at least, they -do- have to vote the same way as the popular vote indicates. I'm given to understand, though I don't have any data for this offhand (maybe I can find some) that roughly half of the states have similar laws.

26 of the states have such laws. However, nothing can be done to recast the vote. Once it's done, it's done. Most of the states impose a fine, with a few considering it a misdemeanor, and fewer still classifying it as a 4th degree felony.