American Elections

[Knight Theamion]

Can someone explain the function of the electoral college for me? Or is it just some other American invention to de-regulate elections?

[Proteus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

(Sorry - I'm in a "linking to Wikipedia" mood today.)

[Knight Theamion]

So if you have Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North-Dakota, South-Dakota, West-Virginia en Wyoming with 8.5 mill inhabitants and New Jersey with 8.5 mill you'd think that if you won either one of them that you get as many votes eh?

The truth is a bit different. The aforementioned smaller Bush states give you 29 votes, while New Jersey only gives you 15.
I think it is rather strange that if GWB gets voted into office again that he will have less votes on the whole.

[Proteus]

I'd love for Kerry to win but Bush to get the popular vote. I'd laugh for a month.

[acropolis]

Last election the talk of the day was about how Gore might win the electoral vote but lose the popular.

Fact is, 'publicans have a built in ~20 electoral vote advantage, so it is far more likely that dems win popular and lose electoral (again) than the other way around.

It would be very difficult for George to lose the election if he gets the popular, though if polls mean anything it might happen, given Bush leading by landslide proportions nationally and losing in about 290 electoral votes worth of states.


Anyway, four years ago today Gallup had Bush up 52-39 nationally (October 26, 2000), so the "assuming polls mean anything (especially the incredibly shite gallup)" clause is significant,

and i really would put oodles of cash against it happening.

[Knight Theamion]

so they are going to change the system now?

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

so they are going to change the system now?

no. everybody (~55-60%) wants to change the system, but

A) The system keeps republicans in power
B) The republicans are in power

so

no.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

So if you have Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North-Dakota, South-Dakota, West-Virginia en Wyoming with 8.5 mill inhabitants and New Jersey with 8.5 mill you'd think that if you won either one of them that you get as many votes eh?

The truth is a bit different. The aforementioned smaller Bush states give you 29 votes, while New Jersey only gives you 15.
I think it is rather strange that if GWB gets voted into office again that he will have less votes on the whole.

It's because a state's number of representatives in the Electoral College is determined by its number of people in Congress.

Alaska has 1 Representative and 2 Senators = 3
New Jersy has 13 Representatives and 2 Senators = 15

As a result, the Electoral College is biased towards the smaller states, but Congress can virtually sideline the smaller states when passing things (esp. the House of Representatives)

[themast]

What i cant understand is that the BBC covers more of the US election than our own UK election
and i am sick of it getting up in the morning turning on the TV and there talking about the US elections. No offfence to any americans

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by themast

What i cant understand is that the BBC covers more of the US election than our own UK election
and i am sick of it getting up in the morning turning on the TV and there talking about the US elections. No offfence to any americans

To be fair to the BBC (which is nice of me because I hate them), the US elections are happening in about a week whilst ours aren't until next year.

[Sunday8pm]

Also it would help if the south could ****ing get over the civil war and stop identifying the democrats as the North (especially considering as Lincoln was republican) and hence voting Republican out of spite.

[Tactitus]

I don't have a major problem with the Electoral College. It makes sense in the context of a Federal system and I wouldn't even want to contemplate a nationwide recount. :/

There is some sentiment to move away from the winner-take-all assignment of state electoral votes (currently only two states can split their electoral votes). Colorado has as a referendum this election to allow their state's electoral votes to be split amongst multiple candidates.

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Also it would help if the south could ****ing get over the civil war and stop identifying the democrats as the North (especially considering as Lincoln was republican) and hence voting Republican out of spite.

What??? The South was solidly Democratic for >100 years and voted against Republicans out of spite.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Also it would help if the south could ****ing get over the civil war and stop identifying the democrats as the North (especially considering as Lincoln was republican) and hence voting Republican out of spite.

Once again Sunday opens his mouth and speaks before he 'thinks'

The South voted Democrat for 100 years until President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Being segregationists, they switched away from the Democrats and now vote (fairly) solidly Republican.

Oh, and in the Civil War, the Republicans were the North.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by acropolis

no. everybody (~55-60%) wants to change the system, but

A) The system keeps republicans in power
B) The republicans are in power

so

no.

To be fair, the Democrats didn't change the system when they were in power either. At various times in the past 50 years members of both parties, separately and together, have sponsored Amendments to reform or eliminate the Electoral College.

The problem has little to do with partisanship and everything to do with representation. The current system grants proportionally more electoral weight to small states. Any change requires a Constitutional Amendment which, in turn, requires ratification by at least 3/4ths (34) of the states. Since more than 1/4th of the states are small (by whatever measure you care to use) and since they are unlikely to vote for any Amendment which would reduce their political influence, any such Amendment will likely fail (assuming it can even get through Congress, which has an even greater bias towards small states in the form of the Senate).

[Nusselt]

americas too complicated, explain just so i know and don't appear an idiot in future what the feck the difference between a senator/governor/representative/congressman etc is

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

americas too complicated, explain just so i know and don't appear an idiot in future what the feck the difference between a senator/governor/representative/congressman etc is

From what I can remember, there are three seats of power in the American federal government, neatly divided as the trias politica requires.

The president, holding the Executive power, Congress, holding the Legislative power, and the Supreme Court, holding the Judicial power. Through a system of so-called checks & balances, they each have some form of power over the other so that none of them can attain sole leadership.

Congress consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a governor is basically the president of a single state.

Any Americans or those with better working knowledge, feel free to expand and/or correct. I'm doing this out of my head, as I don't have the time or will to do some extensive Googling research right now

Edit: Fixed my swappage of Congress and Senate after Tactitus' post.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

americas too complicated, explain just so i know and don't appear an idiot in future what the feck the difference between a senator/governor/representative/congressman etc is

It's confusing because most offices are duplicated at the state and federal level.

Governor = Chief executive of a state.
President = Chief executive of the federal government.
House of Representatives = Lower house of a state or the federal government; membership apportioned by population (that is, each Representative represents approximately the same number of people).
Senate = Upper house of a state or federal government (at the federal level, membership is apportioned by state; that is, each state gets two Senators).
Congress = House of Representatives + Senate; that is, the legislative branch of the federal government.
Congressman/-woman/-person = Member of the federal legislature; typically the House of Representatives but also occasionally the Senate.
Senator = Member of the federal Senate.
State Senator = Member of a state Senate.
Representative = Member of the federal House of Representatives.
State Representative = Member of a state House of Representatives.

[NEWSBOT3]

whoever gets in wil be a tosser in 6 months time.

shrug.

[wu_trax]

shouldnt all votes be worth the same, no matter where you live? anything else doesnt look really democratic to me. you still have the senat to over-represent the smaller states.
then there is this stupid the winner-takes-it-all-system in some (most?) states, which makes things even worse.

but i dont live there, so i dont really care.if bush wins its gonna be good for europe, if kerry wins its going to be good for the world.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I don't have a major problem with the Electoral College. It makes sense in the context of a Federal system and I wouldn't even want to contemplate a nationwide recount. :/

There is some sentiment to move away from the winner-take-all assignment of state electoral votes (currently only two states can split their electoral votes). Colorado has as a referendum this election to allow their state's electoral votes to be split amongst multiple candidates.
What??? The South was solidly Democratic for >100 years and voted against Republicans out of spite.

I could swear most of the south is republican.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

shouldnt all votes be worth the same, no matter where you live?

Probably. But then a number of smaller states wouldn't have ratified the Constitution and we wouldn't have a government to criticize. :/

The problem is that with a federal government where representation is based solely on population, the government is controlled by the largest states. Small states have little influence; so what incentive do they have to join such a system? Surely you see the same issue with the EU?

The US Constitution is a compromise between equal representation of the people and equal representation of the states. Whether it's a successful compromise or not is left as an exercise for the reader.

anything else doesnt look really democratic to me. you still have the senat to over-represent the smaller states.

The small-state bias of the Senate addresses only one branch of the government. The small states also wanted more influence in the selection of the executive branch of the government (they still don't have much influence).

then there is this stupid the winner-takes-it-all-system in some (most?) states, which makes things even worse.

Somewhat, although the experience of those states which can split their votes (or used to) suggests that it didn't happen as much as you might think.

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

I could swear most of the south is republican.

It is now, at least at the national level. But for 100 years after the civil war it was solidly Democratic.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Probably. But then a number of smaller states wouldn't have ratified the Constitution and we wouldn't have a government to criticize. :/

that would be too bad

The problem is that with a federal government where representation is based solely on population, the government is controlled by the largest states. Small states have little influence; so what incentive do they have to join such a system?

but in a federal system that central goverment shouldnt have much of a say in state matters anyway

Surely you see the same issue with the EU?

more or less, but the eu doesnt have much of a goverment. so far most things are decided by the national goverments, and, as if that wouldnt be bad enough, for most 100% agreement is needed.

The US Constitution is a compromise between equal representation of the people and equal representation of the states. Whether it's a successful compromise or not is left as an exercise for the reader.

yet i dont see how this is democratic. its the people who should decide.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

but in a federal system that central goverment shouldnt have much of a say in state matters anyway

Heh. Has that ever been true?

Even with a bare-bones federal government, you still have federal issues like war, taxes, tariffs, etc which can effect some states more than others. And of course these days federal governments dictate everything from land management to highway speed limits.

yet i dont see how this is democratic. its the people who should decide.

Which people? Not everyone gets to vote and not everyone chooses to vote. All democracies are flawed to some extent.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

To be fair, the Democrats didn't change the system when they were in power either. At various times in the past 50 years members of both parties, separately and together, have sponsored Amendments to reform or eliminate the Electoral College.

The problem has little to do with partisanship and everything to do with representation. The current system grants proportionally more electoral weight to small states. Any change requires a Constitutional Amendment which, in turn, requires ratification by at least 3/4ths (34) of the states. Since more than 1/4th of the states are small (by whatever measure you care to use) and since they are unlikely to vote for any Amendment which would reduce their political influence, any such Amendment will likely fail (assuming it can even get through Congress, which has an even greater bias towards small states in the form of the Senate).

true. well then,
A) the people in power don't want it to happen
B) if they did, it wouldn't make a difference

better?

the proposal i have heard being floated involves having the DC electorate moved in to be a part of maryland, to screw dems out of those two 'ghost senator' votes. It "makes sense" because the current situation is so "biased towards democrats."

[JonnyBGood]

I actually found this mildly interesting



Mainly due to the fact it had pictures :)))

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I actually found this mildly interesting



Mainly due to the fact it had pictures ))

I prefer http://www.electoral-vote.com/ and especially their cartograms.

Btw, the Beeb's explanation of how Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes is wrong.

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Btw, the Beeb's explanation of how Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes is wrong.

email em and tell em, they also show massachusetts voted rep in '80 but shoe carter with a higher percentage

thanks for the explanation regarding the government in britain the rought equivalent would be

Governor = First minister of scotland/wales NI when it works
President = Liz Regina (sounds like vagina!)
Prime minister = the man with power
House of Representatives = House of commons
Senate = House of lords, fck only knows how they get there
Congress = parliament (commons + lords)
Congressman/-woman/-person = MP
Senator = Lord
State Senator = no such thing as far as i know
Representative = MP
State Representative = MSP etc

then theres the european elections where MEPs are elected to go to the continent and do something (don't know what)

btw regarding JBGs link whats up with minnesota?, they seem to have voted democrats until nixon, then in a wtf have we done moment voted democrat ever since. Did nixon get such a landslide because the opposition was crap?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

Governor = First minister of scotland/wales NI when it works

We don't really have the equivalent of State Governors in the UK. The closest thing we have would probably be elected mayors, like Ken Livingston.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Heh. Has that ever been true?

Even with a bare-bones federal government, you still have federal issues like war, taxes, tariffs, etc which can effect some states more than others.

yes, probably everything has 'some' influence on the state level, but for some issues that can be ignored because its only a minor influence or it will lead to wrong actions if you value one state higher than the other.
take bushs stupid steel tarrifs for example. bush safed a few companies and by doing so made a whole lot of companies who relied on that steel less competative. (and if those steel companies have recovered today, its only because the chinese are buying all steel they can get and prices rise all the time)
if you forget about this whole concept of 50 (+x, im not sure how many states there are) single votes and have one direct vote instead, dont you think people will concentrate more on the federal issues than on the local ones?
and then there is your culture. the us has a far more homogenous population than the eu, so it should be a lot easier to value every citzen the same.

And of course these days federal governments dictate everything from land management to highway speed limits.

then maybe you should rethink the whole idea of a federal state. if you dont take care youll end up like germany. we have some pretty much messed up combination of federalism and centralism. the states can decide much on their own, but have the power to block almost everything the federal goverment does. in the end noone can decide anything.

Which people? Not everyone gets to vote and not everyone chooses to vote. All democracies are flawed to some extent.

everyone has to be allowed to vote. i cant understand how you could not let prisoners or exprisoners vote (in florida or whereever it was). if they are citzens of your country they should have a say about who runs it, no matter what they did.
if anyone chooses not to vote thats their own problem, but they had the chance.
and yes, there are some flaws in any system, but you can at least try to keep them as little as possible.

[wu_trax]

oh, and whats it with this registration to vote? why dont you people just use id-cards? if i want to vote ill just go there, put my id-card on the table and vote, no extra-effort required.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

oh, and whats it with this registration to vote? why dont you people just use id-cards? if i want to vote ill just go there, put my id-card on the table and vote, no extra-effort required.

What if you wanted to vote against ID cards?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

btw regarding JBGs link whats up with minnesota?, they seem to have voted democrats until nixon, then in a wtf have we done moment voted democrat ever since. Did nixon get such a landslide because the opposition was crap?

Pretty much. George McGovern was a horrible candidate (almost as bad as Walter Mondale).

Minnesota voters in Presidental elections were influenced by two Minnesota politicians: Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale.

Hubert Humphrey was Johnson's Vice President and was on the ticket in '64 (won). He then ran for President in '68 (lost). Walter Mondale was Carter's Vice President and was on the ticket in '76 (won) and '80 (lost). He then ran for President in '84 (lost). So in every election from 1968 to 1984 there was a Minnesota Democrat running either for President or Vice President--except in 1972 and Nixon carried the state.

Once you subtract the "native son" factor, Minnesota wasn't quite so rabidly Democratic as it looks. And now, due to the miracle of Changing Demographics[tm], Minnesota is considered a "swing state;" that is, it could go either way.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Pretty much. George McGovern was a horrible candidate (almost as bad as Walter Mondale).

What exactly was wrong with Mondale? I've heard him being rolled out as a terrible candidate before, but I have no idea why his defeat was so enormous, and I can't locate any decent information on him.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

"When he made his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, Mondale said: "Let's tell the truth. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did." Although he intended this to demonstrate that he was honest while Reagan was hypocritical, it was widely remembered as simply a campaign pledge to raise taxes, and it hurt him in the end. In 1986, Reagan did sign into law a bill that raised taxes for corporations, but at the same time cut taxes further for individual taxpayers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale

Rookie mistake.

Yeah, I saw that, but surely he can't have lost in such an enormous landslide simply because of that comment?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

yes, probably everything has 'some' influence on the state level, but for some issues that can be ignored because its only a minor influence or it will lead to wrong actions if you value one state higher than the other.
take bushs stupid steel tarrifs for example. bush safed a few companies and by doing so made a whole lot of companies who relied on that steel less competative. (and if those steel companies have recovered today, its only because the chinese are buying all steel they can get and prices rise all the time)
if you forget about this whole concept of 50 (+x, im not sure how many states there are) single votes and have one direct vote instead, dont you think people will concentrate more on the federal issues than on the local ones?

There is a famous US politcal quote: "All politics are local." People care about national and international issues, but they care about local issues more. So when national politicans come to my community, they spend a lot of their time talking about how they're going to improve our schools, roads and local economy. And once elected, they sort of have to try to deliver on those promises.

and then there is your culture. the us has a far more homogenous population than the eu, so it should be a lot easier to value every citzen the same.

The US doesn't look very homogenous from where I'm sitting. My daughter's elementary school is about one third white (polyglot European), one third black (mostly American, caribbean, and Somali), and one third asian (mostly Hmong and Vietnamese). The school notices she brings home are printed in about a half dozen languages, some of which I don't even recognize.

everyone has to be allowed to vote. i cant understand how you could not let prisoners or exprisoners vote (in florida or whereever it was). if they are citzens of your country they should have a say about who runs it, no matter what they did.

I don't have a big problem denying inmates the vote. They haven't exactly demonstrated that they have society's best interests at heart.

Once they've done their time however, then sure they should be allowed to vote.

if anyone chooses not to vote thats their own problem, but they had the chance.

Yes, but whether or not other people vote can effect the weight of my vote. Voter turnout varies a lot across the US.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Yeah, I saw that, but surely he can't have lost in such an enormous landslide simply because of that comment?

I think the biggest problem with Mondale was his politics. He was the typical northern ultra liberal democrat that most independents and undecideds (and even some conservative democrats) just aren't going to vote for if there's any credible alternative.

John Kerry is cast from the same mold, and against a candidate who could actually string two sentences together, he'd be finishing about as poorly as Mondale.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I think the biggest problem with Mondale was his politics. He was the typical northern ultra liberal democrat that most independents and undecideds (and even some conservative democrats) just aren't going to vote for if there's any credible alternative.

John Kerry is cast from the same mold, and against a candidate who could actually string two sentences together, he'd be finishing about as poorly as Mondale.

<3 Mondale

[mist]

why is it that bush thinks liberals will raise taxes?

surely, how permissive you are has little to do with your taxation policy, whereas your thoughts on socialism will have a lot to do with it?

this confused me :/

-mist

[Ste]

I thought one of the main differences between the paries is that Republicans want to reduce taxes while Democrats want to reduce spending.
Whoever gets in may have to raise taxes anyway because of the shitty state of the defecit and the economy.

[mist]

i thought the idea was to lower taxes when the economy's crap, to stimulate spending?

-mist

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Ste

I thought one of the main differences between the paries is that Republicans want to reduce taxes while Democrats want to reduce spending.

Not quite. The Republicans want to reduce taxes and not worry about what that means for spending whereas the Democrats want to raise spending and not worry about what that means for taxes.

Whoever gets in may have to raise taxes anyway because of the shitty state of the defecit and the economy.

Well, yeah, that's part of the inevitable compromise position: raise taxes and spending.

[Texan]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

everyone has to be allowed to vote.

People under 18 years old are not allowed to vote in the United States or Germany. Most of them are citizens and many of them pay taxes as well.