The American Image

[Brother None]

But for a while, at least, we have that protection, and that's one less obstacle in the way of getting people to support third parties.

So you're saying that because it won't matter if you vote for a third party, you can vote for a third party safely?

If we could remove the electoral college sytem and somehow guarantee that other parties would be viable choices, then that would be fine. What I'm getting at is that in another system the electoral college might not make a whole lot of sense, but it still has some value here.

You're assuming you need to have a directly elected president to replace the electoral college

Also, what you're saying simply doesn't work. You're saying its worse if people start voting the big parties rather than the third parties, but that's wrong;

If people start voting for the two big 'uns because they feel they have to because their vote matter, that's democracy

If people can vote for third parties safely because that vote doesn't matter, that's not democratic

 

[Gwydion]

So you're saying that because it won't matter if you vote for a third party, you can vote for a third party safely?

Sort of. It's more like, voting for a third party doesn't help a mainstream party you don't want to help. Occasionally in elections we see third parties that make a big difference and basically lose the election for one of the parties. You know, like Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party or whatever it was called. The electoral college provides a bit of a buffer. Basically, because people may not have to worry about voting against a specific party they don't want in power, they can safely throw their support behind a third party that suits them better than a mainstream party.

You're assuming you need to have a directly elected president to replace the electoral college

Well, yeah.

If people start voting for the two big 'uns because they feel they have to because their vote matter, that's democracy

If people can vote for third parties safely because that vote doesn't matter, that's not democratic

How is it democracy when you have to vote for the lesser of two evils because none of the mainstream parties represents you?

The electoral college gives us some room to breath. By voting for a third party when its 'safe', the party may continue to grow in size. If we just remove that buffer, then I think that would end the idea of third parties as we know it. It wasn't that long ago that Ross Perot was in a debate with Bush Sr. and Clinton. I think it could happen again, but not if Americans are forced to vote against the party they'd least like to see in power.

 

[Brother None]

You're assuming you need to have a directly elected president to replace the electoral college

Well, yeah.

Well, you don't

If people start voting for the two big 'uns because they feel they have to because their vote matter, that's democracy

If people can vote for third parties safely because that vote doesn't matter, that's not democratic

How is it democracy when you have to vote for the lesser of two evils because none of the mainstream parties represents you?

The electoral college gives us some room to breath. By voting for a third party when its 'safe', the party may continue to grow in size. If we just remove that buffer, then I think that would end the idea of third parties as we know it. It wasn't that long ago that Ross Perot was in a debate with Bush Sr. and Clinton. I think it could happen again, but not if Americans are forced to vote against the party they'd least like to see in power.

Strangely enough, you're describing exactly the beef I have with the electoral college, with one difference. Your question is:

How is it democracy when you have to vote for the lesser of two evils because none of the mainstream parties represents you?

My question is:

How is it democracy when you have to vote for the lesser of two evils because if you don't, your vote counts for nothing?

Be realistic here. Except for occasionally bringing down one of the main parties, how has a third party ever been relevant?

Now compare to the Rhineland model. Holland has three major parties (sometimes four...heck, even five), and a total of...nine parties, all representing a large minority's opinion

Maybe my real beef with the electoral college is not its usage in the presidential elections, which is clearly harmless, but its usage in the voting for the House of Congress.

The Senate needs to be reformed completely anyway. 2 seats per state? Why? This seems arbitrary, so that the votes of people living in states with a lesser amount of people living in them have votes that count heavier than those of heavily populated states...

 

[Gwydion]

Well, you don't

Europeans don't. I'm not sure Americans would accept anything else.

Now compare to the Rhineland model. Holland has three major parties (sometimes four...heck, even five), and a total of...nine parties, all representing a large minority's opinion

That would be swell.

Maybe my real beef with the electoral college is not its usage in the presidential elections, which is clearly harmless, but its usage in the voting for the House of Congress.

The Senate needs to be reformed completely anyway. 2 seats per state? Why? This seems arbitrary, so that the votes of people living in states with a lesser amount of people living in them have votes that count heavier than those of heavily populated states...

Yeah, basically. It's because the states are more autonomous than European provinces, or were for a while at least. Because each state had separate interests, they wanted to make sure more populous states wouldn't pass Federal legislation that was harmful to the less populous states. In my opinion, more autonomous states are appropriate for a nation as large and diverse as America, and so a house of the legislature in which states have equal power is necessary.

 

[OnTheBounce]

The Senate needs to be reformed completely anyway. 2 seats per state? Why? This seems arbitrary, so that the votes of people living in states with a lesser amount of people living in them have votes that count heavier than those of heavily populated states...

That was exactly the point: to give the less populous states a bigger voice in the higher of the two houses.

For all of the prattle we hear about democracy here in the US I don't think that people here realize just how anti-democratic some of its institutions and practices are. The electoral college and arbitrary number of senators/state are just two examples.

I'm not going to say that it's necessarily a bad thing, since I don't see democracy as a sacred institution, but rather -- like all other political systems -- something with various advantages and disadvantages. In some cases the people really do need to be protected from themselves, which is one reason that virtually unlimited democracy died out rather quickly. (Not to mention that it requires too much involvement from its citizens.)

On the other hand the current system is also very good at maintaining the status quo, and -- perhaps more importantly -- the people that are profiting from it.

OTB

 

[Brother None]

Well, you don't

Europeans don't. I'm not sure Americans would accept anything else.

Now compare to the Rhineland model. Holland has three major parties (sometimes four...heck, even five), and a total of...nine parties, all representing a large minority's opinion

That would be swell.

Ehehehe, "swell"

And I doubt some European nations would accept a non-directly chosen president. It's, I suppose, one of the major differences between an MP and a president

Maybe my real beef with the electoral college is not its usage in the presidential elections, which is clearly harmless, but its usage in the voting for the House of Congress.

The Senate needs to be reformed completely anyway. 2 seats per state? Why? This seems arbitrary, so that the votes of people living in states with a lesser amount of people living in them have votes that count heavier than those of heavily populated states...

Yeah, basically. It's because the states are more autonomous than European provinces, or were for a while at least. Because each state had separate interests, they wanted to make sure more populous states wouldn't pass Federal legislation that was harmful to the less populous states. In my opinion, more autonomous states are appropriate for a nation as large and diverse as America, and so a house of the legislature in which states have equal power is necessary.

Wouldn't it make more sense to give each state more control, seperately? i.e. instead of a "house" of representatives from the states, each state has a mini-president who presides over a segment of the state's legislative...stuff.

This was the original idea behind the oldest new-democracies of Europe, the Dutch "waterschappen", too

I do see what you mean, tho', but it seems a very undemocratic way to handle this problem.

 

[Gwydion]

Ehehehe, "swell"

Yeah, I figured you would appreciate that.

Wouldn't it make more sense to give each state more control, seperately? i.e. instead of a "house" of representatives from the states, each state has a mini-president who presides over a segment of the state's legislative...stuff.

This was the original idea behind the oldest new-democracies of Europe, the Dutch "waterschappen", too

Well, they do. Each state is basically a tiny microcosm of America. They have governors, and state legislatures. And then below the state governments, you have county governments, and then city governments. According to Article Ten of the Bill of Rights, all powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for the states or for the people. So, while the federal government would handle important stuff like currency a lot of the day-to-day issues were left up to the states if their individual constitutions provided for those powers. The states could even raise thier own little armies (I think most don't anymore), although those could be Federalized by the president in times of emergency. However, there was enough of the imporant stuff handled by the Federal government that this was still an issue. This has become even more important since the Federal government greatly expanded its role in the 20th century.

I do see what you mean, tho', but it seems a very undemocratic way to handle this problem.

For all of our talk about democracy this and democracy that, we're closer to a Republic. Don't you watch South Park? We're a nation founded on saying one thing and doing another.

 

[Gwydion]

While we're on the topic of states' autonomy, I thought this was interesting. I bet you could get Texas, Alaska and New Hampshire to pass similar bills, but I'm not sure who else would.

 

[toresica]

I don't know much about American politics, just because I'm not American. But I have a lot to say here, so I'm going to say it anyway. I apologize if anything I'm saying is horribly uninformed.

Having two senators per state:
An advantage of that system is that you will always have a reasonable number of senators, and that the each state gets a voice.
In Canada we have MP's distributed according to population - and each province (or territory, I think - but I'm not 100% sure) is guaranteed to have a certain number of MP's.
This means that Ontario and Quebec are the only provinces that parties need to get votes from, and that as people move west, out of the Maritimes, the number of MP's has increased (to decrease the percentage of MP's they have, while making sure they still have the minimum number of MP's. So the number of backbench MP's (who often feel that they, and their ridings don't get a voice, and therefore have a record of poor attendance) keeps increasing.

 

[Dove]

There are Representatives that represent the population of a given state as well. So higher population states have more.

I'm tired from work, and my head really hurts today, so that's all I have to offer right now. Maybe someone else can explain further?

 

[Brother None]

Well, they do. Each state is basically a tiny microcosm of America. They have governors, and state legislatures. And then below the state governments, you have county governments, and then city governments. According to Article Ten of the Bill of Rights, all powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for the states or for the people. So, while the federal government would handle important stuff like currency a lot of the day-to-day issues were left up to the states if their individual constitutions provided for those powers. The states could even raise thier own little armies (I think most don't anymore), although those could be Federalized by the president in times of emergency. However, there was enough of the imporant stuff handled by the Federal government that this was still an issue. This has become even more important since the Federal government greatly expanded its role in the 20th century.

Fair enough. The old de-centralisation issue, ey?

I find it hilarious when the government of smaller and/or non-divided states of the EU (so excluding Belgium, Spain, GB, Germany and maybe some others), like the Netherlands or France, try to copy the de-centralisation issue from the US, despite the fact that it's simply not relevant here

For all of our talk about democracy this and democracy that, we're closer to a Republic. Don't you watch South Park? We're a nation founded on saying one thing and doing another.

US is a "Constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition"

But I don't think there are many "democracies", really. Let's check

Canada: confederation with parliamentary democracy

Italy: republic

France: republic

Germany: federal republic

The Netherlands: constitutional monarchy

Belgium: federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch

Israel: parliamentary democracy

All that doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for the best democratic system around. And that depends on your state a bit, I suppose. The American system isn't very democratic, but it's effective

There are Representatives that represent the population of a given state as well. So higher population states have more.

The Congressmen represent population

The Senators represent states

It's that simple. Differences like that occur in other countries too. The Dutch Congress, the 2e kamer, is elected nationally every four years or in case of a government collapsing. The Dutch Senate, the 1e kamer, is elected nationally every four years (period) by representation picked from the results of the Province Elections. However, representation in the Senate is still picked according to number of heads voting, not according to provinces...