BF2S Forums Understanding Elections

Maybe you should explain Australian elections and government in a little more detail.

Also your 2 points about those with a majority of votes not getting elected and having 2 'oppositions' are just as possible in our system.

2 opposition houses? It's a system of "checks and balances". Each branch keeps the others in check, at least that was the intent.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

2 opposition houses? It's a system of "checks and balances". Each branch keeps the others in check, at least that was the intent.

I think what he means is don't they just block each other.  Having said that, that could just as easily happen over here but it doesn't.

Ah ok. Well I guess that's where the whole partisan politics thing comes into play

I hate the electoral college.  The people are not directly represented, and generally the US system is pure bullshit.  It's impossible for anything to change.  The world is a sad place.

BN wrote:

Things that puzzle me:

1. The majority of people can vote for 1 Presidential Candidate but another can make it into office due to the electoral college system.

2. In a race for the Governor the majority can vote for someone else yet a different person can get in: 

The majority voted for someone else.  i.e. Coleman & Humphrey made up 62% of the vote yet Ventura takes office.

    * Jesse Ventura (Ref.), 37%
    * Norm Coleman (R), 34%
    * Hubert H. Humphrey III (DFL), 28%

3. A president can be elected but have 2 opposition houses.

1. The Electoral College was orginally meant to protect the interests of the (usually) wealthy elite. Most of the Founding Fathers did not trust the public to make the best decisions (mobacracy) and as such allowed for the people to vote, but with a safety net which is the Electoral College. In fact, in the beginning, only White, Land owning males were allowed to vote, so the Electorate was very limited. It first expanded significantly when Andrew Jackson came to power.

2. Many states have a plurality system, essentially a winner take all. 48 states have the winner take all system for electoral college - basically if the candidate gets more votes than any other, all the votes go to him/her. This kind of answers your first question - Yes, it is possible that the delegates of the Electoral College can vote for a candidate that is not represented by the Public, but most of the time it will go to the candidate that won the most votes in the state. With Bush vs. Gore, the outcome was determined by the Supreme Court I believe.

In the example you pointed out, Ventura had the most votes out of the three, he didn't claim a simple majority or anything, but because he got the most votes, he gets the position.

3. I'm assuming you meant that a President is selected, but there are two different factions (namely Democrats and Repubicans). The Parliamentary system seems much more efficient - the party itself is selected and from the party, a PM is chosen. In the US, it's more about the candidate than the party. In fact, in comparison to many other nations, political parties in the US don't wield as much power. So because it's mostly about the individual than the actual party, it's not uncommon to see that the President not having much support by the legislative body.

The US Government was pretty much made to be inefficient. It's extremely difficult for any one body to have too much power (one exception was during FDR when he had support from the public, Congress, and sometimes the Court). The gridlock and inefficiency does suck sometimes, but the most efficient forms of government are usually those closest to a tyranny - the very thing that the US government is supposed to shie away from.

I don't think it's neccessarily fair that a guy without popular majority vote gets the office, but sometimes, I feel like the plurality system is for the best - I think some nations have one where the top two parties go onto a runoff election to see who gets the majority there. But that might be a bit too slow and difficult to organize, especially considering the inefficiencies of our government (and the bureaucracy which is essentially a 4th branch of government).

The US Government is really quite strange sometimes.

Last edited by Smithereener (2008-05-24 09:00:07)

In Bush vs. Gore, it wasn't the outcome that was determined by the Supreme Court, but the validity of the recounts in FL that were determined by the Supreme Court.

Dilbert, you seem to be fully anti-USA government. Do you TRULY understand American culture and how the government was set up in regards to the historical factors AND how it truly works today compared to the original form? I don't think you grasp it. Most people that don't live in the USA don't, and most Americans don't, either. But then, most citizens of their own countries don't understand their own government, so that's not surprising. It's sad, but not surprising.

Smithereener, I agree with you on all counts. However, I would like to add something to #1: the EC (Electoral College) exists today to prevent any one State from gaining too much sway over things. The US govt was also set up with the idea of govt to be handled mostly at the State level and allow the Federal govt to mostly handle larger issues that States couldn't handle on their own and work for the country internationally.

Now, because the Constitution was written in a way to allow it to be interpreted in MANY different ways depending on the values of the present time, it does leave the government open to many changes over time. Look at history: the federal government's wield of power over the entire country has fluctuated over time, depending on how things were interpreted.

Most States also have various laws governing that own State's EC. Some are based on percentage of popular votes, others on winner-take-all. However, most States do have laws. But for the most part, the EC follows the popular vote regardless of whether the law requires them to or not. I think there have only been isolated cases where it was not the case. I don't know the specifics, just my summaries from reading. But the States that do have laws make it a criminal offense not to follow the popular vote or the law governing the EC, so that way if an Elector steps out of line, he/she gets taken care of.

As Smithereener said, it is a somewhat inefficient system, but it does make for a balance. As he said, the more efficient the government, the more tyrannical that govt has the potential of being.

But the situation you cited where the popular vote was for one person but the EC gave it to someone else: the only case that I can recall that happening was the stuff with Bush/Gore, but even then, Florida screwed the whole election up and it was really the Supreme Court that handled it more so than the EC.

One thing many Americans don't know, is a quote from George Washington. He said, upon leaving office, that Americans should not support political parties because they will be the destruction of the country (or something like that).

"Superdelegates" in a two party system (pretty much). Entire states being excluded (millions of votes). Closed primaries (Republicans can't vote for Democrats). Just getting to the general election is even worse.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I personally prefer the parliamentary system of government as well.

Also, I'm assuming that preferential voting is the same thing as Instant Runoff Voting.  IRV makes it possible for 3rd parties to flourish.

Preferential voting is where we rank the parties.  The votes are counted, and if somebody has at least 50% of the vote (i.e. half of people place them number 1) they win.  Otherwise, the last party is knocked out and anybody who voted 1 for them gets their next choice used (the one they put a 2 next to).  If somebody wins 50% they win, otherwise you go to round three.  Australia has 2 major parties, 5 or 6 prominent minor parties, and a number of small parties/independent members.  Small parties tend to do well in the senate.

I see...  yeah, that's pretty close to IRV.  Either way, it's better than the way we currently do things.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Republican isn't a system of government, it's a descriptor for the political status of a nation.

How fine to do you want to split that hair? It certainly IS a system of government...a system where the leader is not a monarch and political leaders are elected (also called representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy--which is the purest sense of the term).

How the hell is it splitting a hair?  A republic is an independent nation.  When Australian voted on whether to become a republic there were several choices each with different foms of government.  You notice how the official name of Congo is the Democratic Republic of Congo?  That's because each of the words mean completely different things.  Next you'll be arguing that it's really more Capitalist than Republican...........

Not at all. Republican is a form of government, as it is a governmental structure. I wasn't being absolutist...which you can see in the first part of the quote from me. My point was in clarification, as many believe that democracy is a single idea, and not variagated. Many here have even thought that US laws got passed by votes of the people (direct democracy). I was merely clarifying that.

Nor (as has been pointed out before) is it a two party system, either.

Its not intended as a two party system, but thats how its effectively been for how many years now?