Questions about the voting system in USA

[DarkCrown]

There is a straight forward and reasonably clear explanation of the American primary and caucus system to be found at

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/primaries.htm

-DarkCrown

[Occhidiangela]

The time it takes to go to all those states? Do you see some problem with the grinning and gripping requirement? Are you suggesting that the primaries should take place without the candidates actually going out and meeting people? You are right, you are not from America. It is part of our thing: gripping and grinning.

See the post by DarkCrown with the nice link to the Primaries site.

Are you suggesting that the political elites of Europe, in their various parties, need not meet their huddled masses? Don't they? Is it all by proxy?

Could it be that the average European does not appreciate how big our country is, in acreage and in diversity of viewpoint? I doubt that, viewpoints vary plenty in Europe: lots of parties and agendas. (My fave was Bossi's move to get Northern Italy to secede and resurrect Padonia!) I imagine any European even modestly interested in politics would understand having to reach many constituencies . . . or maybe not. Maybe the multi party approach reduces the need to have to please variations on your own platform's theme to get a vote, you leave that to the coalition building process at the high end. Hmmmmm, food for thought.

May I ask why the local parties and local interests should not get their turn with the candidates? That process does some good things. It shows who has staying power. Look at what happened to Senator McCain in South Carolina. It shows who can plan and map out a strategy. It can show flash in the pan candidates for who they are.

Jack Kemp never got far in a primary.

It likely prevents a dark horse candidate coming from a smoke filled room, and replaces him with a Bill Clinton, a pure image no substance candidate who used hype momentum to win his party's nomination, even with his Jennifer Flowers scandal all over the papers. That was something a lot of people apparently wanted, a more Teflon president, like Reagan. :)

If any state's voters claim that their late place in the primary is a detriment to their influence, then perhaps there needs to be a lottery for primaries. :) Bugger New Hampshire, for example, I don't care what their voters think! Why not have primaries go from smallest to largest? The "biggest for last" may create more uncertainty, or may merely cater to the richest warchests.

Or, maybe, have mass debates to choose candidates, with one getting voted off the stage after each debate.

Maybe I am on to something there. Heck, most politicians are just a bunch of mass debaters anyway. ;)

[Occhidiangela]

I seem to remember (not sure) that at the beginning of the 19th century the US had a larger communist movement than russia.

Communism did not evolve until the mid 19th century, from Marx and Engels of course, and was not put into place very effectively until Lenin and his associates put their stamp on it and tried their best to make it work.

The Paris Commune of 1871 could, I suppose, be considered an early attempt to apply Communism, but this is where I start to see the Socialism and Communism models start to gel in separate molds. A variety of Socialist models have more or less worked, while Communist models seem to be as parasitic on their countries as unfettered Capitalism was in the 19th century.

As to a poor leftist ever getting to the White House: there aint no such thing in America. The real American leftists tend to be pretty well off. :o The support for the Left in our Labor Unions seems to have changed shape over the past 30 years, I am not sure how that will play out in the long run. To argue that Labor has had less of a vote in recent American elections might be true.

[Professor Frink]

How can a election system be fair and good, were people vote “a few” at a time, and were they are told what the result of previous people voting are?

The primaries aren't like a run-off before a final election, they're a way for one party to pick a candidate with the best chances of beating the other party's. Or at least that's how it works when they want to win. There is some coalition-building involved in the choice, with each candidate trying to convince the party they can get people who aren't automatically loyal to it (the majority lately) to vote for them.

On a more informational issue, it is my understanding that, at least in the actual election for a president (which will be this fall, no?) the winner of a state would get all the “votes” from it. How would that, work out when there is more than 2 candidates. I can see that in the final voting one can do multiple rounds, like is common in many countries when electing presidents, but in the voting of the public in the individual states, there seem to only be one round, how do one handle multiple candidates (more than 2) there?

There is only one round by federal law, the entire election must be held on one day. Aside from that, each state runs their own election, so something like instant-runoff voting could be used if it got popular somewhere in the US.

In almost every state, the person who gets the most votes (even if it's less than 50% of the total) gets all the electoral votes. It's unusual for a third party to get any electoral votes at all (they usually get a few votes in every state rather than a lot of votes in one state), but if one got enough that nobody got >50% of all the electoral votes, the 12th and 20th Amendments are brought out, and congress picks the winner among the top 3 electoral vote getters, this time one vote per state, as many times as necessary until someone gets >50% of the vote.

Having a runoff vote in congress after a really close election would probably be really unpopular.

[Professor Frink]

At the presidents election: after last elections it became clear in a painful way that the system of all votes in one state going to the winner (I forgot the name), is at least highly questionable. You can become president of the most powerful country in the world without being chosen by the majority.

Er, sort of. There is an intentional bias towards smaller states in the voting system, so that you have to win both a large population of people and a large number of states; Gore had a slight edge (about 0.5%) in population but only 21 out of 51 states. Also, being very popular in one state doesn't count for any more than being just popular enough to win, there are a bunch of reasons this can be a good thing or a bad thing.

Is it true that before you can vote, you have to register yourself somewhere as a voter (and that this costs money).?

In general, yes, you have to register to vote. This usually involves mailing a postcard to a county office when you move or filling out a form at the DMV when you get a driver's licence. In 1964 the 24th Amendment made it illegal to charge for voting (actually, it made it illegal to not let someone vote for not paying, I suppose you could still legally take it out of their paycheck or something but nobody does.) This was popular in the south for a while as a way of keeping poor blacks from voting.

And do you think that a candidate not backed up by representatives of large companies (so also does not get any campaign money) ( in other words really represents normal people) makes a chance of becoming president of the US?

Anybody who has a real chance at becoming President has companies (and individuals) throwing money at him. They'd have to get more votes for refusing the money than they could get by putting out all those TV ads... not likely anytime soon.

-- frink

[Chaerophon]

Grinning... Gripping... Massdebating... where does it end??? What a terribly crude post ;)

On a more productive note: the real "interesting" part of the primary system? Candidates are rarely to never able to develop a concrete platform. Appeal to the extremists to get in, back to the middle to win the election. Incumbent criticizes the "shift". Rinse and repeat in four years. Kerry's gonna get blasted as a bleeding heart come election time; luckily (or not, depending on your point of view) he's actually bled a few times, so he might have some credibility in the face of his critics.

EDIT: Meant also to point out that my characterization of party leaders as necessarily "meritorious" was undoubtedly a gross generalization.

[Professor Frink]

All of the state by state canvassing doesn't enlighten anyone once one of the candidates starts to steamroll as Kerry has begun to do.

Not quite steamrolling yet... In the most recent primary (Winsconsin), Kerry got a little less than 40% of the vote; Edwards and Dean got 52% combined, and Dean just dropped out of the race. People who have money on it were giving Edwards about a 1 in 6 chance of getting the eventual nomination as of this posting.

[Occhidiangela]

That was not the same sort of allusion as the other, it refers to the process of meeting people, smiling, and shaking their hands. However, I thank you for the linkage to the other, I had not considered the combination platter as such before, and I will keep in handy for my next round of politician jokes. :)

I appreciate synthesis that makes for humor, even if the humor borders on scatalogical! ;)

[Lord_Olf]

Hail Occhi,

I really have to respond to this post of yours. I really respect you as a person whose posts are well thought through, but this one reads to me, in large parts, as Europe-bashing.

In reply to your first article, let me say that I am damn thankful for the Allied forces defeating Hitler's Germany in WW2. I really am, as I have seen what Totalitarism can do, and for sure, I don't approve of murdering 6 million jews in "Concentration Camps". I won't get to that "nice enough" statement of yours, which you already apologized for.

I, seeing myself as a "nice European", will not chime in to tell you and your fellow citizens what I don't like about the USA. It's not for me to do so, and you have enought smart people in the US to do this. But your words sound to me like "Don't you dare", and I don't like that. I don't like topics that are off topic, so to say. Sorry if I misunderstood that part of your post.

The statement about us Europeans having our heads up other parts of our anatomy sounds offensive to me. Don't know how you would take it if I or someone else said this about Americans, but I tend to feel offended by the generalization of this. Maybe we were occupied killing of each other in the twentieth century, but let's keep in mind that pretty much of "New America" was busy killing off "Old America" in the 19th century. Sorry to come back to this, I don't want to blame this on you or anyone else reading this, but if I read something about "depopulating you continent via the sword", this also comes to my mind.

Also, I see the John Wayne quote as a way to express that us Europeans are stupid. I feel offended by that. Sure, we have our share of idiots, but these are everywhere.

"if the shoe fits, wear it." Not much leeway in chosing if it fits or not, don't you think, Occhi? The way you wrote your post, I have to say the shoe fits, as there are accusations and overgeneralizations too numerous not to speak up in favour of Europe, at least for me. However, if I misunderstood your post, you have my apologies. But for me the last article was just the icing of the cake:

(/me paraphrases here)
Dear Europeans, be glad for the USA, otherwise you'd be nonexistent by now. Now, be nice to each other, Uncle Sam will give you (insert your nations favourite wish here).
Excuse me, Occhi, but the Marshal Plan and other things were not intended for the betterment of Germany, for examlpe, hey? They were meant to turn Europe into a bastion against world communism.

May this be as it may, your last statement really sound belittiling to me (like, meant to make another person feel weak and small, sorry, I'm not a native speaker), and that gets me off. And I, for one, can do without that ice cream, as I have been out of the sandbox for quite some time.
If you might consider upgrading your offer to a nice Pitcher of Beer, we might have a deal.

Again, sorry if I misunderstood you post, which hit me as totally atypical for you, Occhi. I don't want to rave about the USA, but I also expect respect for Europe vice versa. Fair?

Take care,
Lord_Olf

[Kevin]

And here is my continuation.

First, Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidentail Elections is an excellent source of data. With the Bush v Gore election, it is very interesting to look at the map and see that most of it is blue (Bush color). Some would point to things like this as a plus for the electoral college. More states wanted Bush even if fewer people did. Of course it is also one of the faults.

The electoral college was somewhat born of the compromise that created the House and Senate. The number of electors a state gets is equal to the number of senators and representatives they have. The initial college was also intended to allow a president to be elected without national campaigns or politcal parties That was changed some after the 4th election, and the 12th amendment was born that tweaked things a bit. Again Dave has links with more of this information.

I would suggest just looking through all the history links on Dave's site. They cover a lot of the details.

Keep in mind also that the vote is for the electors. If you read the ballot carefully while it may have said George W. Bush or Al Gore there is fine print (or not so fine print) that reads something like "The slate of electors pledged to XXX". We could go back to voting directly for the electors. This was done because Joe Frontiersman knew about Joe LocalSmartGuy but had no idea about the presidential canidates. Joe LocalSmartGuy knew the canidates and knew Joe Frontiersman so he in theory knew who Joe Frontiersman wanted for president. During the early elections Joe LocalSmartGuy would be listed on the ballot as would lots of other electors. Then Joe Frontiersman could vote for him, feeling that Joe LocalSmartGuy would pick the right president. Things got confusing with this, and parties made it even worse. So this whole vote for the slate of electors is where the "all or nothing" tradition came from. Again, there are some laws governing it for some states, but not for all.

The analogy that I wanted to make though, is the US election would be like Europe picking a president, and your current leaders now simply become governors. Would you want it done by popular vote then? I don't have all the information on populations for European countries, but do you think someone from a smaller country would be really happy with it being popular vote? The larger countries would have so much more power then. The US states really were that powerful when the system was created, and they still hold a fair bit of power even now, though the county continually becomes more homogenous in that respect. But when you consider that, do you really want popular vote as the deciding factor? Even with modern communications do you think most people would vote for the best canidate or for the person from their home country?

Many of your other questions are about the primaries, which are not federally governed and are all about how a party chooses a canidate. I would like to see a third or fourth strong party come forth, or for all parties to go away again (our system is built to handle lack of parties you still techincally are voting for the electors and not the canidate) but that isn't human nature.

I think that covers more of what I wanted to cover, I have to run again.

[LochnarITB]

How can a election system be fair and good, were people vote “a few” at a time, and were they are told what the result of previous people voting are?

As I began to read Jarulf's post, my thoughts were based on the national vote conducted in November. As I read further, I realized he was asking about our current primaries. However, his question and the discussion that followed raise a couple points that apply to the national vote and the inequity that is built into the electoral college system.

Because of the media circus that is an election (both national and local), we have the exit poll which gives a very real feel for how the vote is going. This can influence the vote. It can be for the good. It has the potential to motivate those who would not otherwise vote to do so in a close race where they have a greater sense that their vote makes a difference. It can also discourage voters who think "Oh, he's way ahead. He doesn't need my vote." or "Geez, he's way ahead. My vote wouldn't matter." With my view of human nature, I tend to believe that to discourage voting is the more likely result of the exit poll.

The inequity in the electoral college is the way in which the number of votes per state is assigned. Unless I have misunderstood, the number per state is equal to the number of Senators plus the number of Representatives. This means that less populace states have greater representation, per person, in the electoral college vote. The numbers I found for the 2000 election range from about 200,000 people per vote on the low end to greater than 600,000 on the high. This means that a vote in the smaller state is worth 3 times that of the largest.

With the communications capabilities we now enjoy, it is time that we establish a system that is truly 1 person 1 vote. The party system would still go through the primaries and convention process they do now to bring the ballot down to a reasonable list. This would also require that the voting population become more informed to give the increased value of each vote its due. I believe that voters would take more effort to be informed if there weren't so many who believe "my vote doesn't matter".

[--Pete]

Hi,

Really interesting to go back to some of the historic elections and see how things split out. Thanks.

--Pete

[WarLocke]

With the communications capabilities we now enjoy, it is time that we establish a system that is truly 1 person 1 vote.

Agreed. We could start with eliminating the whole elector crap.

Then maybe we can 'edumacate' the populace so they can start actually voting for the candidates that they like and/or feel would be best for the country, rather than staring stupidly at a ballot and thinking "Durr, I'm a Democrat, and Bubba Cleese's the Democratic candidate, so I'll vote for him! Hurr hurr!"

Ideally, at some point down the road, we'd have elections in which the candidates actually put forth their plans for the country and stuck to them (rather than simply pandering for money/votes), and a populace that voted based on a candidate's platform because they knew s/he would uphold it (and not simply because they share the same political party).

And hell, while I'm smoking the pipe dream, maybe someday we'll be rid of the whole political party nonsense, eh?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Keep in mind that the USA is a republic, not a democracy. So, "one man, one vote" doesn't work in any sense. Consider an extreme case. Say that 51% of the population is Republican. Further, say that that split goes down through all levels and that there are no independent voters and that everyone votes the party line. Then 100% of the elected officials would be from the 51% of the population and the other 49% have no representation. While that example is extreme, the reality is fairly close to that. For instance, about 5% of the population is Libertarian which means that there should be about 25 members of congress from that party if congress indeed represented *all* the people. I believe that there is 1 Libertarian in congress. Other groups are even more lacking in representation.

The fundamental problem is that the founders did not anticipate the two party system. Many better systems than that of the USA could be devised. Fixing the electoral college would be but an insignificant step (how often has the electoral and popular vote gone in opposite directions, three time?) What needs to be fixed is the whole concept of this country, starting with the admission that the states are not States, but simply provinces. A form of government more representative of the actual distribution of the population and of their political beliefs would require a great restructuring of the nation, and those with the power to initiate the restructuring would be those in most danger of losing their job. There *might* be one congresscriter who would put the good of the nation ahead of his and his party's good. That hypothetical "good" congresscriter would, by embracing the reform, be committing political suicide.

Frankly, I think we're stuck with this system until its inequities brings the whole structure down. But that is often the only way that political change comes about.

--Pete

[Kevin]

Yep, that's the rub. The electoral college is a very strong reflection of the countries set-up. Things have changed.

People who really believe in popular vote for the president should also believe that we don't need a senate since it is the part of congress that doesn't represent people equally, it represents states equally. The house represents people equally, so just have the house. I made my analogy earlier, but as Pete stated, things have changed, the states, while still carrying power, are currently not as powerful as the individual European countries. But my analogy was for the when the system was created not for now. Of course even with the states having less power, is weakening regional representation (which is what the senate does for the states) still the best idea? Even with districting allowing regional representation based on type of population, is the coalition forming that will have to happen to get anything done for that better than having more power because of the structure of the senate?

I keep taking analogies in my head to a world governments or European government created with the state of the world right now. I keep trying to think how things would work if it was all popular and is it bad that China and India could basically decide the fate of the rest of the world? Maybe it is, but I like my thoughts better when I apply the US form of government and Presidental election to it.

I'm not sure that I like getting rid of the built in checks and balances that the electoral college has. As evidenced (especailly by the county map) of Bush v Gore. Bush really did have a much larger regional support than Gore, and the popular difference was slim enough that the popular governance issue was accounted for. I'm not convinced that regional representation isn't just as important in a presidental election. All the close elections have been won by the canidate with the more widespread support. I think I like the fact the system supports and encourages that.

A good sub link on my early site post is the Pros and Cons of the Electoral college an essay by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration. William is obviously for the electoral college, but there are some good points raised and one of the most interesting arguments stating that a two party system is good. Some of my early points in this post are my thoughts on issues he raised as well. A good debate could be had on just that article alone. I'm not as convinced as he is that a popular vote is bad, but I don't think the current system is either.

It's a good debate, and the issues keep going deeper. :)

[LochnarITB]

Then 100% of the elected officials would be from the 51% of the population and the other 49% have no representation.

You have extended my wish for 1 person 1 vote to all elections. My reference to senators and representatives was only in regards to the distribution of electoral votes. I do believe that we need a better system for representing the needs of the people, both individually and regionally. The current system does work toward the regional representation but can only account for individual needs when those people have banded together in special interests. I agree that finding a better system would require restructuring the nation and also acknowledge that we will not see it happen in our lifetimes. The president, however, is a representative to the world for all regions and all indivduals in the US. Any regional biases in the presidency should be due to concentrations of population rather than those forced by the electoral college. No single person's vote for the president should carry any more weight than that of any other.

Frankly, I think we're stuck with this system until its inequities brings the whole structure down. But that is often the only way that political change comes about.

Yep.

[Chaerophon]

Can tell you don't live in South Dakota. :huh:

[Jarulf]

>Jarulf
>When you refer to the oddities of people voting in groups, after discussed opinions and reviewing the results of other voting groups, are
>you refering to the staggered primary process, or are you refering to the caucuses used in several states instead of the more familiar
>secret ballot primary elections?

I was refering to the fact that not everyone vote at the same time. That is, some will vote several weeks later than others, thus knowing the result allready of some votings and also having a possible very different situations, with different candidates and so on. That is what I find very strange.


>One other thing: I'm not trying to get into an argument I don't belong in, but calling one of the Admins a troll is not what I would
>consider as the wise choice. I'm not sure what in your post set Occhi off, but returning a harsh tone and labeling him troll is not
>going to improve this discussion, and dismissing him is not going to bring the thread back to the electoral process of the US.

I rarely have a clue on if someone is an admin or not and even if I knew it would not affect me since I tend to treat everyone the same, admins or not. As for improving the discussion, in what exact way did his post improve ANYTHING or had any relevance at all? Having an admin status (that I had no clue about and to be honest, I only checked the actual name of poster half way through replying) hardly improves it, on the contrary, it would make it worse if anything in my view.

Only have a few minutes before work here so have not had time to read all replies yet but will for sure. A follow up question though. Yes, the reason was of course mostly the ongoing "elections" or whatever is the proper way to call them, but also the main election that will be this fall. And yes, I am aware of quite a few things on how it works and so on. Anyway, do the elecion in november all take place on the same day in all states or is it spread as well over time? I had the impresion it was spread too.

[Jarulf]

You want to quibble...blah blah blah...repaid in kind your initial posts closing.

You simply don't have a clue do you? Now go make your own thread discussing things such as Iraq, Haiti or other parts of the world, this was supposed to help me out understanding the american voting system and how one can have people vote at different times in the same election and having the ones voting later even know the result of previous peoples votes and so on. If you have any insight, information or other valuable input, feel free to post, otherwise just leave. This is really getting tiresome.

[Griselda]

The presidential election takes place on the same day. Of course, each state (maybe even each county) can choose the hours that their polling places will be open. The main factor is that the US is spread across several time zones. People on the east coast want to have some idea how the election is going before they go to bed, but the polls may still be open at that time on the west coast. California has quite a few electoral votes, but because they're out west, many Californians feel that the election has already been decided before they have a chance to vote. Of course, most of the time it's not as close as it was in 2000.

People who live in Oregon, like me, may feel pretty irrelevant throughout the entire process. (Oregon doesn't even hold a primary until May!) Of course, if the entire election could hinge on Florida's results, I suppose it's possible that Oregon's results could play a similar role at some point. We had a recount here in 2000 as well, but it wasn't going to decide the election, so it didn't get as much attention.

-Griselda