Slashdot Log In
Mathematicians: Elections Flawed
Posted by
Hemos
on Sun Nov 03, 2002 09:17 AM
from the looking-at-the-math dept.
from the looking-at-the-math dept.
Nader-licious writes "Science News Online reports: 'With recent reports of malfunctioning voter machines and uncounted votes during primaries in Florida, Maryland, and elsewhere, reformers are once again clamoring for extensive changes. But while attention is focused on these familiar irregularities, a much more serious problem is being neglected: the fundamental flaws of the voting procedure itself. Mathematics are shedding light on questions about how well different voting procedures capture the will of the voters.' The verdict: the U.S. system might be the worst of the lot."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
FP! that was easy (Score:5, Funny)
The best way? (Score:4, Insightful)
Having said that, and assuming one day democracy decides to rear it's head again, technology will not hold the key for the voting / tallying process. Small election halls with big chief tablets and number 2 pencils, and rotating citizen audits of the results, relative transparency - posting of *results* in hard copy and electronically. There is no other way. The current system is not trustworthy, adding technology to the mix just gives more excuses and less transparency for regular non ninja bit nerds. Follow the yellow brick road boys and girls, and mind your heads.
Parent
The system won't change (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither would be happy if the system would allow more than 2 parties to exist, so neither will ever agree to a substantial reform.
Parent
Re:The system won't change (Score:5, Interesting)
- Currently, power is shared between Republicans and Democrats.
Yup. That is what I was missing in the article, too. Obvious, really: voting theorists deal with the theory of voting, not with the mechanics of change, and the question of what is politically doable.Neither would be happy if the system would allow more than 2 parties to exist, so neither will ever agree to a substantial reform.
Point being, not only the incumbents, but also the lower echelons grew up with the current system, and they know how to play it - play being exactly the right word. I expect few professional politicians would want to change the system, because the change would cause uncertainty - they would rather be big underdogs in the current system, than risk even the very small danger of becoming bit players in a new one.
A thought on this issue: as you say, neither the Dems nor the Reps would like to see the rise of smaller parties, because this would erode their influence (power base), and they would even (gasp) co-operate to keep the system just the way it is. However, if a party smaller party does grow big enough to be an "annoyance" to the established ones, the one more hurt by the smaller party will bring the issues in this article up - hence this discussion.
For instance: the Dems would be prepared to give the greens say 10 seats in the senate, if the Dems in turn get the presidency - quite a likely situation if the voting procedures are changed as described.
The point to which I have been coming all the while is this: in a one-dimensional political spectrum, the "right" is stereotypically more disciplined than the "left", i.e., they have a stronger belief in law & order, hierarchical systems etc. This means that if there is a small rightist party (e.g. a bunch of neo-nazis by anything but name) in a situation similar to the one in Florida during the last presidential election, their adherents will be more likely to follow the "orders" of the party leadership to vote for Bush rather than their own candidate (because Bush is better than Gore, and their own candidate doesn't have a real chance to win) than their "leftist" counterparts.
This means in turn that the results of the plurality vote in the US is not only the two-party system that we observe, but also a slight shift to the right.
In closing I must say that in my opinion, replacing the plurality vote would be the single biggest step the US could undertake to enhance its political image, pretty much everywhere else in the world.
Parent
The Nature of Change (Score:3, Insightful)
Significant change occurs in only one of two ways:
The people in power typically have control over the slow method and those not in power over the fast method.
So, no, we're not going to see either the Republican or Democratic parties do anything truly dramatic (though their spin doctors will make it seem so). They'll fight over the political center, which is where their path to power lies, and continue to slowly turn up the heat on the rest of us frogs.
However, occasionally there will be opportunities for real change without revolution. They will typically be when something so shocking has occurred that a general (though usually directionless) unease occurs in the voting population. Jimmy Carter was the result of one of these opportunities...caused by national outrage at the abuse of power by Richard Nixon. Ross Perot capitalized on another. Whether either of these were (or had the potential to be) successful and lasting acts of change I'll leave to another discussion.
One-turn elections are worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to naming individuals (e.g. presidents), most countries use a 2-turns system.
Usually, you can have as many runners as you want for the first round (16 at the last French election), then only the 2 highest scores are selected for the second round.
This means that all ideas can be represented at the election, and influence the big parties, without hindering their chances.In a 2-turn election, Ralph Nader would have been ejected at the first round, and the world's future would not depend on a man that watches Korea through closed binoculars !
Yet Nader's score would have prompted Al Gore to make small changes in his program in order to reap some of Nader's voters. Everyone would be happy: the most popular candidate wins, but the minority candidates can still express their views and actually influence government.
This system has one big default, however: it is so efficient that people tend to rely too much on it. E.g. in the French election, 99% of voters were absolutely certain that the 2nd round would bring the good old traditional Center-Left vs Center-Right showdown (Jospin-Chirac in that case), so many people didn't even care to vote. This is even more true for center-left voters, because their candidate (Lionel Jospin) was leading in the polls for the 2nd round.
And then they (we) saw Jean-Marie Le Pen's face on TV that night
Ever heard about those people who buy highly sophisticated cars with all security options and then start driving like devils out of their boxes, thinking that with such a safe car you don't need to be careful anymore ? One day or another, they end up bumping into a tree or a wall. The 2-turns direct voting system is a very safe car. But the French are notorious for being awful drivers.
Thomas Miconi
Parent
The Us Presidency is a two-turn election (Score:3, Insightful)
The most interesting aspect of election reform in my eyes would be the elimination of primaries. Why not have a presidential election with multiple candidates from each party, if we could vote for more than one? Certainly there are some republican candidates I would vote for above some democratic candidates, though this isn't usually the case. This kind of voting system would help me vote by valuesparties.
Most importantly, with several candidates from each party, none would get a windfall of PAC contributions funding media blitzes. As a result the free press, word of mouth, and (dare I say it) the internet, would have a much greater relative impact on voter education and commentary.
This would be a very good thing, far outweighing the additional benefit of a more accurate election day.
Re:The Us Presidency is a two-turn election (Score:5, Informative)
1) those aren't legally a part of the election
2) who can vote in them is restricted in most (if not all) states.
3) who can participate as a candidate is pre-selected by the party apparatus.
So they don't qualify either.
Parent
French election turn out (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet, france had a 70% voter turn out, Far higher then any US elections
Parent
Re:FP! that was easy (Score:3, Insightful)
- the Yemeni presidential election [al-bab.com], won by president Saleh against a candidate from his own party who endorsed the incumbent with over 96% of the vote,
- the Iraqi referendum [rferl.org], extending Saddam's rule for another 7 years, won with 100% of the vote, with the result announced only a few hours after voting ends.
Be grateful that at least in the US the vote count was mostly conducted in a fair way - it could be much worse
"It could be worse" is not valid reasoning. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way it would be relevant to discuss Iraq would be if we were considering using the Iraqi system as opposed to the current one. Is that what you were thinking? Doubt it.
"It could be worse" is what you say when you have decided that you can't change or that you don't want to change the situation.
Which is why I expect to hear a lot of "it could be worse" from Capitol Hill if the issue comes up.
Parent
and in other news (Score:5, Funny)
-- james
Parent
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Funny)
And vote on the proposed definitions.
Parent
Flaws in the voting system (Score:4, Insightful)
"Don't complain about your lack of options..." (Score:4, Interesting)
Jokes aside, I once got the American election system explained to me by an American. He said "You take two extremely right wing politicians (from the viewpoint of the rest of the world), one is against the death penalty, and the other is for. Now go vote."
When I've told this back to others, they say that it is pretty much so - it doesn't matter who wins, it is basically the same anyways. Now that is what I'd call a big flaw. Personally, i wouldn't know if it is really that bad, since I'm not from the US.
Also, I'd say the system where money wins (in the sense that only rich or company sponsored ones can afford the campaigns) seems very, very strange and fishy to an outsider. What view or standpoint would any rich or bribed politician share with me?
Parent
Also a good source (Score:4, Informative)
My view on "instant runoff" (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm an Australian, and we use the "instant runoff" system described in the article. My view on it is that rather than putting the most popular candidate into office, it keeps the least popular candidates out of office.
There is a problem that the article neglected to mention - "how to vote" cards. Each candidate will generally recommend how they think people should vote - themselves first, naturally. The same sheep mentality that leads to 70% of the population voting for the same party every election leads to many religiously following these how to vote cards.
The end result is a heap of wheeling and dealing between candidates for these "directed preferences." It even becomes a stick in between elections that the minor parties can use to beat a major party with; in a marginal seat, having a minor party favour you over your primary opposition can be the difference between winning and losing.
Re:My view on "instant runoff" (Score:5, Insightful)
The end result is a heap of wheeling and dealing between candidates for these "directed preferences." It even becomes a stick in between elections that the minor parties can use to beat a major party with;
That sounds like a Good Thing. The winner of the election gets the seat and thus direct power, but smaller parties still get some power even though they're not elected.
In a simple system where the highest number of votes wins automatically, it doesn't matter much what minorities want, once you have enough votes to win. Even in cases where the race is close so they do matter, this instant runoff system formalizes it (there is a clear minority party which makes it explicit who their voters should vote for next), making it a more direct process; candidates have a good view of the issues that matter to the minorities.
So sure, it's a lot of wheeling and dealing, politics etc, but it sure seems to me it should work better at representing everybody's interests, at first sight.
Parent
The system in Australia (Score:4, Interesting)
What I like about this system is that you are not tying yourself to one candidate. Your vote won't be wasted if you vote #1 for a minority candidate, since if they don't win your next preferences may count. This also means that you're not necessarily guaranteed a win if you're in one of the larger parties.
In the end (generally), you don't get an electorate that's split between people who did and didn't vote for the winner. Since everybody's preferences are taken into account, you get a decent compromise.
Not quite. (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens is that the ballots which nominated the candidate with the least number of first preference votes are redistributed, with this repeating until one candidate has a clear majority.
And our system was mentioned as one of the alternatives to the US one in the article - they called it a 'runoff' system. I rather like it, myself, though I reckon proportional representation might be better . .
Though proportional representation might have seen Hanson and friends in federal parliament . . . . A scary thought.
himi
Parent
NOT flawed, designed not to capture will (Score:3, Interesting)
1: In proportional representation, there are more likely to be minority parties with elected officials who have extreme/radical viewpoints that are dissimilar to the viewpoints of the "average" voter. Because of the US' election system, no candidate can choose to isolate a significant portion of the population with his views and yet still be elected, to a large "smoothing out" extremist policy. While many feel that this is a bad thing, almost all extremist policy is not realistic to implement, and partial or full implementation of this policy can cause a good bit of damage.
2: In proportional representation, the government is generally unitary in nature, meaning that the entire government is controlled by one party. Although there are more parties beyond the controlling party and another party represented, they still have a HUGE capability to control government policy. If the party in charge changes (and they often change), the entire government policy may change as well. Imagine if a country implemented social security, and then cancelled it 12 years later because the Socialists were replaced by Libertarians!
3: Most other countries do not implement a form of federal government. While this may work for countries where there country is roughly the size of a US region, it makes interests associated with a geographical locale very difficult to achieve. While every vote should be equal (or as equal as possible), the reality is that interests are largely decided by the environment of the voter, and partitioning the environment, and tiering government, means more interests of more voters are going to be met without completely missing the interests of other voters.
4: Most unitary governments do not have a strong set of checks and balances; i.e., judges and execute officials are appointed via the parliament/prime minister, and the prime minister is elected by the parliament. The effect of this election policy is similar again to point 2: a shift in political power can cause a dramatic shift in policy in a short period of time because there are fewer roadblocks between the will of the current parliament and the implementation of that will.
Out of all of the election policies I've studied, IGNORING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE (because it's a system with several undescribed states, if we were to somehow reach one of those states by having an election of an official "tied" in enough ways we wouldn't know what the next step would be), I prefer the US government system. It's not designed to reflect the will of the people right now. It's designed to reflect the long-term interests of the people after filtering out extreme views. Its perponderance of gridlock has prevented so many stupid things from happening it's totally uncountable. That being said, I like the way Australian government is structured, except I REALLY do not like the idea of being able to put multiple candidates on a list. Political scientist mathemeticians have shown that by being able to list multiple candidates on a piece of paper, it increases the voting power of a citizen to > 1, and they can use these voting lists to perform elaborate tricks to achieve an end result which might not effect the will of the voting populace at all.
Tired of rambling, so I think I'll stop here.
We Don't Have A Federal Government... (Score:4, Interesting)
Most other countries do not implement a form of federal government.
We (USA) don't have a federal government, at least not in the pure sense of the word. We have a national government.
What's the difference? Whether power resides primarily on the state or national level. A federal government represents and is controlled by a federation of smaller political entities (states, in the USA) where the true power resides. A national government represents and is controlled by a single national political entity that might or might not be comprised of smaller political entities.
The single best way to determine whether you have a federal or national government is where the primary power of taxation resides since a government can do nothing without revenue. The political struggle between the federalists and anti-federalists in the USA centered mainly around this point. Oddly enough, there was the same confusion between the terms "federal" and "national" back then. Apparently, the Federalist marketers got their mits onto that confusion first, because the Federalists were actually for a national government and the Anti-Federalists for a federal government.
Parent
biggest problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:biggest problem (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Of coures elections are flawed in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take the Presidential campaign of 2000. What choices did the people have. Let's take the two mainstream candidates first for example. Here's the story that was created by the media. You have the straight-talking cowboy with a heart of gold vs. the lying politician who can't even make up his mind on himself. And oh by the way, they will do exactly the same thing once they get in office. The people didn't stand a chance.
Nader:Not a viable option. Not to the fact that he's a third party, but the fact that Nader was more concerned with burying the Democrats than actually convincing people of things. (I'm a strong supporter of the Green platform, so cut that one off at the pass)
Buchanan:A viable option in my mind. People knew what he stood for. They just didn't like what he stood for.:)
Libertarian:The Libs. have the same problem as the Greens, in getting out an actual platform. With the Libertarians it's a bit more ingrained because the platform sometimes falls into hypocritical thought. (Drug Laws Bad, Property Laws Good!..BZZZT)
The problem in the US is not the voting systems. Well, the voting systems are a problem, but not quite in the way listed. The problem with US voting systems is that different areas use different voting systems with different margin of errors, which creates some differential in the actual vote count.
The problem in the US is the entertainment base of the media. They try to create a horse-race out of EVERYTHING. They equivicate the Democrats and the Republicans on everything, and pretty much ignore anything that would pretty much end one of the parties. For example, a massive coverage of the Pitt/Webster scandal right now would in essence make the election next Tuesday unwatchable. Why? The result would not be in question. It doesn't make for good TV.
News as entertainment. Sorry, I get enough of that from Jon Stewart. I want the rest of my news to be damn serious.
It isn't about 'measuring' as much as 'forming' (Score:5, Insightful)
Mandate: The winner points to a large number of votes as a justification for his / her agenda.
Consensus: The process of elections is designed to determine what kind of compromises among winners (remember that there are hundreds of elections at once) must be made to govern. Dozens of factions have to work together, and this is how the horse-trading happens that lets the hippies work with the union workers work with the trial lawyers.
Acceptance: OK, you disagree with the results of the elections, and you can't find other factions that you are willing to work with. You want to be ideologically pure and go your own way, and you don't have the popularity to make it on your own. You at very least have to accept the process that got you there. Acceptance is what keeps us from breaking into violence after the election.
OK, so how does our system fare?
Well, that article addresses the question, "what is the best way to measure my Mandate" to the exclusion of all else. In other words, it measures elections as if they were opinion polls. I'll come back to it.
In terms of Consensus, we have the best system in the world, which is why our government has only broken down into fighting once. In a parliamentary system, you get elected and then (as is happening in Israel) you form a coalition government by compromising with other parties to form a majority. So the people's will is measured, then a compromise is formed in a back room by elites.
In our system, the 'spoiler' factor that the article describes as a bad thing actually helps. In the end, you pretty much have to be in one of the two major parties, or your vote is useless. That means you have to compromise with the religiously orthodox, small businessmen, and engineers on one side (broadly) and lawyers, teachers, union officials, and students on the other (again, very broadly). You have to do the compromising, so you decide exactly what kind of deal to cut in the primaries. The two parties meanwhile have to be as inclusive of compatible points of view as possible. So our system rocks at building consensus. People who hate compromising, of course, love parliamentary systems, which are more entertaining in academia or on TV, but are notoriously unstable.
Finally, acceptance. Well, I think that our system has that, too, though it was strained in 2000 with the election fiasco, and events in NJ more recently.
Anyway, that's what the point of our election system is. Remember, even in physics, examining a system is reflexive: it changes what you're looking at. Our system isn't a measurement, it is a way to arrive at solutions that get the most popular viewpoints across, a good compromise if your faction didn't win the primary but won the general, and at least confidence in the process if you didn't even win the general. I'd say our system is the best I've seen, compared to either paper plans or real life.
The problems with plurality vote... (Score:3, Insightful)
- Student A: A, A, A, D, F.
- Student B: A, A, B, B, B.
- Student C: A, A, C, B, B.
Which student do you think should be ranked first in his class of 3? Well, plurality vote picks student A - is this fair?I'm shocked! (Score:3, Funny)
The verdict: the U.S. system might be the worst of the lot.
Shocking! And here I clicked on a Slashdot story thinking I would find that the US was the best of the lot! This is so unexpected!!
;)
Election reform unfashionable amoung the elected (Score:3, Insightful)
The current electoral system has a number of flaws, as any electoral system will have (per the article.) But the particular flaws that whatever the current system has are exactly the ones are that most likely to favor those who are currently in office- why should they change it?
Am I the only one (Score:5, Insightful)
only watch the 30 min. TV debate 1 month before the elections,
who do not understand 75% of every single phrase politician tell and
who honestly think that whoever is elected, it will be about the same?
I used to be idealistic, but I now think that government is just another business which happens to control my life.
"Democracy" sounds great... That's about it.
Re:Am I the only one (Score:3, Insightful)
I spent about two hours looking over sites like the offical election [state.md.us] site for my state and Young Voters [youngvoters.org] which has a profile for each candidate, where they stand on their positions, and what other services they have been involved in.
Now the only thing holding people back from being an informed voter is lazyness, or blind devotion to party lines.
Re:Am I the only one (Score:4, Insightful)
"Democracy: that ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel
Parent
false assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarians and Greens constantly complain that their views aren't reflected by either of the mainstream parties. For that matter, on many issues my own beliefs are closer to the Libertarians or the Greens and I personally haven't voted for a mainstream Presidential canidate since 92 [1]. However, the same complaints come from Lyndon LaRouche and the KKK. If only a small minority likes your views (and in the case of the libs and the greens that IS true [2]) and the vast majority of the country would be terrified by some of the changes you would enact, then you should not be elected under any system.
Think back on the 2000 election. Imagine now that instead of being a heavily contested race between two extremely similar middle of the road boring canidates, it was between David Duke and Ralph Nader. When the chads were being counted, there very well might have been violence instead of the, "I really hope the person I voted for wins, but if don't I'll be willing to grudingly accept it," attitude that we got. The vast majority of the population wasn't scared by either Gore or Bush[3]. This is proof that the system works for at least one definition of working.
What if you are one of the people who has the 2-5% views? In my opinion running canidates for office is a valid action, but the focus shouldn't be on somehow winning the race or even on getting matching funds. Instead focus on the attempt to get your views out. Slow dramatic change on the beliefs of the electoriate is much more frustrating than hoping your third party canidate can win somehow, but it's a fairer approach to the people who would disagree. One look at the drug legalization debate and the people willing to speak out about it now is proof that it can work. Our system[4] isn't fast about accepting change but remember. The same reasons why we have stupid copyright laws and pot continues to be illegal make it so no one could deport all Arabs on 9/12/01. It's not about getting our wishes; it's about not getting our fears. What's wrong with that?
[1] I used to live in Maryland. Now I live in Washington State. If the Democratic canidate doesn't carry both of those states easily, he or she is going to lose the election. In either case, I don't worry much about my own vote.
[2] That's disguised some by what I like to call the Fallacy of a Large Population. In a country of 260,000,000 people, 2% of that population is over 5 million people. It's easy to exist almost solely in a population that big. When all of your friends agree with you, you're much more likely to overrepresent the degree to which your views are believed in the population at large. The internet (which lets people converse based on beliefs or interests instead of geographical proximity) is making this much worse.
[3] If you're going to respond to this with a rant about how Bush is a facist and we should all fear him in the wake of 9/11, take the time to study real facists. I don't like aspects of the Patriot Bill either, but imagine what he could have railroaded through in the weeks following and be glad that boring middle of the road people win.
[4] Yes I'm being UScentric in this post. The article itself is about the US style of elections. Deal with it.
What assumption? (Score:4, Insightful)
Third parties in the US don't just fail to represent their constituents' opinions in Washington, they can actually cause a reduction in representation of those opinions as well. Even counting the number of Nader voters who would have voted for Bush or not at all in a 2-party system, it seems clear from exit polls that Gore would have won if the last election had been a one on one race. Plurality voting requires you to "throw your vote away", i.e. forgo your ability to express a preference between the two leading candidates, if you want to vote for a minority candidate. The most popular minority candidate is almost guaranteed to take away votes that would otherwise have gone to the major candidate that most closely reflects the minority's views.
Third candidates don't have to be third party candidates. More moderate or more widely appealing candidates from the major parties would be benefitted as well. The winner of the last election might have been John McCain, for instance, if the Republicans could have fielded more than one candidate in the final election without splitting their own voters.
Polls on elections reflect the system of elections, and so the feedback which the major parties get is automatically subject to the constraint that issues which both parties have similar viewpoints on don't affect the poll. Unless an issue becomes a point of contention between the Democratic and Republican candidate, it can't affect the final vote, so it doesn't get discussed. Some of the public apathy towards intellectual property issues and the public domain may be a result of this, for example.
Parent
Voting affect history? (Score:3, Insightful)
History books might also refer to the various subsequent presidents of both the United States of America as well as the Confederate States of America. That is, up until around the 1950's, where the names change to National Socialist States of America, with the primary political party being the National Socialist Workers Party of America, a branch of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, after a political (but probably not too violent) conquest by an unchecked (because of a lack of power from North America) Nazi Germany that would have risen to control all of Europe by the mid 1940's, Russia and the Middle East by 1950, and set its sites on North America thereafter.
Or perhaps the history books might refer to a brilliant statesman that averted a possible civil war (something that Abraham Lincoln failed to do), only to see that possibility break out repeatedly every 20 or so years until the mid 1900's when slavery would finally be outlawed.
We really don't know for sure just how history would have played out.
Who should win? (Score:4, Insightful)
55 voters are voting in a primary between 5 candidates.
18 of them prefer Tsongas to Kerrey to Clinton to Harkin to Brown
12 of them prefer Clinton to Harkin to Kerrey to Brown to Tsongas
10 of them prefer Brown to Clinton to Harkin to Kerrey to Tsongas
9 of them prefer Kerrey to Brown to Harkin to Clinton to Tsongas
4 of them prefer Harkin to Clinton to Kerrey to Brown to Tsongas
2 of them prefer Harkin to Brown to Kerrey to Clinton to Tsongas
Who should win?
Under our current plurality, "winner-take-all" system, Tsongas would win because he had the most first place votes.
If a single runoff election was held between the top two candidates, Clinton would win the runoff by a landslide.
If instant runoff was used, dropping the candidates from the running one at a time depending on who had the fewest first place votes, then Brown would end up winning.
If a Borda count was used, giving each candidate 5 points for a 1st place vote, 4 points for 2nd place, etc., then Kerrey would win.
Finally, if Condorcet voting was used, Harkin would win, since he would win a one-on-one election against any of the other candidates.
Who do you think should win, and why?
This, by the way, fails to illustrate why I think we need Condorcet voting: not because it's criteria necessarily produces the best candidate, since in an election like the above it isn't clear by any means who is the "best". The appeal of Condorcet voting is that in all but the most degenerate cases (e.g. where most people prefer A to B, most people prefer B to C, and most people prefer C to A) Condorcet removes any incentive to make the election even worse by not "throwing your vote away"; in every other method mentioned, there are voters who can improve the outcome of the election (according to their own preferences) by voting something other than their own honest rankings. There's a nice discussion of Condorcet voting and the criteria like this that it meets on electionmethods.org [electionmethods.org].
Canada! Canada! (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
If what you're saying was right, we'd see the President selected the same way. No, the Electoral College exists because of a concern they had in those long-ago days, a concern which is still very valid today: a concern that with pure direct election of the President, metropolitan areas would overwhelm rural interests and we'd wind up with a government "by the cities, of the cities" instead of one which represented the whole nation. If we had direct popular election of the Presidency, do you think the President would ever care about what concerns citizens in Montana had?
Take a look at the county-by-county election returns from the 2000 campaign. It's an absolute sea of red, except for a few small blotches of blue up and down the coastlines and other small blotches in the Midwest.
County-by-county, it was a Bush blowout. Not even close. We hadn't seen a county-by-county blowout like that since Reagan sent Mondale packing in '84.
It was only in terms of pure popular vote that Gore nudged ahead. But, as it turns out, pure popular vote doesn't matter in Presidential elections. It's pure electoral vote that matters.
Parent
Re:Absolutely wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, we have a system in which the concerns of a few people in Montana have excessive influence over the whole country. If more people live in the cities, why shouldn't their concerns get proportional weight? What gives a person who is surrounded by big fields more importance than anyone else?
We don't go around quoting: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and all acres are created equal, and a man equals 1000 acres." We shouldn't run the country that way, either.
Parent
Re:Absolutely wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
Montana has three electors. Three. That's the least you can possibly have. There are 538 total electoral votes. You need 270 to "win" the Presidency.
Unless it's a god-awful close election, Montana and other small states get ignored, because it's much more effective, politically, to focus on states like California (54 electoral votes), New York (33 electoral votes), Texas (32 electoral votes), and Florida (25 electoral votes).
With those 4 states, you have 144 electoral votes. Just over half of the total you need. Throw in Ohio (21), Illinois (22), and Pennsylvania (23), and you're at 210 electoral votes. 60 shy of what you need, with 7 states.
Get a few other states sewn up, and you're set.
Montana and other rural states get screwed.
The electoral college system should not be used as the end-all, be-all system. We need something that actually works.
Kierthos
Re:Absolutely wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're the one who doesn't understand the issue. They wouldn't be "dicked out of representation". They would get their fair share of representation. With their high priority voting weight, their needs are currently prioritized above the needs of high population states.
Parent
Re:Absolutely wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Count the electoral college votes in Montana compared with Florida, NY, Texas, California... places with much higher populations.
Then tell me how Montana gets a bigger share, somehow.
Montana population: 904,000; electors: 3; Voters per elector: 300,000
California population: 34,000,000; electors: 54; Voters per elector: 629000
Montana: one man, two votes. And Montana is not the only state with excessive representation per voter. It adds up.
Parent
Re:Absolutely wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Absolutely wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
County-by-county, it was a Bush blowout. Not even close.
Except when you take into account for population. Isn't that how someone should be elected? ... by number of votes? or should Montana win out because they have big splotches of no one living there?
Re:Voting What the founders intended (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people have such a problem understanding the Electoral College? It's a very simple process that, when it appears in other aspects of life, no body raises an eyebrow.
For example, the World Series. Voting is equivalent to scoring runs. Each game is equivalent to winning a single state. To win the election you have to beat your opponent in four out of seven states. The total number of runs scored does not determine who wins - there have been times, in fact, where the winning team has scored less total runs than the losing team (1960 Series).
Same analogy can be applied to the Stanley Cup Championship and the NBA Championship.
Yet, no one is claiming that the team that scores the most overall should win, are they?
Yes, this analogy assumes all the states are the same size and that it is only a two-party system; it's not perfect
Parent
Re:Voting What the founders intended (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:We may not have a lot of people voting (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yes, Early Voting, usually held in city hall or a public library. Open seven days a week, for two weeks leading up to the election. Perhaps your state has this?
(To the best of my knowledge, every state allows voting by mail. Don't even have to leave the house.)
Re:The framers had a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Either Mod This Guy Up as Funny... (Score:3, Interesting)
Pardon me, but racist? Kindly explain how you got that from my comment!
Anyway, your response indicates that you judge the success of a political system based on economic results. I must point out that the two are not necessarily related. However, since you're the original poster, I'll play on your playing field.
Yes, China is currently growing very quickly. But keep in mind that it's much easier to achieve a high rate of growth when your productivity is lower (in this case, GDP/population).
China is a totalitarian state (political system) that is beginning to realize that capitalism (economic system) works better than communism (economic system) in the real world. We have yet to see whether the economic freedom the Chinese government is beginning to allow will cause the populace to demand political freedom (some form of representative democracy; a family of political systems) as well.
If the USA is considered to be a political-economic experiment at ~225 years, then the political-economic environment in China right now (~10 years old?) certainly qualifies as an early-stage experiment and any assessment of their ultimate success or failure should be considered to be, at best, a guess.
Also note that I mentioned the Soviet Union in my reply to your post. I don't see you touting their growth rate.
Re:Why don't we look at reality instead of theory? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hardly a feat. Look at most of Western Europe and you'll see the same thing or better. Look north of you and you'll see a country that hasn't had a civil war since it originated. Look down under and you'll find another country that's been remarkably light on the civil wars. Heck, some would say that a single civil war in the last 225 years puts you in the lower half of the pack.
It cannot be because there is no credible threat that there will be a military junta, or an overthrow of civilian government.
This depends what you consider to be an overthrow of civilian government. Some would suggest your civilian government has already been overthrown by a corporate government. Beyond this, again, look at most of Western Europe, Australia, or Canada and you'll see the same thing, all with election systems different from yours.
It certainly can't be that the US Constitution is one of the most admired documents of governmental philosophy the world over.
Trust me, it isn't. Besides which, the parts of the US Constitution that are admired have little to do with the election process. Not to mention that the voting process in it has already been changed since its creation.
It can't be that the United States is not only the world's remaining superpower, but has the highest standard of living* of any country on the face of the earth.
* (not measured by some theoretical rating of quality of life, but measured by the number of people in the world who are risking their lives every day just to come here- I don't see shiploads of Chinese immigrants paying $30,000 each to get to Sweden or Denmark.)
I'll grant you the superpower status, but that has less to do with your electoral system than the military-industrial complex that was allowed to mature fully and wasn't wiped out by the 1st and 2nd world wars. It also has to do with the U.S's idea that they be ready at a moments notice to impose their will on any country in the world.
As to the quality of life = # of immigrants, might I suggest that this has as much to do with geography as anything else, and that you actually check your facts, such as immigration numbers to Australia, Canada, and Western Europe.
The longer I live, the more I respect the Founding Fathers' wisdom in what they did, why they did it, and why they protected it from change. There's always some goofball selling something, somewhere.
You should look into the Founding Fathers' a bit more. Part of their wisdom was that they were in favor of a complete constitutional review taking place at least every generation. Unlike you, they seemed to realize that times change, better ways can be found, and permanently tying yourself to something just because it's worked so far isn't the best strategy.
Parent