Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - In the USA, should the electoral college be abolished?
| User | Post |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1582/5458 |
I don't know, Asian cultures are based around adoption and adaptation. The Japanese especially are relatively hardset in the older ways, so I'd say that your argument is entirely geographic. |
hhallahh
Posts: 429/607 |
It's (generally) true that you can't force new customs down a country's metaphorical throat, but it's also true that often a country's old customs are not well-adapted to running the rich, industrial economies based on free-markets and human rights that they wish to become... so the culture itself must be changed, which is most effectively done from top-down. If a country's culture inhibits its material prosperity... well, you can argue that that's okay, but you'd have to accept the fact that they're doomed to be poor, then. And that their culture is not "evolutionarily stable", so to speak, and will probably die anyways. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1577/5458 |
Well, when a people have a belief system that is over 8000 years old, it is a little difficult to shrug off, neh?
I wasn't bringing in Fundamentalism. I was taking into account basic democratic structures, such as Presidential Republics or Parliaments, or various other forms of said democratic structures.
Again, in a PM structure, it really depends on the status of the government. Minority vs. Majority can really make a difference. If a majority government is in power then there is not much that opposition can do, but generally, they make deals behind closed doors in the shadow cabinets and caucuses with the leading party and have the backing of lobbyists. This generally sways the PMs head. Minority governments generally work the best, as long as it is a moderate party. If a hardline left or right party comes to power in minority, with the opposition from the moderates and the other side of the spectrum...Instant dissolution of Parliament and a new vote.
But, if you have a crappy president with his party controlling congress and senate...It amounts to pretty much the same as a majority Parliament.
And I'm going to stand by a statement I have believed for years. What works best for the people is what should stand. |
hhallahh
Posts: 426/607 |
Well, I wouldn't deny that our system may not work so well in other countries..
And Reagan subsequently raised taxes, IIRC. And I don't recall any new major social programs in the 80s.. most of the deficiet came from military expenditures, I think.
If the electoral vote ties, it goes to the House, and Bush wins, as per the Constitution. There are intermediate possibilities, such as an elector switching his vote, or that some of the states which split their electoral votes somehow shuffling them around to favor a certain canidate.. I read an article on the various possibilities a few days back, but didn't pay much attention.. after all, it is a remote possibility.
It would be bitter, but there would be a winner, like last time. And life goes on. And maybe there would finally be a public move against the EC. |
Arwon
Posts: 198/506 |
Well, there was Reagan and the Congress. Reagan wanted to cut taxes, Democratic senate wanted to push a budget with new social programs in it. They comprimised... and did both! Creating a massive deficit.
Britain's a wierd example because of the House of Lords and its status as a constitutional monarchy running almost purely on convention. Britain's system of government wouldn't work anywhere but in Britain. The HoL basically doesn't do anything, so there's much less opposing the PM than, say, France, where the president is an active counterbalance to the PM, or in places like Ireland or here (until this year at least) where a strong senate has a "review" role over the government.
A more orthodox example of a parliamentary system would be Ireland or India, where the president has an almost purely ceremonial role, merely exercising a few reserve powers in emergencies.
"And are you implying that removing a popularly-elected President would be a legitimate thing to do if there was too much friction between him and Congress?"
No, what I'm saying is that in the event of significant friction there's no constituional recourse. Just about anything could concievably happen. Congress can't oust an unpopular president, the president can't move against congress. There is a very strong temptation to use extra-constitutional means - which in many countries using a US-type model means the army - to solve the impasse.
Just to steer this back on topic:
What do we think would happen if the Electoral vote tally ended up at 269-269? |
hhallahh
Posts: 424/607 |
When I say PM system, I think of something like Britain, wherein the PM yields a fair amount of power.
And are you implying that removing a popularly-elected President would be a legitimate thing to do if there was too much friction between him and Congress? That's a pretty contraversial thing to say. The only power the President has over the legislative branch is his veto. Although Presidents in the United States are often associated with certain legislative agendas, they have no actual power to make these agendas happen... it's their metaphysical mandates which may or may not do so. Although the President does kinda yield some legislative power through the beuracracy, few Presidents create huge amounts of legislative gridlock. And if they did, it's not really a terrible thing, necessarily.
I'm not familiar with the Ecuador example, but... different things work to different degrees in different places (and no, I'm not contradicting what I wrote to Ziffski.) I mean, the culture of the United States would probably allow us to have a monarchy that might not work so bad.  You say that the unaccountability of the President is a problem, but I wouldn't say it's created a problem here. The President is not some popular hero who can yield power as he sees fit.. he's a public servant who's expected to reflect the interests of his constituency, party, and country. |
Arwon
Posts: 197/506 |
So is France a "PM system" or a "presidential" system? they have both.
When I say "presidential system" I'm not referring simply to any system where there is a president - India has a president, Ireland has a president, but they're both very parliamentary systems with PMs - I'm talking about systems where the president is very powerful and wields significant day-to-day authority as the executive. Systems where the president and the legislature have pretty equal mandates and it's easy for them to end up at loggerheads with no constitutional way to solve it. The president can be removed - impeached - for misconduct, but there's usually no other mechanism to replace him before his term is up.
Look at the history of a country like Ecuador for example, whose constant conflicts between the legislature and executive in the 70s and 80s bordered on the absurd. This is the usual reality of systems with a powerful unaccountable president. |
hhallahh
Posts: 422/607 |
A PM can have a great deal of power, our PM's 2-party coalition controls both houses at the moment, but it's a more ephermeral and shifting sort of power... he is also more answerable to things like no confidence motions, losing the support of his own party, dismissal by a president or governor general, and prime ministers are also a lot more exposed to the press and public through "question time" and such, than a president in a system where he's the head of state and government. Also, the need to continually please 70 or 80 MPs and 40-odd senators does tend to keep things fairly moderate. In a president-centric system, however, it's harder to remove an implacable leader even if he's unpopular. Impeachment is hard and difficult, and if push comes to shove the president commands the military. It's a much more "all-or-nothing" system.
Most of your facts are merely contingent on the political traditions of various countries, not on the necessary facts created by having a PM or Presidential system. There's no reason a President couldn't have "question time" and whatnot if that's what you like. And a President generally does have to appease Congress, because he can't just do whatever he pleases... and since the President isn't the head of government, often he'll face an opposition-led legislature, which is something you don't see in PM systems.
But really, it should be put that each nation has a unique sort of mentality when it comes to politics, their democracy, and most importantly their nation identity. And that is what defines what works best in a nation.
So India's caste system was the best system for India? The Taliban in Afghanistan was the best system the Afghanis could hope for? Give me a break. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1576/5458 |
In a MAJORITY government, the role of the opposition parties is dulled. Whereas in a MINORITY government, the power of the any of the given opposition parties greatly increases.
To say that a Parliamentary system doesn't work is to not look at all the aspects, but then again, for the past decade people whined about how bad having a strong Liberal majority was, yet Canada's standard of living went up (and swiftly crashed when the political infighting began). But really, it should be put that each nation has a unique sort of mentality when it comes to politics, their democracy, and most importantly their nation identity. And that is what defines what works best in a nation. Given that the US is strong, economically and quite stable, the Presidential republic works beautifully. But, in another nation, as Arwon has said, the President has unfettered power and can exercise this somewhat unfairly...Such as President General Musharaff.
As for the PM having power, it is depending on the situations of the nation. Currently in Canada Paul Martin's Liberal sit with a minority government, meaning a voting down of a bill can cause a dissolution of Parliament, aka a vote of no confidence. It is a problematic system, but thus far it has worked in our nation. It yanks the arm of the ruling party to do what the other parties want and amend bills and ratify legislation. I don't know much about other nations senatorial systems, but Canada's are implaced by our Prime Minister, and for the most part...Well, it is more or less a cautionary board of elderly men that look over incoming legislation for grammatical errors. |
Arwon
Posts: 195/506 |
Well the equivalent role to Prime Minister in your government is the Majority House leader, so they're by their nature different roles. Plenty of countries (Ireland, France, Germany except they call the PM a chancellor, India) have both a president and a PM, where the president is head of state and may or may not wield some degree of day-to-day power, but the PM is head of the day-to-day government.
A PM can have a great deal of power, our PM's 2-party coalition controls both houses at the moment, but it's a more ephermeral and shifting sort of power... he is also more answerable to things like no confidence motions, losing the support of his own party, dismissal by a president or governor general, and prime ministers are also a lot more exposed to the press and public through "question time" and such, than a president in a system where he's the head of state and government. Also, the need to continually please 70 or 80 MPs and 40-odd senators does tend to keep things fairly moderate. In a president-centric system, however, it's harder to remove an implacable leader even if he's unpopular. Impeachment is hard and difficult, and if push comes to shove the president commands the military. It's a much more "all-or-nothing" system.
Bear in mind, the stability and continual democracy of the US is the exception, not the rule, to the "strong president" model. There's an entire continent of Latin American counter-examples as well as a couple of other places (the Philipines, Liberia) that underscore the problems with having such a strong unaccountable head of government. These countries have a much worse record with maintaining democracy than parliamentary systems - where a burgeoning tyrant usually first changes the system to make it more president-centred and less parliamentary. |
hhallahh
Posts: 420/607 |
It's my opinion that having a President rather than a Prime Minister is a good thing, because it allows for divided government, which has always put restraints on one-party dominance. Also, having a Prime Minister system isn't a sufficient condition for a multiparty system, since the key to a multiparty system is proportional representation, which is a completely different issue.. the fact that the President of the United States is stronger than a Prime Minister in another country isn't due to the President / Prime Minister system, but rather just due to the way that the insititutions evolved over time.. it's been my impression that in general, Prime Ministers tend to be more powerful than Presidents, because they'll always have the Legislature on their side.
The EC is an artifact. Originally, the President was not directly elected by the people, and so the EC kinda made sense. But obviously that's no longer the case. |
Arwon
Posts: 194/506 |
The problem with the presidential election though, drj, is that no matter how you slice the vote, there can only be one winner. Someone will be president, someone else won't. It's a very all-or-nothing situation however you do it. Preferential voting can still work - it does in Ireland - but in the end you're still going to only have 2 or 3 realistic presidential candidates.
That's one of the big flaws in the "strong president" republic model the US and Latin America (also the Philipines) uses. Because the president is the head of state and govt, it's a lot harder to have comprimise, coalitions,and so forth.
Whereas in a more parliament/diet/congress/duma centred model, where the president is more beholden to the legislature and might even be just a ceremonial figurehead (Ireland, India, Germany) coalition govt is easier, since the main action happens in a legislature with lots of seats for people of all different stripes. The president is still an "all or nothing" post but it's less central to the running of the country.
---------------
I think a lot of people are confusing congressional racing and the presidential race together. NSNick speaks of "gerrymandering" then talks of people registering in a different state. That's not gerrymandering, gerrymandering has nothing to do with the presidential election.
---------------
The electoral college is kind of weird as far as republic models go, but given the US's status as a federation of 50 nominally independant states it kind of makes sense. A good contrast though is Brazil where they have lots of states but the president is elected by popular vote. I guess the difference though is Brazil started out as a single entity whereas the US didn't. It's a historical curiosity and a bit odd, but the electoral college isn't really the thing that will fix things in America.
That said:
State Population per Electoral Vote
Wyoming 167,081
DC 187,795
Vermont 206,369
North Dakota 211,279
Alaska 216,273
South Dakota 254,770
Rhode Island 269,041
Delaware 272,497
Montana 305,874
Hawaii 314,402
...
Ohio 571,790
New Jersey 575,893
Georgia 578,981
Pennsylvania 588,831
Michigan 592,940
Illinois 602,550
New York 619,036
Florida 630,336
California 645,172
Texas 650,544
-----------
Finally, I think a much more interesting reform would be proportional election of the senate, rather than "2 per state". |
NSNick
Posts: 1258/3875 |
A nationwide popular vote would eliminate gerrymandering and other shady voting practices. I personally know at least two people that registered to vote here in Ohio instead of their own states because the race is so close here, and their vote would make more of a difference. |
drjayphd
Posts: 728/1477 |
I think we can all agree that there's a need for massive overhauls with the US electoral system. But not simply abolishing the EC (as all the kids aren't calling it). Maybe have them decided by Congressional district, rather than state? (shrug) Then award the two bonus votes for Senators to the winner of the whole state. Believe Maine does this, and there's that initiative in Colorado.
But PREFERENTIAL VOTING, people. I'm not thrilled with Kerry, but I'm'a votin' for him because I loathe the opposition. We need more choices here. |
NetSplit
Posts: 4/117 |
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
What I'm saying is that if someone's vote in state X becomes worth more than a vote of a person in state Y, X and Y being of equal size, it is not the government's fault that happened. It wasn't mandated by them. Theoretically everyone who has the right should vote, and when there are disaparities you have the non voters to blame.
The idea of voters in one state being penalized by non-voters in another state (or, alternatively, voters in one state gaining more power because of non-voters in their own state) is rather ridiculous to me. People who decide not to exercise their right to vote should not affect other voters in any way, so this is definitely not the sign of a good system of representation.
Also note that the number of electoral votes isn't directly related to population. No state can have fewer than 3 votes because each state has 2 senators and a minimum of 1 representative; what this means is that 100 of the 538 or so votes (that's nearly 20%) have absolutely nothing to do with population.
It's my opinion that the electoral college should be abandoned in favor of the popular vote because it ignores large amounts of voters and it misrepresents areas due to those extra 2 votes. *shrugs* I just don't see any benefit coming from it. |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 727/2189 |
What I'm saying is that if someone's vote in state X becomes worth more than a vote of a person in state Y, X and Y being of equal size, it is not the government's fault that happened. It wasn't mandated by them. Theoretically everyone who has the right should vote, and when there are disaparities you have the non voters to blame.
Of course, you can always blame the gov't for making the volatile system in the first place. |
Kefka
Posts: 2313/3392 |
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Well that part about the voter turnout may be true, but it is not under control by the system. It is not a constraint that the government can tweak, only voters can decide how much their vote is worth, relative to another state, by voting as much as possible. Your vote has a potential value commesurate with the number of electoral votes it has the possibility of winning. How much actual value you assign it is a matter of perspective. There are nonvoters who think it has no value whatsover b/c they think the system is corrupt, it won't make a difference, it's all the same Dem or GOP, etc.
Yea, but with a popular vote, they only count the votes of those that voted, and don't consider how much weight a state has a possibility of holding. |
hhallahh
Posts: 405/607 |
And that's relevant how? It may not be under the direct control of the system that some votes count more than others, but if this outcome arises incidentally and naturally from the system, you still have a bad system. |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 714/2189 |
Well that part about the voter turnout may be true, but it is not under control by the system. It is not a constraint that the government can tweak, only voters can decide how much their vote is worth, relative to another state, by voting as much as possible. Your vote has a potential value commesurate with the number of electoral votes it has the possibility of winning. How much actual value you assign it is a matter of perspective. There are nonvoters who think it has no value whatsover b/c they think the system is corrupt, it won't make a difference, it's all the same Dem or GOP, etc. |
hhallahh
Posts: 399/607 |
The electoral college should be abolished. Period. There's a dozen obvious reasons why, but I'll mention one of the less-obvious ones:
The electoral college gives states weight roughly in proportion to their population (except for small states, but let's assume for the state of argument)... however, within these states, the turnout rates don't matter. Thus, low-turnout states (like the South) have their votes artificially inflated in comparison with high-turnout states (like the North). To illustate an extreme example, if 1% of the population voted in Pennsylvania and Bush won, and 100% of the population votes in Illinois and Kerry won, then every vote in Pennsylvania will have been worth 100x as much as every vote in Illinois (assuming equal populations). This is fucking ridiculous.
The anti-electoral college argument isn't a good one. There have been plenty of changes made to the electoral or procedural mechanisms via the Constitution over the years: Look at the 12th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, or 26th amendments. Granted, some are more important than others (mainly the 12th and 17th), but don't tell me it can't be done without opening some kind of Pandora's box. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
