USA election system

Discussion in 'Politics' started by padisha emperor, Sep 13, 2004.

  1. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    Please don't be irritated now, it is not to say that the US election system sucks, only to speak of it.

    For me, it has lots of defaults (but there is no system which is perfect, the french one has default : too much lists, so a too big dispertion of voices)

    The most important for me is that a man can be elected with less voices than the other. Like Bush in 2000, but it could happen again in the future. So it is not really "democratic", in the sense that normally, the elected person is the one who get the most part of voices.
    The US system is the undirect universal suffrage. (France had this system, before, but we change in 1962 for the direct universal suffrage).
    No problem with it, we have still it for the mayors' elections and the senators' elections.

    In France, when the President was elected with the undirect way, by a Great Electors college, he - the President - had not a real real power, the Parliament possessed it.

    But in the USA, it is not a parliamentary regime, it is a presidential regime. So the president's election is really the most most most important.

    The problem is that the repartitions of the great electors is simple : the list who get more voices than the other get ALL the great electors...It is not a proportionnal repartition.
    In France we had this kind of repartition - proportionnal - for the election of the deputy - for the "Assemblée Nationale", the main court of the Parliament, whiwh is also constituated by the "Senat - . But problem with it : it was complex, and not real majority can appear with this system. It is really hard to calcul it. this system was at the origin of the ministerial instability if the IIIrd and IVth Republic.

    So, you will say to me that if this system sucks, why should we use it ? in fact, it doesn't suck. With it, there is a best representation of the elector's choice. There is problem for list election, like for the deputy or senators...when several seats are the aim, for several persons.

    But for the presidential election, no problem. Why ? because no problem of the repartition of the seats : only 2 persons.
    The great electors will vote for one or the other, not for 12 lists.

    The actual situation is that if you win in Florida with 1,000,000 voices more than your opponent, you will get 27 great electors. He : 0.
    But if after you lose in California with only 100,000 voices less, you will have 0 great electors, and he : 55.so he will have 28 more great electors than you, but you'll have 900,000 voices more.
    Because the system is the pertaining to the majority ballot.
    with only one voices more, you get ALL the G.E. for a local election, it is normal, like for a mayor, a governor....but for the whole USA : it is unfair to lose a democratic election with more voices than the winner.


    So, if the system was the proportionnal repartition, it could be better - maybe not, but it could be - .
    Imagine : the state A with 10,000,000 voters, and with 10 great electors - GE - , and the state B with 15,000,000 voters and 15 GE.

    The first candidate get in the state A 8,000,000 voices and in the B 7,000,000. with the actual system : he gets 10 GE with 15,000,000 voices, the other gets 15 GE with 10,000,000.
    With a proportionnal repartition : imagine : every 1,000,000 voices, it will do 1 GE.
    So : the first candidate gets in the state A, with his 8,000,000 voices, 8 GE. and his opponent gets 2 GE.
    In the state B, the first get 7 GE with his 7,000,000 voices, his adversary 8 GE.

    Total : -first person : 8+7 GE >> 15 GE ; 8 millions + 7 millions >> 15 millions voices

    -second person : 2+8>> 10 GE ; 2 millions + 8 millions >> 10 millions voices.

    the man who win his the one who get the more voices.
    If the whole States of the USA would do it, maybe - maybe - would it be better.

    What do you think about it ?
     
  2. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    I like it. :)
     
  3. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Actually, for the size of this country and the great dispersity over which our population lies, we have the best possible system in place.

    Every state has an equal voice in electing a president. So instead of candidates pandering to NY, California and Texas every 4 years to win the presidency, the rural areas of the country get a say and are heard. Every voice is weighed equally as important and therefore candidates have to visit the whole country to put forth their plans for the country.

    So despite the fact that Gore won more votes, he did not win the majority of states either due to lack of compaigning in a few due to arrogance or ignorance.

    Its not the perfect system, but its the best one for a country our size.
     
  4. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    I think the system is correct as it is. The electorial college system saved the United States. If all the popular votes were counted it would have been close and Al Gore would have had lawsuits in every single state rather than just Florida.

    The system was designed to be a check and balance to keep the cities from dictating how the elections goes. God bless America. Im glad we dont have the same problems in other nations.
     
  5. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    Sure, the size of the USA must be taken for the plane.

    I only suggest an other way.
    Because I imagine me as an American who votes for Gore : I'm leaded by a man who have less voice than Gore.
    And the most part of the population thoughts it after 2000.
    Frustration.

    But India is a big-sized country too, with 1,000,000,000 people, and all the suffrages are counted. So the size and the numbers is not a real problem.

    Maybe for a next election - like in 2008 - USA should try a system like the one I suggest, of course with a better organization, repartition et caetera.
    And if it doesn't go well...the Congress cancel it and take the old.

    In France, for the deputy election, in 1986, the Prime Minister cancel the system we have still now for the old (proportionnal representation). In 1988, this decision has been cancelled, and the pertaining to the majority ballot was puin, like before 1986.
    USA can try.
     
  6. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    a president who didn't win the popular vote worked fine before - I don't understand why all the problems?
     
  7. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Does it matter that our current President received more individual votes than the previous President received in either of the elections he won?

    No, it doesn't matter. This country is a federation of States. The President is the chief executive of the 'Federal' government, and the states vote amongst themselves, not the people. In this country states have rights. You as an individual have the right to vote how you think your state should vote. Your opinion doesn't count in another state, because you're not a citizen of that state.

    There are also additional advantages of our electoral system, such as, as insein pointed out, preventing candidates from only concerning themselves with specific portions of the country at the expense of the rest of it.
     
  8. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    Yse, the statse have a little independance, I know, we've study the federal state.

    The problem for those who voted Gore is that some of them didn't want the war. tHey think, if Gore had been elected, we wouldn't have war. And even if the federal states have some autonomy, the war concern the whole nation, not one or two states.


    Now, I've a question, with no link with these message : is it true that before - and maybe still now - there is in the Constitution of the USA a mention who allow the states who don't think that the Federation protect their interests to leave the Federation and become independant ?
    thanks to answer ;)
     
  9. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Stop right there. This is called democracy. If you don't like the winner, tough. Whether or not people who didn't vote for Bush approve of the President's actions is utterly irrelevant, until it is time to vote again.


    In theory there is nothing that says a state can't vote to leave the union; on the other hand President Lincoln more or less decided that question back in the 1860's.

    Then there's this:


    , which a judicial body could perhaps use to argue that any state could not seccede

    ...without the approval of Congress.

    ...if the aspiring independent State did not insure republican government.

    ...if the aspiring independent State intended to commit acts of violence against another State.

    ...based on arguments of land or property rights.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    Thanks
    Beacause i've read in a book about the US Civil War, that the state were allowed to leave. Of course, I think that a referendum have to be organized, for the concerned state's population.
    I saw it also in a movie "Gettysburg" (a 2 parts movie)
    If it is correct >> the secessionist states had right& law on their side.

    This article can be interpreted as a bigger duty from USA for the states than wrote here : you know jurisprudence interpret laws, when these one are "in the darkness", not bright.
    So, people can think that UAS shall defend the states' interests.

    If the population and the government of the state want to leave the Union, the princip of a federation can allow it. Because the states have more autonomy.
    A federation is between a Unit country and several independant countries.



    It's only to see if this information in the book and the move was correct or not.
    I find it possible and not stupid. It is in the logic of the federation.
     

Share This Page