By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - What are the origins of the American voting system?

pokoko on 07 August 2016
sethnintendo said:
pokoko said:

Changing now would be next to impossible, though.  You'd need a clear majority of people in power to agree that not only is change needed, but on a solution.  When the only thing politicians really care about is an advantage for their own party, that's not going to happen easily.

One thing that needs to be addressed is the gerrymandering of districts.  This should simply not be allowed.  The districts should be made up of counties or one county if there is a huge city residing in the district.  There shouldn't be pratices to try and divided the vote up in one's favor.

Gerrymandering is so shameless that it's almost hard to believe it's a real thing.  It's legal election rigging.  But, again, those in power are the ones who benefit from it so they're not in a hurry to change.

I mean, holy cats, this is bloody ridiculous (and obvious).



Around the Network
Nuvendil on 07 August 2016
RolStoppable said:
Nuvendil said:

Are you talking about the Electoral College? Cause your rant is pretty scatterbrained and nonspecific. If so, it is supposed to allow for proportionate representation of the interests of each State based on their population. As it has been referred to, the US was intended as a Sovreign Nation of many Sovreign States. The point, therefore, is for the election to represent the wills and desires and interests of the States. Electoral College representative numbers for each state is the same as the number of Congress members that State holds. Contrary to popular parlance, we are NOT a democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Direct democracy voting is not part of our system and rarely is ever used and yes, there is a reason for that. But the odds of a President winning the Absolute Majority of Electoral votes and NOT the absolute majority of the populace vote is very low. It has happened only a small number of times. It is more about a constant interplay and ballance between the power of the people, the representatives of the people, and then the federal and state powers. And direct democracy brings with it a host of other problems, fyi, if you take it to its extreme that many want to.

As for the bipartisan nature, that is only really a 20th and 21st century issue. Shoot, four presidents were a Whigs. It's just the way it usually falls due to a large number of variables. A nation of this scale, the costs of campaigning, it naturally lends to a bipartisan status. This could be corrected with much tighter campaign fund regulations. But bipartisanship is not part of the election system, it is just something that happened.

Yes, I am talking about the electoral college. You can deduce that from my mention of Donald Trump and that other person. And yes, the OP isn't good. I wrote it late last night.

But the electoral college does not represent the wills and desires of a given state, that's the problem I see with such a voting system. In the OP I mentioned the example of 60% of votes for one party which lead to 100% of the electoral college representatives for that state to be in favor of that party. A proper representation of the state would not disregard the remaining 40% of the votes altogether. And like I said in the OP, if votes are rendered null and void in such a way, then a third party has no chance. If somebody didn't like the candidates of both of the big two parties, then a protest vote for a third party does not make any sense. It's a wasted vote, so the logical conclusion for the voter is to pick the lesser evil of the big two, if there is supposed to be any hope for the vote to matter in the end.

The other problem of such a system is that the populace vote does not necessarily decide the winner. There is the term of gerrymandering which means to draw the borders of districts in a way that an election can be won without getting the majority of votes. Basically, a voting system that renders votes void is prone to manipulation.

Lastly, yes, I could have read up on history on Wikipedia, but I was interested in what people think about the whole thing. It's the natural evolution of the topic, because I never expected that the discussion would be limited to the origins of the voting system.

Well look at it this way:  the US presidential election is basically 50 mini elections.  Each state elects their president and then that's tallied using the electoral college based on population to elect the president proper.  That's what I meant by the election representing State interests, not full population interests.  The point is that the Electoral votes represent then State's populace's decision, NOT the total populations' votes.  

As for accusations this suppresses votes or makes it easy to rig, two issues.  One, the idea of "why should I vote when my state is mostly x party anyway" is no more legitimate a "problem" than "why should I vote, the majority of the nation is x anyway".  And given the small turnout relative to registered voters, maybe the division wouldn't be the same if peopls would use their right to vote rather than stay home and complain.  Second, especially now rigging an election is hard due to the sheer size of the population and country.  Most shenanigans that could be attwmpted wouldn't be done at the level of the box but in the counting process.  But that's a whole other discussion.

Also, as for my thoughts, I am fine with it.  I think updating the division of Congress and Electoral reps to better reflect current relative populations would bd welcome but I'm fine with the idea of the electoral colege, it makes sence in the context of the US's elaborate division of powers and hierarchy.



sc94597 on 08 August 2016
RolStoppable said:

But that's not really what this thread is about. What I want to know is who came up with this system in the first place and why they thought that it would be a good idea. Say, a state votes 60% for one party and 40% for the other, how is it a democratic process when the 40% get eliminated and the 60% get powered up to a full 100%? How drunk were the people who made such a system official? Please let the answer be booze. I refuse to believe that the origins of the American voting system stem from perfect sanity. Alternatively, it would be okay if the reason had to do with racism, so the whole thing was a precaution to keep black people down or something like that.

Remember, the U.S system of democracy is one of the oldest in the world that is still extant. The implications of FPTP were not yet realized. Heck, the framers didn't think there would be political parties with their presidential system, and were quite surprised to see regional coalitions sprout into existence.

We also have to consider that the states were vastly more powerful than the federal government pre-civil war. So, like with say the European Union, it is the member states who decide how votes affect the ultimate decision (through the electoral college.)

You might find it surprising to know that there are two U.S states that split the electoral college vote and do not entail a FPTP system (Maine and Nebraska.)

There is nothing stopping us from pushing more states to do this, or implement other solutions (ranked voting.)



sc94597 on 08 August 2016

It is also important to recall that Gerrymandering only affects House of Representative election guys. It does not influence the elections of the senate or president.



sc94597 on 08 August 2016
Miguel_Zorro said:

Back in the day the technology to easily elect a President by popular vote was apparently not there.

Today, it is (except for some states like Florida, which for reasons I don't understand can't count votes), and I think they should change the Presidential election system to either popular vote, or at least to assign each State's electors proportional to vote.

Today some smaller states have disproportionate say - a vote in Wyoming, for example, counts twice as much as a vote in California. So that might change too.

It would also change the campaigns themselves. Today they spend every election in the same 11 states and ignore massive states like New York, California, and Texas. If they changed the system you'd see Hilary Clinton in California a lot more and in Ohio a lot less.

The framers intentionally strayed from direct democracy, not because it was difficult to implement, but because they believed it to be mob rule. I like the idea of ranked voting to allow for multiple parties. Dual federalism is still a thing in the U.S, and California/New York/Texas have no right to control the political destinies of smaller states with different interests.



Around the Network
Nuvendil on 08 August 2016
sc94597 said:
Miguel_Zorro said:

Back in the day the technology to easily elect a President by popular vote was apparently not there.

Today, it is (except for some states like Florida, which for reasons I don't understand can't count votes), and I think they should change the Presidential election system to either popular vote, or at least to assign each State's electors proportional to vote.

Today some smaller states have disproportionate say - a vote in Wyoming, for example, counts twice as much as a vote in California. So that might change too.

It would also change the campaigns themselves. Today they spend every election in the same 11 states and ignore massive states like New York, California, and Texas. If they changed the system you'd see Hilary Clinton in California a lot more and in Ohio a lot less.

The framers intentionally strayed from direct democracy, not because it was difficult to implement, but because they believed it to be mob rule. I like the idea of ranked voting to allow for multiple parties. Dual federalism is still a thing in the U.S, and California/New York/Texas have no right to control the political destinies of smaller states with different interests.

On the flip side, the larger population States do account for more of the resources the Fed will use than smaller states so there is argument for larger states having overall larger impact than smaller states.  I find the idea of voting for your first, second, and third choices rather than just one interesting, but it does open up the possibility that a President could be elected who was no ones first choice, similar to how a president can technically win now without the popular vote.  Also, since your brought up Dual Federalism, the whole point of a balanced Dual Federalism - and why I support it -  is that even if your State's Presidential choice doesn't win, you're State government is determined by your decision and can offset undesired Federal decisions via State powers.  Which brings up the issue of growing Federal powers and how they are more and more stepping into areas where States should be making the call, but that's another topic for another thread.  But my point is, in a balanced Dual Federalism, the fact that a larger State has more pull in Presidential elections is not as big an issue and doesn't impact your State government's affairs. 



sc94597 on 08 August 2016
Nuvendil said:
sc94597 said:

The framers intentionally strayed from direct democracy, not because it was difficult to implement, but because they believed it to be mob rule. I like the idea of ranked voting to allow for multiple parties. Dual federalism is still a thing in the U.S, and California/New York/Texas have no right to control the political destinies of smaller states with different interests.

On the flip side, the larger population States do account for more of the resources the Fed will use than smaller states so there is argument for larger states having overall larger impact than smaller states.  I find the idea of voting for your first, second, and third choices rather than just one interesting, but it does open up the possibility that a President could be elected who was no ones first choice, similar to how a president can technically win now without the popular vote.  Also, since your brought up Dual Federalism, the whole point of a balanced Dual Federalism - and why I support it -  is that even if your State's Presidential choice doesn't win, you're State government is determined by your decision and can offset undesired Federal decisions via State powers.  Which brings up the issue of growing Federal powers and how they are more and more stepping into areas where States should be making the call, but that's another topic for another thread.  But my point is, in a balanced Dual Federalism, the fact that a larger State has more pull in Presidential elections is not as big an issue and doesn't impact your State government's affairs. 

I think if we took the bolded to its logical conclusion it would imply that the rich (who give the overwhelming majority of tax revenue) should have more influence over the government than others. I am not sure that a state like New York should have more say over immigration policy, for example, than a state like New Mexico or Arizona where the policy more directly affects the lives of the people who live there.

I think it is alright for a president to be elected who is no ones first choice, as long as the people had a chance to vote for their first choice first. As it is right now, it is also possible for a majority of people to not vote for their first choice. People vote for the lesser of evils instead of their first choice because they feel as if their first choice has no chance of winning. At least in a run-off system they get to protest vote and bolster party support for future elections. 

I agree with your sentiment about dual federalism, and how the federal government is expanding. I disagree that a bigger state having more power can't affect the political reality of a smaller state. Immigration policy, warfare policy, trade policy, etc affect states disproportionally. Some people will not be represented in these federal powers if only large states had influence. That is why there was a compromise by having a senate  and a house.



Nuvendil on 08 August 2016
sc94597 said:
Nuvendil said:

On the flip side, the larger population States do account for more of the resources the Fed will use than smaller states so there is argument for larger states having overall larger impact than smaller states.  I find the idea of voting for your first, second, and third choices rather than just one interesting, but it does open up the possibility that a President could be elected who was no ones first choice, similar to how a president can technically win now without the popular vote.  Also, since your brought up Dual Federalism, the whole point of a balanced Dual Federalism - and why I support it -  is that even if your State's Presidential choice doesn't win, you're State government is determined by your decision and can offset undesired Federal decisions via State powers.  Which brings up the issue of growing Federal powers and how they are more and more stepping into areas where States should be making the call, but that's another topic for another thread.  But my point is, in a balanced Dual Federalism, the fact that a larger State has more pull in Presidential elections is not as big an issue and doesn't impact your State government's affairs. 

I think if we took the bolded to its logical conclusion it would imply that the rich (who give the overwhelming majority of tax revenue) should have more influence over the government than others. I am not sure that a state like New York should have more say over immigration policy, for example, than a state like New Mexico or Arizona where the policy more directly affects the lives of the people who live there.

I think it is alright for a president to be elected who is no ones first choice, as long as the people had a chance to vote for their first choice first. As it is right now, it is also possible for a majority of people to not vote for their first choice. People vote for the lesser of evils instead of their first choice because they feel as if their first choice has no chance of winning. At least in a run-off system they get to protest vote and bolster party support for future elections. 

I agree with your sentiment about dual federalism, and how the federal government is expanding. I disagree that a bigger state having more power can't affect the political reality of a smaller state. Immigration policy, warfare policy, trade policy, etc affect states disproportionally. Some people will not be represented in these federal powers if only large states had influence. That is why there was a compromise by having a senate  and a house.

I didn't say it was a perfect argument, just an argument.  And it's not just resources, it's everything.  Larger population states will account for a larger part of fit members of the draft if we went to war, for example.  And there's just plain more people there, so in the interests of representing the wills of the people to a degree, larger population centers should have more electors. 

As for large States effecting small states due to federal policies, there are two things to consider.  One is that some state some where is going to have its interests misrepresented, regardless of whether it is small states or large states.  And both are going to have words for you, whether they be that small states don't contribute what large ones do or that large states shouldn't be more important.  Also, as you pointed out, Congress brings that ballance with a House and a Senate, which hold more power than the President anyway.  A second thing to consider is that, whether by chance or design, our states most impacted by the policies you listed are also among our largest:  Texas, California, New York, Florida, etc are among the most effected and most vocal concerning things like trade and immigration (especially immigration). 

Also, you have to consider there are issues large, industrial States face that are not present in smaller States and thus could go unaddressed if the small States had influence disproportionate to their size, especially since there are more small states than large states.  Which is why I do think that a compromise where elector numbers are higher than small states but not necessarily directly proportionate to their state size (otherwise Wyoming, for example, would have less than 1 vote compared to California's since Wyoming 1/66 the population of California and of course, a much smaller economy and industrial pressence).  It's not a simple "small state's should have more power" situation. 



sc94597 on 08 August 2016
Nuvendil said:
 

1. I didn't say it was a perfect argument, just an argument.  And it's not just resources, it's everything.  Larger population states will account for a larger part of fit members of the draft if we went to war, for example.  And there's just plain more people there, so in the interests of representing the wills of the people to a degree, larger population centers should have more electors. 

2. As for large States effecting small states due to federal policies, there are two things to consider.  One is that some state some where is going to have its interests misrepresented, regardless of whether it is small states or large states.  And both are going to have words for you, whether they be that small states don't contribute what large ones do or that large states shouldn't be more important.  Also, as you pointed out, Congress brings that ballance with a House and a Senate, which hold more power than the President anyway.  A second thing to consider is that, whether by chance or design, our states most impacted by the policies you listed are also among our largest:  Texas, California, New York, Florida, etc are among the most effected and most vocal concerning things like trade and immigration (especially immigration). 

3. Also, you have to consider there are issues large, industrial States face that are not present in smaller States and thus could go unaddressed if the small States had influence disproportionate to their size, especially since there are more small states than large states.  Which is why I do think that a compromise where elector numbers are higher than small states but not necessarily directly proportionate to their state size (otherwise Wyoming, for example, would have less than 1 vote compared to California's since Wyoming 1/66 the population of California and of course, a much smaller economy and industrial pressence).  It's not a simple "small state's should have more power" situation. 

1. Sure, it is an argument, and I certainly didn't imply that you thought it was perfect. I just wanted to clarify that the total resources in control of the state is not necessarily a good reason at all for whether or not certain votes should count more. As you have agreed, there are different factors to consider.

2. By the nature of being a small state they already have less political power. California has 20% of the required electoral votes to win, while Wyoming only has 1.1%. In a system that is proportional to the national popular vote, Wyoming would have, as you noted, a fraction of an electoral college vote. Is that necessarily fair? I think it depends on whether one believes that there should be representation for regional interests. One might say lets abolish the electoral college system, but then that takes the states - and consequently regional politics - out of the scene. It seems better to keep the electoral system, but push for proportional voting (or ranked voting) tethered to the electoral college, state by state. That way the entire state gets an inproportionate say, but the say is proportional to the values of the state's population. Regional identity for the big and small states is then reconciled with accurate popularity. No state is ignored, other than by the nature of the party system and swing states (if the two party system still exists, which it probably would not.)

3. As I stated earlier, small states are still disadvantaged even with the weight given to them. California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida have 60% of the electoral votes needed to win an election. That is five states. Small states almost never decide the federal election, but they still have a role when it comes to tie-breaking and when they band together according to regional interests. I think the current system is fair with regards to the electoral college. The United States is a federation afterall. I think we are in agreement there?



Nuvendil on 08 August 2016
sc94597 said:
Nuvendil said:

1. I didn't say it was a perfect argument, just an argument.  And it's not just resources, it's everything.  Larger population states will account for a larger part of fit members of the draft if we went to war, for example.  And there's just plain more people there, so in the interests of representing the wills of the people to a degree, larger population centers should have more electors. 

2. As for large States effecting small states due to federal policies, there are two things to consider.  One is that some state some where is going to have its interests misrepresented, regardless of whether it is small states or large states.  And both are going to have words for you, whether they be that small states don't contribute what large ones do or that large states shouldn't be more important.  Also, as you pointed out, Congress brings that ballance with a House and a Senate, which hold more power than the President anyway.  A second thing to consider is that, whether by chance or design, our states most impacted by the policies you listed are also among our largest:  Texas, California, New York, Florida, etc are among the most effected and most vocal concerning things like trade and immigration (especially immigration). 

3. Also, you have to consider there are issues large, industrial States face that are not present in smaller States and thus could go unaddressed if the small States had influence disproportionate to their size, especially since there are more small states than large states.  Which is why I do think that a compromise where elector numbers are higher than small states but not necessarily directly proportionate to their state size (otherwise Wyoming, for example, would have less than 1 vote compared to California's since Wyoming 1/66 the population of California and of course, a much smaller economy and industrial pressence).  It's not a simple "small state's should have more power" situation. 

1. Sure, it is an argument, and I certainly didn't imply that you thought it was perfect. I just wanted to clarify that the total resources in control of the state is not necessarily a good reason at all for whether or not certain votes should count more. As you have agreed, there are different factors to consider.

2. By the nature of being a small state they already have less political power. California has 20% of the required electoral votes to win, while Wyoming only has 1.1%. In a system that is proportional to the national popular vote, Wyoming would have, as you noted, a fraction of an electoral college vote. Is that necessarily fair? I think it depends on whether one believes that there should be representation for regional interests. One might say lets abolish the electoral college system, but then that takes the states - and consequently regional politics - out of the scene. It seems better to keep the electoral system, but push for proportional voting (or ranked voting) tethered to the electoral college, state by state. That way the entire state gets an inproportionate say, but the say is proportional to the values of the state's population. Regional identity for the big and small states is then reconciled with accurate popularity. No state is ignored, other than by the nature of the party system and swing states (if the two party system still exists, which it probably would not.)

3. As I stated earlier, small states are still disadvantaged even with the weight given to them. California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida have 60% of the electoral votes needed to win an election. That is five states. Small states almost never decide the federal election, but they still have a role when it comes to tie-breaking and when they band together according to regional interests. I think the current system is fair with regards to the electoral college. The United States is a federation afterall. I think we are in agreement there?

Yes, I believe we are more or less in agreement mostly. I think the US electoral is good enough, even though it could stand polishing.