US Election System

[Leopard]

why don't you tell us the failures of Direct Democracy then? a quick summary would have been just as easy as making an insult...

Though I could live with the current electoral college system (with mayba some porportionality), it the monopolization of the two 'major' parties which really reduces effective debate and choice. As a 'minor' party voter, I know I would be much more satisfied to have another few choices because the two party system does not even bring up issues which might perhap be more important than the ones they take their stands on - we a forced into compromise.

The whole Ralph Nader issue really points this out: the dems are crying that he will 'steal' vote from them causing bush to win. the truth is that the dems DO NOT represent the views of those voters in the first place and would rather force them into only one choice (well, thats actually incorrect, there is also the choice of not voting).

With a multi party system, the 'majority' would still win (which is fine by me if I am to live in this country - I will strive to change things but I will abide by the current laws until change comes) and whatever my 'third party' was would lose - no problem but at least my vote had some effect: In the final talles it might show:

Repubs: 33%
Dems: 29%
Greens: 15%
Libs: 9%
Commies: 3%

but folks could see the changing attitudes of the country from election to election and those in power would have a better understanding of the people they rule over.

michael

[FreedomFirst]

Broken Column - to your opponent's credit, the electoral college, IMHO, is not an effective offshoot and is not necessary to continue as a Constitutional Republic. We'd better serve the issue of states rights by putting more limits on federal power in the Constitution, not that the federal government cares much about the Constitution anymore.

Also, to resolve the voting issues we should standardize Instant Runoff Voting (do a web search to learn more).

[SeanWah]

The electoral college does, in fact, help perpetuate two party politics, but its abolition would only go a short way. The fact remains that such bipartisanship remains firmly entrenched in people's minds.

Condorcet voting would help, but so would unrestricted fusion candidacy laws. Neither will ever happen, since it would require both parties to agree to reduce their share of power.

[Impenitent]

which two parties? the whigs and the federalists?

[The_Broken_Column]

It's so good to see people disagree with me, it only furthers my beliefs that the populous is incapable of ruling themselves.

This was James Madison's belief too, the Federalist Papers argued for a centralized government (compared to the Confederacy before), and that government will be restricted from interferring in people's lives and State business and people will not be able to manipulate it directly.

It used to be that only the Representatives were elected directly, now it is both them and the Senators. Whether this is a good or bad thing is truly undeterminable right now.

However, the major issue was at the very heart, Mobacracy. Democracy is so often purported as meaning what it literally translates as, "Rule of the People".

But sadly, it is not taught often if ever, that Democracy was used by the Greeks often to denote Mob Rule. Athens is a perfect example of this.

If you knew how Socrates died, you'd be wondering why, and in the end the truth is nothing other than popular rule oppressing the minority view points.

The Electoral College also has one other benefit, besides removing the people one step from the Government.

That is, it gives smaller States more say in who will become president than they would have otherwise.

What is good for California is not good for Nevada. And what is good for Nevada is not good for New York. So why is it that New York and California should elect the president out right? (Since their combined populations are what...40+ million?).

People often talk about Florida being the "deciding vote" in the last election but actually it was not. If Gore won Florida Bush could not have won.

But if Nevada voted for Gore, then Bush even with florida would have lost.

Nevada or Oregon each could have decided the Presidency. Something impossible in a direct election.

And bipartisan rule exists because third parties are completely unnecessary. It has nothing to do with the Electoral College. It is not as if America is doomed to be ruled by Democrat or Republican.

The first political parties were the Federalist and Jeffersonian Democrats (Anti-Federalists). Then the Federalist party was "overthrown" peacefully in 1800 and the Whigs were the next if I remember right.

Following that line it became the Republican party, following the other line it became the Democrat party.

If one party were to cease to exist, the members would simply reform their ideals into a new, not very different but not exactly the same party line.

[FreedomFirst]

Jefferson's Party was the Democrat-Republicans, actually (or vice-versa). Regardless, I've always been anti-federalist (more of a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist), and IMHO the electoral college is a waste. We see evidence around the world - the more major parties in a system, the higher the voter turnout. Some European countries have as many as five major parties and a 90% voter turnout. Direct Democracy works to elect people to power, but that's about it. Which is why we need IRV or Condorcet voting to level the playing field.

[Impenitent]

no, direct democracy is non representative government... each person votes on each issue directly

[The_Broken_Column]

If you were an anti-federalist FreedomFirst you'd believe in the Electoral College and you'd despise the (18th?) Amendment, the one which gives Senators direct elections by the people.

The idea of this Republic was to limit the Federal Government's influence on the people, by limiting the people's influence on the Federal Government.

[FreedomFirst]

We only have labels to generalize ourselves, not to announce our absolute adherence to a platform. Just look at Republicans and Democrats. We can limit the people's influence on the federal government through Constitutional review and enforcement.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (The_Broken_Column,)
If you were an anti-federalist FreedomFirst you'd believe in the Electoral College and you'd despise the (18th?) Amendment, the one which gives Senators direct elections by the people.

The idea of this Republic was to limit the Federal Government's influence on the people, by limiting the people's influence on the Federal Government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[jose]

As proved by the last election its not the vote that counts rather the counting OF the votes