some things I wonder about the political system of the USA

[Coplann]

#1
How can a political system correctly represent its people with only 2 major parties beeing elected since , dunno 150 years or so?

republicans versus democrats.

dont know. if I would live in the US I wouldnt vote for anyone of those.

Here in germany we basically got 5 major players on the federal level and many smaller local parties on the level of the states and cities.

The major parties are:
CDU (christian democratic union. used to be the center, more to the right
now tho. pretty conservative and full of retards imo)

SPD (social-democratic party, forms the new center, somewhat more left tho)

The Green(s) (cant be categorized much, they started fighting for protecting the environment but basically got stuff to say to everything now. has some good ppl, currently is part of the government along with the SPD)

FDP (free democratic party, the liberals here speaking for the cash-economy)

PDS (born from the SED after the wall went down, left-socialistic. they used to fight for more equality of the various "castes" in society. lately locally betrayed us tho and supported the introduction of studying fees which is basically against the constitution)

then many many other less important parties who take responsibility in local areas, but hardly ever make it into our version of the "congress" (Bundestag).

Really have a problem with a 2-party system. Dont you think it would be good if 1 or more new parties would go to congress and/or even provide a president?

you know the sovjets just had 1 party less. :laugh:

#2
The way elections work. Afaik you basically go and elect someone who then votes for a candidate for president for example.

So say for 1 district you got 2 of those. Now 400 vote for the one, 600 for the other- That district then basically voted for the second. Now the same happens in X other districts. Y districts however all vote for the first candidate (1000). Y is less than X. So the 2nd guy is elected for president, but overally it is quiet possible, that more people voted for the first one than for the 2nd.

Think that is what happened when G.W. Bush was elected.

now imo thats complete BS. if more ppl vote for candidate A, candiate A should win no matter what. thats how democracy is supposed to work.

democracy comes from demos, which is greek for people afterall. :)

I mean that indirect system is from back when there was no telecommunication and ppl couldnt go from California to Washington D.C. to vote. Well, its 250 years now since back then.

isnt it time to update the constitution?

#3
why arent there any female presidents?
yes, germany didnt had a female president or chancelor (sp?) either, but that may change next election cause the leader of the CDU is currently a woman (completely retarded too, but/shrug).

would the husband of a female president be still the first lady. :D

j/k

discuss

[Swifty_Johnson]

Becuase it's hard for a third party to get traction. The reform party got 1 gov'ner elected, and that was about it. The Greens are trying to make a dent, but to many liberal democrats refuse to vote green, eventhough the green canidate might perfectly match their platform.

The house has 1-2 independants in it from time to time, but that is nothing major.

Swifty

[Rooster]

If you had 5 parties.. .and people really voted that way, you'd have an elected official with only 21% of the popular vote.

[Rooster]

"So say for 1 district you got 2 of those. Now 400 vote for the one, 600 for the other- That district then basically voted for the second. Now the same happens in X other districts. Y districts however all vote for the first candidate (1000). Y is less than X. So the 2nd guy is elected for president, but overally it is quiet possible, that more people voted for the first one than for the 2nd.

Think that is what happened when G.W. Bush was elected.

now imo thats complete BS. if more ppl vote for candidate A, candiate A should win no matter what. thats how democracy is supposed to work."

Right & wrong.

We're not a democracy.

And that would take away influence of lower population states that would still be subject to the whims of the president. ie, California, New York, Illinois, Texas & Florida (105M out of 280M in the US) would elect the president and all the other states would just be along for the ride.

[Allison]

Two-party system: Swifty covered most of this. But an interesting thing to note is that 3rd party candidates are generally supported by people who would otherwise vote for a Democrat. People who traditionally vote Republican won't generally support them. As a result, and in the most simple terms, let's suppose that, in an election that only has a Democrat and a Republican on the ticket, that each candidate would receive somewhere around 50% of the vote. Add a 3rd party candidate and you could easily see the Republican still getting close to 50%, leaving the other two candidates to split the other 50%. A prominent 3rd party candidate will, most often, result in a win every time for the Republicans. Which is why even Democrats who like 3rd party candidates won't vote for them. They think their vote will be wasted.

The electoral college: Yes. It's out of date, IMO. It was originally set up to protect the rights of the smaller states, who feared that the newly created, central government would have too much power over them, ultimately disregarding their unique state's needs. It was also believed that most voters would only be informed about the candidates from their own state, and would therefore only vote for their own "hometown" boys. The electoral college was supposed to prevent the larger states from having a monopoly on our federally elected officials, by creating a number of delegates from each state, based on population, who theoretically, could cast better informed votes on behalf of their states.

But today, the conditions that created the electoral college no longer exist. There is a massive amount of information out there on all the candidates, all readily available. And whether votes are cast by electoral delegates or directly by the population, the states with the largest populations still have the most power, and the most votes to cast. Also, states now no longer fear that they won't have representation in the central government.

I'm not sure how Rooster's example is proof that smaller states are better represented better by the electoral college. 2002 estimates for the states he mentioned show that their total population make up 36% of the U.S. population, and that their electoral votes make up 31% of the electoral college. Not much difference. This doesn't surprise me, since the electoral college for each state is based on population.

I'm sure there must be some convincing arguments out there as to why the electoral college should remain. Maybe it's just a failsafe in case all the people are struck with madness or something. Or, maybe the numbers are too complex for me to understand. Certainly, whatever the reason, even though a lot of people will say they think it's a stupid system, there really hasn't been any national debate about doing away with it. So, I guess people think it works OK, even though it sometimes results in a president who didn't get the popular vote.

[Allison]

Let me add a couple more things about the electoral system, in fairness.

There does exist better representation for each state with the electoral college, in a sense. Well, maybe not "better," but clearer, anyway. Let's say that 51% of a heavy farming state votes for a presidential candidate who is sympathetic to farmers, and 49% for another candidate. Instead of sending off a split vote that basically negates itself, with the electoral college, that state can send off one unified vote, basically as if everyone in the state had voted for the 51% candidate, thus giving the state more of a say in the outcome of the election.

This gives the state a stronger, more unified voice, although it does totally negate the wishes of half its voters.

Another item for thought is does electoral college discourage voting? If I'm a Republican in a heavily Democratic state, will I be discouraged knowing that my vote will just be counted and then thrown out?

[Rooster]

"Another item for thought is does electoral college discourage voting? If I'm a Republican in a heavily Democratic state, will I be discouraged knowing that my vote will just be counted and then thrown out?"

Minnesota. :(

[spyder913]

yeah we're a democratic republic, not a democracy.

personally I think the electoral college has flaws too.. especially since in many states (based on the state constitution) they don't all have to vote for one candidate - they could match the state's percentage of popular vote.

[Coplann]

If you had 5 parties.. .and people really voted that way, you'd have an elected official with only 21% of the popular vote.

usually the SPD or CDU end up between 30 and 40%. Now the other 40-20% are divided among the greens, liberals, socialists.

So then whoever of the SPD or CDU has more votes then starts negotiations with whatever other party has enough power to combine to over 50%.

those negotiations are the very key to a good representative government.

For instance when the SPD took over they rallied up with the greens. The result was that both sides had to work on a plan for politics which both parties could agree on. SPD wanted a tax/health and social system reform and to start paying back the millions of debths the former CDU/FDP government build up.
The greens wanted to enforce stricter rules about polution, wanted to germany to leave the nuclear energy field (eg. start to shut down nuclear power plants and stop funding for building new ones) they also wanted to abolish conscription.

so both parties had to change their point of view in some aspects and both parties got positions in the government in relation to their actual power (eg. most ministers come from the SPD, but important ministers like foreign minister and the minister of environment went to the greens).

We still have conscription. but we left the nuclear energy. We added a so called Ökosteuer (tax on fuel and energy to make ppl and the industry start to worry about not wasting resources).

On the other hand the other 3 parties that arent part of government take a very important role as opposition. They check and control the government and either boycott them (usually SPD versus CDU, or everyone versus PDS :p ) or make constructive proposals (rarely :( ).

I cant say the current government is perfect. Media is working hard to make them look bad cause the economy isnt where it should be (thats a global thing tho, not a local so what is germany gonna do about bad running economy in all europe and america?). But ppl also seem to forget who screwed us up. All the debths come form 16 years of CDU+FDP reign.

I cant imagine how it would be just with SPD and CDU. Just SPD may not be that bad, but just CDU. SCARY!!!

Think I would save up to go to New Zealand the second CDU would be elected. :p

another thing, I hear that the participation in elections isnt really high in the US. dont you think that everyone should vote? I mean voting means taking up responsibility or at least showing an interest in what happens with your nation. Not voting says:" I dont care!" People used to be a lil píssed about not beeing able to vote back when there was Monarchy. :)

of course, it could also be a result of the 2-party system. If people get the impression their vote isnt doing any good and that it doesnt matter who gets elected eitherway they are not gonna go vote I guess.

my personal opinion is that if less than 50% of the people vote the democratic system failed. I mean whats with the other half? guess they want a King or Queen back. :p

[Rooster]

They also have a right to not vote. Some don't vote because they know they're not informed. I've been there, especially being new to an area. Some don't vote because they're too busy. Some just don't care, and that's their right.

But to me, those that don't because they don't care should't care about the results either. Then they shouldn't care when changes occur they don't like. Too bad.

[Coplann]

aye, was more focused on the federal level, not the local.

[Rooster]

I am referring to the federal level.

edit: You're focusing on my "new to an area" - yes, that was referencing local policitics.. including state.. which has an effect on Federal - because you elect a congressmen & a senator! But yeah, it's still possible to not be informed regarding the President. Some people don't care about politics. It takes a lot of work to really be involved and know what a person really stands for due to all the smoke & mirrors and BS we have to wade through.

Someone tell me again what John Kerry stands for? Cause I'm not sure he knows.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Two-party system: Swifty covered most of this. But an interesting thing to note is that 3rd party candidates are generally supported by people who would otherwise vote for a Democrat.

I'm pretty shure that more people who tended to vote Republican voted for Ross Perot. I'm also Pretty shure that more people who tended to vote Republican also voted for Pat Bucannon discoutning Palm Beach county). I'm also 100% positive that more people who tended to vote democratic voted for Ralph Nader.

Who votes for what third party canidate depends on the canidate, not the party.

The electoral college: Yes. It's out of date, IMO. It was originally set up to protect the rights of the smaller states, who feared that the newly created, central government would have too much power over them, ultimately disregarding their unique state's needs.

No, it's still providing it's function, going by popular vote will only lead to bigger problems. Eventhough it looked like Al Gore won the popular vote, it was by such a narrow margine that every state would have to had recounted. Than those heavily democratic areas that turn out 120% of the vote (20% more people voted than were registered) would be challanged, and the courts in most states would have been bogged down with challenges,and chances it would still be getting settled today.

Swifty

[Hammer]

It's not perfect but no ones found a better solution that I can see. Take the recent referendum in Israel on Sharon's plan to pull out of Gaza. I'm sure i'm off on the numbers here but some like 21,000 people from a single party derailed the plan to pull out of gaza. It's pretty reassuring that we usually have close to 50% of the population the supporting the winner in a presidental election. Dispite cry's from the far left and right the candiates usually are that far apart. They usually share similar goals, they just differ on the approach. Clinton probably had the least popular support in recent history but even he had 41% I think.

[Noleader]

my personal opinion is that if less than 50% of the people vote the democratic system failed. I mean whats with the other half? guess they want a King or Queen back. :p
That is not always true. The elected officals know if they make some big mistakes or piss off a lot of people most of the people that did not vote might show up to the polls just to get them out of office. So the non-voting people actully serve the country to in their own way.

[Swifty_Johnson]

About 50% of the people in the U.S.A. aren't registered to vote or don't vote even if they are.

Presidents typically get less than 50% of the vote.

That means that we put a President into office with less than 25% of the population voting for them.

Swifty

[]LoL[Harm]

Yeah we definitely need some improvements to the way our voting/election system works. I've been reading recently on true representative governments and find the concept interesting. One thing is for sure, the current Primary system is horrid; I mean the majority of those running for president quit before they even get to the point of their party picking a rep. Having this odd system of individual states vote at different stages at a time seems outdated and perplexing to me. I can see where it allows certain people to focus on certain states right before the votes but that just seems like a tacky and slickwhilly approach to garner votes. I don't have a solution in mind but what we got now is poopy.

Oh and the local rules in voting here in Ohio is: I have to choose a political party and then when I get in to the booth I can only vote for that party, I can't cross party vote. So basically I LOSE my right to vote for who I want because I have to select a party. Next year, if this still is in effect, I will boycott, very vocally, the voting system. And I won't vote. I will not have the system deciding who I get to vote for due to party affiliation. I wasn't able to vote for a local sherrif, judge or a Senator that I liked because they were in the party I did not choose (which I'm forced to choose in order to vote). Freedom my lilly-covered ass.

[Allison]

Your ass is lily-covered? :leet:

[Noleader]

In Michigan we do not have to pick a party. Just vote the way we like. That is including primaries also.

[]LoL[Harm]

Your ass is lily-covered?
Inquiring minds want to know?

You don't want to even begin to know how many lily's cover my ass. It would boggle the minds of the most skilled scientist.

[spyder913]

washington state had open primaries, but because of "sabotage" (<-- can't remember the real term for when the opposing party votes for the worst candidate to skew it) and costs they ended up switching to a caucus this year.

I didn't do the caucus but I probably will next time. I heard it was a mess because it was organized so quickly because of the changes - but I also heard it was very interesting to participate in.

[Jammer]

I'm assuming you are talking primaries, Harm?

In NC, I think you can remain independent if you want to remain flexible with regard your primary voting. I know some people who do this. If you register with a party, you do indeed only get to vote on your parties ticket for primaries. I think this is to prevent those low down Democrats from doing tricky stuff during primary season. ;)

Jammer

[]LoL[Harm]

Yeah but why the hell even vote then, I took off work early, arrived, had to check a box, either Republican or Democrat, no other choice and then I went in to a booth and pressed every single Democrat vote cause I couldn't do anything else. Why the hell did I even go? Couldn't I have announced my, forced upon me, party selection via voter registration and they just mark my votes accordingly. I didn't have to be present, my votes were cast for me as soon as I selected a party.

I really didn't vote, I instead selected a party which I'm not really affiliated with and they cast my votes for me. I really liked the sticker they gave me, it said I voted...but it lied.

[Tammarion]

My 2 cents - I still don't understand how they go on and give the smaller states the extra votes to 'balance' things out - then turn around and throw it all away by having the states votes all in one big block, creating 'key states' where the small number of undecided voters get to muck things up so badly. Its as if someone from mythic jumped in a time machine to write this part.

[]LoL[Harm]

Yeah it just doesn't jive with my logical unit. Maybe it's malfunctioning right along side my sex drive. Overload...overload.

[Swifty_Johnson]

then turn around and throw it all away by having the states votes all in one big block, creating 'key states' where the small number of undecided voters get to muck things up so badly.

Actually "key states" or "battleground states" are states where the polls indicate that the canidates are very close.

Kerry is winning in New York by a large numbers, so noone will campaign much there. While Ohio is very close so it will see more campaign stops. It's in these close states teh swing voters will get the most attenetion, as their votes will decide who wins that state.

If it wasn't this way, only Florida, New York, California and Texas would get any campaign visits, along with key cities like Chicago as they have the populaiton needed to win.

Swifty

[]LoL[Harm]

I think he was referring more to the states that have a larger percentage of delegates.

[Swifty_Johnson]

The number of state delgates is = to it's reps in congress. So the min is 3, 2 Senators 1 Congressperson. This sorta makes is based on population, as bigger states get more.

Swifty

[Tammarion]

Well I mean kinda both. Key states, being ones that have lots of electoral votes, and Swing states, ones that could come down to 50%+1. But if say Rhode Island ends up being very close, its only 2 or so electoral votes, but if it comes down to Florida, the swing voters are 50-something. If the votes got split by %, or each state got subdivided by district - remember the electoral college works by each state counting for hypothetical congresscritters and senators - then even if you had a chad-type screwup, at best it counts for a couple of electoral votes.

In campaign terms, the small vote states just get bundled into "Midwest" or "New England" and even then, they'll get less attention than just a raw number of votes would indicate, because Midwest gets split while Florida doesn't.

[Hammer]

Your right swifty. However, I see people who don't vote as not caring enough to matter. How's the song go, if you decide not to choose, you've still made a choice?

[Tammarion]

Your right swifty. However, I see people who don't vote as not caring enough to matter. How's the song go, if you decide not to choose, you've still made a choice?

I think that applies to peeps who deliberately spoil their ballot or vote for Ralph Nader ( :p ) but not to peeps who decide to stay home and play daoc :)