Ask Me Help Desk - British vs. American Democracy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choux

On problem holding America back is that the states each have 2 senators....states like Idaho, Wyoming and Rhode Island, and others like North and South Dakota each have two senators and they represent less than a million people each, I think, anyway, very few people. Terrible!!

I live in an area with 8-9 million people and that doesn't include the rest of my state!

California is a giant of a state, hugely important to the American economy as are other states that have large urban areas.

These sparsely populated states are really not worth anything much as far as the health of our country is concerned.

If it were anyone else I might be surprised by that point of view - but it is exactly why the founders instituted the Electoral College and gave each state two senators, so those "Terrible!!" states with such a small population aren't ruled by a tyranny of the majority in a few population centers.

I'm sure the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, the first of the original colonies to declare independence from British rule and the "Birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution" would find it ridiculous that they "are really not worth anything much as far as the health of our country is concerned."

I guess we could do without all those wonderful potatoes, DRAM chips and laser printers from Idaho along with those portions of Yellowstone National Park in both Wyoming and Idaho. Forget Grand Teton National Park, all that coal, natural gas and oil (7th in the country in production) from Wyoming - and Jackson Hole, too. Or no need for the wheat, soybeans, corn, cattle, dairy and honey from the Dakotas - or Sturgis, right?

Every state is important, and every state deserves fair representation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iAMfromHuntersBar

I think that British Parliment is fairly well representative of minorities, in that any member of a constituancy can ask their Member of Parliment to raise a question in the House of Commons, thus directly going to the government.

Also, I've always thought that our Prime Minister has to have a majority vote from the whole House to pass any action, even against party policy (such as the wars on Iraq / Afghanistan / Terror)?

Can someone explain how US Government is more representative of minorities please, I'm not up to speed on the American way of going about it!?

Read the previous posts on the Electoral College. I say it's brilliant, as each state is guaranteed a say in who is elected president. The framers recognized the need to protect both smaller states and the country from a tyranny of the majority. This is also why the House - proportioned according to population - is countered by a Senate with equal representation from each state. Additionally, the separation of powers; executive, legislative and judicial branches - and power sharing between the states and federal government is meant to ensure no one faction gets excessive power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

We both know there aren't 51 states, but what I said was a quote from the National Archives and Records Administration, the administrator of the Electoral College. Sorry, I was not quite as thorough as I usually am. Here is the quote in context with the link to the FAQ:

But on the other hand, tom is a Giants fan... :D

The National Archives and Records Admin need a refresher course taught by elementary students. Yeah! I know poor Tom's Giants are going to take a on the chin this weekend. :)

Bobby

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Since the 17th Amendment changed the selection of the Senators to popular vote it has not functioned as well in my view. The image of the Senate being the sober deliberative body is a reflection of the Senate as it was prior to 1914. Generally today it is a house of pompous idiots who get reelected over and over again. It is amazing to me that in this election cycle so many Senators are getting serious consideration as President . I think it is to the credit of the country that so few have been elected to the Presidency before .

I wonder how many people realize "Sheets" Byrd has been in the Senate since January 3, 1959, Ted Kennedy since November 7, 1962, Daniel K. Inouye since January 3, 1963? That's 136 years of just 3 Democratic Senators. Ted Stevens' ridiculous 38 years pales in comparison.

The Rest of Us :: Abolish the Electoral College

"The bedrock principle upon which the America was founded is that legitimate government must have the consent of the governed. In practice and in theory, this means that the majority rules while respecting the rights of the minority. The Electoral College turns that idea on its head, creating a system where the minority can rule.

In the 2000 presidential election, although half a million more Americans voted for Al Gore than did for George Bush, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266, granting him the presidency. In 1824, 1876, and 1888 the candidate who lost the popular vote won the presidency. In 2004, before provisional ballots were counted, a change of a mere 21,575 votes from Bush to Kerry in three states - Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada - would have resulted in a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College, assuming that all electors voted for the candidate whom they were chosen to represent. This tie would have occurred despite Bush's winning margin of over three and a half million votes in the popular election.

Regardless of where they live or what they think, the minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority who the leader of our country is to be. And yet, the Electoral College offers them just that.

Swing States Matter, but What About the Rest of Us?
Because states matter more than people, the Electoral College encourages presidential candidates to focus on just 10-15 battleground states where the voters are somewhat equally divided in their choice of candidates. These swing states are up for grabs, so candidates spend most of their time, money, and attention there. States where voters are more like-minded either get taken for granted or written off as lost causes, neither of which does democracy any good.

TV viewers in Toledo, Ohio have been treated to some 14,273 ads promoting or attacking President Bush and John Kerry. But most of us have seen no broadcast TV ads for either. According to one recent survey, the top 50 TV markets where candidates are spending 87% of their money contain only 27% of the electorate.

We all lose when races are so heavily lopsided that candidates write off a state. Voters in safe states see little need to go to the polls knowing all of their state's electoral votes will almost surely go to one favored candidate.

Further, we all benefit from hearing the arguments of the opposing side, but that doesn't happen when candidates give up on a state. The slicing of American into red states that vote Republican and blue states that vote Democratic only deepens political polarization.

Americans are Ready to Move Beyond this Outdated form of Elections
At a time when there were no national newspapers, no TV or radio, most people were illiterate, and the idea of holding elections at all was considered revolutionary, the electoral college made some sense. The founders of our constitution came up with the Electoral College to deal with real world technical difficulties in holding a national election, as well as part of a political compromise to get the Constitution approved.

Those days are long gone. If Afghanistan can pull off direct election of their president, so can America. After 200 years we're more than ready to graduate to a true democracy and abolish the Electoral College."

__________________________________________

Bobby

To go slightly off track can I ask has the US ever considered compulsory voting? As you so rightly put if people don't vote then that is their problem. Those who decide to stand up and be counted deserve to be heard. I appreciate that. Just interested to know though.

We have compulsory voting down under here and it works well. We vote on a Saturday though. I understand your voting days are a Tuesday or am I wrong? That seems somewhat bizarre to me. But it is only because I am used to our system. Please enlighten.

Hi Skell-

Historically I can't recall ever being taught about having a compulsory voting system in the States. Though I guess it's possible at a local level and may have happened briefly at some point. There are a lot of people whom don't care about politics altogether and would see being forced to vote as criminal. Because of this there is the element of possible fraudulent activity, such as buying votes that could and most likely would eventually come into play. Don't misunderstand me, I think your system probably works well in Australia. America is whole other beast. Let's just call it the two horned beast. One horn is Republican and the other Democrat. They have a monopoly for the most part and want to keep it this way. If we could just get our public to view other representations we might just have some headway into caring and being more involved. We are top heavy with corporate greed exampled by heavy executive bonuses and small cost of living raises for the average worker. I think our country has to get to point of disgust with itself before we see improvements. Hopefully in my lifetime.

Bobby

Why no mandatory voting ? It is unconstitutional for one;at least according to the Supreme Court. Here is the SCOTUS decision about it

Kansas City v. Whipple

Kansas City adopted a charter provision that assessed a $2.50 poll tax on every man twenty-one years of age or older who failed to vote in the city election. Whipple contested it. The court ruled

Quote:

"For the performance of many of these duties [of citizenship] reliance must be placed only on the enlightened conscience of intelligent and patriotic freemen."

Australia has mandatory voting and although that pushes the participation rate to 95% it certainly cannot be argued that the Australian is a better informed citizen. If anything it has perpetuated straight party-line voting .Also in the last election there were over 500,000 defaced ballots by people who showed up but had no intention of casting a ballot. This is a 1/2 million out of apx 10 million ballots.

The effect in the US would be obvious. The candidates of either party would need make no effort to get out the vote. They would instead pander to where they think most votes could be had. There would be a further dumbing-down of election campaigns ,if that's even possible now that we have snowmen asking questions of candidates in YouTube debates. There would be no real gage of public interest . I argue that a no-show is an important indication of public interest and it is as important a statement by the citizen as a vote in the ballot booth .

And ;despite the rhetoric to the contrary ;I have found voter apathy at the local level is usually an indicator of a degree of contentment. When voters are energized and come out in force that usually means they are looking for significant change.

Skell I agree with our system and defend it . In no way did I imply that it wasn't a debatable issue.