The (American) Political Process

[Actaeon]

Our political discussion has grown to epic lengths, and will likely be sent to even greater heights tomorrow. In the mean time, I'm curious as to the opinions of the forum, not on the issues or the candidates, but on the process itself. I understand that a significant portion of you are not American, but I am under the impression that our politics are occasionally followed elsewhere, so if you have an opinion, by all means feel free to voice it.

[Randomizer]

I hate the candidates and will probably vote tomorrow to try to remove some of the more corrupt local politicians. Most of the local Republicans are running unopposed.

 

At least the election news might be interesting with a close race. I still remember in 1980 in college a bunch of us spend the afternoon doing our homework so we could sit up all night watching the returns come in. Then they announced that Reagan won over Carter before California and the west coast had finished voting. With nothing else to do the six of us decided to play Risk.

[A less presumptuous name.]

I was in my social sciences class the other day, and we were talking about the natural tendencies of a two-party system. The candidates tend to go extreme during the primaries in order to win the ticket, but then they go as close to the middle as they can so that they can get everyone who is on their side of the issue. Thus, the two candidates end up being very similar on many issues. This is a problem for some people who care very strongly about certain issues. In short, I'm sick of having two people catering toward as many people as they can; I'd rather vote for people based on what they actually represent in terms of the issues.

[Student of Trinity]

The American system seems weird to me. It's insistence on division of power is baffling. It seems that what the country's founding fathers were most keen on doing was building a firewall against tyranny, and what that meant to them was nerfing government. Yet the American government is not particularly weak or light compared to those of other countries, whose systems allow a party with even a small plurality of support to wield all the powers any tyrant could wish, until the next election. In effect I think the famous American devotion to governmental checks and balances has been as successful as war on tyranny as those other American homeland wars, on alcohol and drugs. The evil has not been prevented, but the way the evil works has been made more ugly.

 

I think much of the talk of American decline has the story backwards. It's not that the 18th century outlook made America great, and concessions to modern liberalism are dragging her back down to the level of the rest of the world. On the contrary, the enormous material and cultural resources of the United States have driven it ahead in spite of its archaic system and values. The United States has such tremendous resources that it would probably have another century or more of superpower preeminence ahead, if it weren't so backward in its ways.

 

The system is nonetheless democratic enough that it could be reformed if only enough Americans voted differently, and the potential for improvement is huge. I don't know what it would take to make the big reform happen, though.

 

At least that's my view of the moment. I'm sure I could turn around and argue the opposite way. I don't really understand the United States or its system. Both seem weird, and I think that after tomorrow I'll just forget about them both for a while, as collective entities. Actual individual Americans still stand out mainly as tending to be a bit friendlier and nicer than people you meet elsewhere.

[keira]

The whole electoral college system came to be because the founding fathers believed democracy was chill, but still realized that people were morons. I can't help but think this is true; if the masses were fully in charge I suspect we'd have very little taxes and so much government benefits it would be ridiculous, not to mention zero rights for minorities.

 

Of course, I'm a pessimist who thinks that most people are idiots and that they shouldn't be put in such a position of power 'merca gives them. I do like the idea of a highly meritocratic system, however.

[Student of Trinity]

I'm sick of having two people catering toward as many people as they can; I'd rather vote for people based on what they actually represent in terms of the issues.

I want there to be two coherent platforms, based on competing principles; I want them to argue fairly until one of them is clearly proven superior, and then I will vote for it. I also want there to be inexpensive ponies that don't make poop. The problem is that there are too many positions to take on the issues, because there are too many issues. The range of things on which a modern politician is supposed to have a policy would have blown Thomas Jefferson's mind. It doesn't all boil down to just two alternatives, except by compromise, skullduggery, and pandering. The only alternative to those ugly things is a million-sided debate. That's probably a greater evil.

[Nioca]

I am going to hunt you down for posting this poll.

THIS.

 

JUST THIS.

 

Seriously, I've been getting political calls pretty much every half-hour to 15 minutes. It's absolutely insane.

 

...

 

Anyway, yeah. My opinions pretty much lie with the majority thusfar (Yes, no, yes, yes, DIE). Although I think another part of why I'm so sick of this election is what's going on on a state-level here in Michigan. We've got several proposals on the ballot that are basically special-interest or government power-grabs, and it looks like one of them is going to get through; namely, it's a veto referendum that determines whether or not Governer Snyder (or rather, his handpicked minions) can keep acting like a third-world dictator and running rough-shod over local elected positions. Oh, and it also looks like he'll get his nice little bridge and stick us with the bill, too.

 

[Mosquito---Slayer]

I have never even understood how two parties managed to get so dominant that nobody else is really in race, I mean we have like 5-6 major parties here and generally another important one on a state level and most of us still don't feel represented in any way whatsoever.

Of course, I'm a realistic who thinks that most people are idiots and that they shouldn't be put in such a position of power 'merca gives them. I do like the idea of a highly meritocratic system, however.

FYT.

[keira]

One of the main reasons I dislike the two-party system is because it is so polarizing. It's just like the cold war, there was just "us" and "them" and each side demonized the other to the point of being ridiculous. When you throw in the fact that "us" and "them" are in the same geographic area, it gets quite irritating.

 

Especially when you don't identify strongly with either party, for example thinking a middle-ground solution for an issue is best, or if you believe gays should have basic human rights and own a gun.

[Actaeon]

... if you believe gays should have basic human rights and own a gun.

 

And that's how Sylae started the LGBT equivalent of the Black Panther movement.

[Sudanna]

There've been a few little hardline 'pink panther' groups before.

[Enraged Slith]

What's so great about the popular vote and why is it always heralded as a magical cure to democracy whenever someone brings up the problems with the electoral college? It doesn't sound like it would change much other than give people more incentive to vote in uncontested states.

[Sudanna]

It's more democratic. Some people think that's a virtue.

[Callie]

I really don't like the two main political parties.

 

Nevada has a None of These Candidates option for statewide elections, which is really awesome, but not for local and congressional races. I despise the incumbent Republican in my congressional district, but I really don't like the Democrat either, so I voted for the Democrat to be contrarian.

 

Also, whenever I check my mailbox I have at least ten campaign fliers. Obama is filling my mailbox much faster than Romney.

[Lilith]

Nevada has a None of These Candidates option for statewide elections

 

so what happens if that option wins

[keira]

My roommate (Who is voting in Washington) has been getting tons of calls from everyone. I, being in an uncontested state of bigots, haven't gotten anything except a thing from the state that says what's on the ballot.

[Callie]

so what happens if that option wins

That actually happened in a 1976 party primary for a congressional race (None of These Candidates won 47% of the vote). The law states that the actual candidate with a plurality of votes wins regardless.

 

The Republican National Committee felt that the option would draw votes away from Romney in Nevada, so they filed a constitutional challenge to the law. The district judge sided with the RNC, but we still get the option in this election. The ruling is being appealed, though.

 

My roommate (Who is voting in Washington) has been getting tons of calls from everyone. I, being in an uncontested state of bigots, haven't gotten anything except a thing from the state that says what's on the ballot.

I was under the impression that the Senate race in Montana is at least somewhat competitive.

[keira]

My roommate (Who is voting in Washington) has been getting tons of calls from everyone. I, being in an uncontested state of bigots, haven't gotten anything except a thing from the state that says what's on the ballot.

I was under the impression that the Senate race in Montana is at least somewhat competitive.

That part is, and I think the gubernatorial will be close too (I haven't been following the polls as closely as some; I already know how I will vote). I still haven't seen anything though, although my roommates (always them, ha!) complain about the online ads, yay adblock. On the local side of things, the district I'm voting in has had this guy as its state rep for awhile, so...yeah

[Aran]

Replacing the electoral system with a popular vote for presidential elections would just mean that the winner will always have at least around 50+ε% of the popular vote as opposed to the occasional 50-ε% (for 0<ε<1). It might make the elections more exciting right up to the end, and cause campaign spending to be more, well, evenly spread, but it won't ultimately do anything against the fact that ~49% of people will still be outvoted on election day, and ~95% will feel inadequately represented by the given options.

 

Where a national popular vote could really help is in the US Congress. If the state representatives were supplemented by federally elected ones, you could vote for pretty much any party and have your vote influence the outcome (and not harm the major party you consider the lesser evil). Getting smaller parties into the legislature would probably ensure that no single party ever got an absolute majority again, and all issues would have to be multipartisan ones.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

That actually happened in a 1976 party primary for a congressional race (None of These Candidates won 47% of the vote). The law states that the actual candidate with a plurality of votes wins regardless.

What's the point of this option then?

[Callie]

What's the point of this option then?

It functions as a protest vote. Instead of voting for candidates you really don't like, you can say "I dislike all of these candidates" instead.

[keira]

Wait, if you don't like any of the candidates can't you just leave that part blank.

 

I mean it's not like they would throw out an entire ballot because one part of it was blank, that would be ridiculous.

 

They probably do that don't they

[Tyranicus]

Here in Pennsylvania, we have the option to write the name of anyone we choose in place of the candidates on the ballot. The father of a friend of mine was accidentally elected tax assessor this way.

[Callie]

I've tried to leave parts of the ballot blank before, but the electronic booths I've voted at don't allow it.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

It functions as a protest vote. Instead of voting for candidates you really don't like, you can say "I dislike all of these candidates" instead.

Yes, but what's the point?

[Aran]

Here in Pennsylvania, we have the option to write the name of anyone we choose in place of the candidates on the ballot. The father of a friend of mine was accidentally elected tax assessor this way.

 

What happens if John Smith gets elected?

 

Edit: Well, I suppose politics would get a lot more awesome.

[keira]

I believe you have to register and pay a fee to be a write-in candidate. 'merca

[Student of Trinity]

Really? How much? It might be worth something just to have it on your resumé, you know. "Write-in candidate for President of the United States." It admits that you're not as popular as, say, Barack Obama, but it suggests that you're more exclusive. Sort of like a secret brand. The candidate of the avant-garde few who are so far up the cutting edge, they're on the stabbing point.

[Tyranicus]

I believe you have to register and pay a fee to be a write-in candidate. 'merca

That may or may not be true for federal positions, I really do not know, but it is certainly not true on a local level, at least here.

[A less presumptuous name.]

As a Maryland voter, I am able to write in any name for a general election. There were also questions for ratifying appointed seats, in which I could approve a seat or not, but not actually vote for a candidate.

[The Loquacious Lord Grimm]

Hmph. Wikipedia doesn't have anything to say on registration requirements, but the article isn't a bad read.

 

In West Virginia, I had the option to keep my votes blank when using a touch-screen interface, or to manually enter a write-in name via an attached keyboard.

My absentee ballots for New Jersey, including the one for the 2004 Presidential Election, all had space for write in candidates in all categories, and the electronic voting machines that my town uses allow for blank votes or for the input of write-in candidates through an in-built keyboard. We've had our share of local elections upset by write-in campaigns for someone who didn't make it through the Democrat primaries, because the Dems tend to run unopposed around here.

I don't know if these high-level write-ins would be valid without registration, but it seems unnecessary... registration is how you get onto the ballot in the first place, right?

---

The Silent Assassin reminds you: he didn't start the fire, and this is an excellent reason why you should write him in for the position of Supreme Ruler of All Earth.

[Lilith]

registration is how you get onto the ballot in the first place, right?

 

in general you also need a certain number of people to actually support you

[The Mystic]

My responses:

Undecided

No

Yes

Yes

I am going to hunt you down for posting this poll. (Well, not really.)

[Actaeon]

If anyone meant it literally, I suspect I would already be tied up in the trunk of Nalyd's car.

[keira]

What makes you think you aren't, Amy Pond?

[Acky]

I find that the older I get the more disillusioned to the current political system I become. Had I been able to vote, I would have gone for Johnson, mostly on the premise that even though I don't agree with some of its proposals, it would be at least comforting to know that he's remained consistent with his platform. As was stated earlier, 90% of politicians change their views depending on what their running for. That alone bothers me more than any amount of lobbying that could take place. In my opinion, with the current system we have in place, only a handful of the states can actually meaningfully impact the course government is on, which is extremely unfair. The popular vote showed a mere one million difference between Romney and Obama, but Obama took the college home because he had just enough of a lead, which is pretty ridiculous.

[Jerakeen]

Actually, Obama won the electoral college because he had enough of a lead in the right places.

 

Which is the point of the original post, I think. Are you saying that neither the electoral college nor the popular vote should determine the outcome? If so, what do you suggest?

[Student of Trinity]

As a merely tangential comment about Ackrovan's signature: that's an old joke, and it's still partly funny, but it's also outdated by at least 30 years. London is a gastronomic destination these days. The idea that the Dutch are mechanically inept just seems bizarre. French poetry is great, though you might want to read it in French. And I think I'd rather be arrested in Germany than in the US, if I had to be arrested.

 

I'm not sure about the Swiss lovers, Irish managers, and Italian bankers. Those stereotypes might still be current.

[The Reverend]

The popular vote showed a mere one million difference between Romney and Obama, but Obama took the college home because he had just enough of a lead, which is pretty ridiculous.

As more votes have been counted, Obama's lead in the popular vote has expanded. It's now up to about 3.5 million (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president). I believe the one million number that was quoted on election night was from before they had counted most of the west coast votes. We may be three hours behind the east coast, but we still exist!

 

But your point about the silliness of the whole electoral college system still stands. It's possible to lose the popular vote and still win the election (e.g., Bush v Gore), which doesn't sit well with a lot of people. And Nate Silver's final simulations this year had over a 5% chance of Romney winning the popular vote but Obama winning the electoral vote. I believe this number was even higher right after the first debates, when Romney started moving up quickly in the polls.

[Acky]

Actually, Obama won the electoral college because he had enough of a lead in the right places.

 

Which is the point of the original post, I think. Are you saying that neither the electoral college nor the popular vote should determine the outcome? If so, what do you suggest?

Actually I am in the camp of a straight forward, popular vote to determine the president. My problem is exactly your point; Obama shouldn't win a reelection because his votes are in the correct geographical place. People who voted for Romney in, say, California or New York had virtually no influence in the race. If one more person votes Dem then Rep in a swing state, the latter's vote becomes null and void because the entire states vote goes Dem.

 

Which is not to say having a popular vote would be perfect. I'm not idealistic. But I do believe it would be an improvement.

 

As more votes have been counted, Obama's lead in the popular vote has expanded. It's now up to about 3.5 million (http://elections.nyt...sults/president). I believe the one million number that was quoted on election night was from before they had counted most of the west coast votes. We may be three hours behind the east coast, but we still exist!

 

But your point about the silliness of the whole electoral college system still stands. It's possible to lose the popular vote and still win the election (e.g., Bush v Gore), which doesn't sit well with a lot of people. And Nate Silver's final simulations this year had over a 5% chance of Romney winning the popular vote but Obama winning the electoral vote. I believe this number was even higher right after the first debates, when Romney started moving up quickly in the polls.

My mistake, my number wasn't up to date.

 

I suppose to be fair, it is rare for a president to win the electoral college without the popular vote (Bush vs Gore, Adams vs Jackson, Hayes vs Tilden, and Harrison vs Cleaveland are the only times if I remember correctly). But all of these elections were pretty well publicized scandels for their time, which may be avoided in the future if dropped the College.

 

As a merely tangential comment about Ackrovan's signature: that's an old joke, and it's still partly funny, but it's also outdated by at least 30 years. London is a gastronomic destination these days. The idea that the Dutch are mechanically inept just seems bizarre. French poetry is great, though you might want to read it in French. And I think I'd rather be arrested in Germany than in the US, if I had to be arrested.

 

I'm not sure about the Swiss lovers, Irish managers, and Italian bankers. Those stereotypes might still be current.

Heh. Upon double checking my source I actually messed up my Eurocentric quote. I've corrected it.

[Jerakeen]

Okay, but in that situation Obama still wins. You implied that a million-vote margin wasn't good enough. What would be?

[Actaeon]

One question I forgot to ask is whether we should go back to the old method of choosing the VP. I can't help but giggle internally at the idea of Obama and Romney sharing the White House.

[Kelandon]

In the case of an Electoral College tie, we still have the House decide the presidency and the Senate decide the vice-presidency, which, had Obama won Ohio and New Hampshire and lost basically all of the other top swing states, would have ended up with a Republican chamber choosing Romney and a Democratic chamber possibly choosing Biden.

 

The Founding Fathers were brilliant and forward-thinking, but they screwed up some stuff, and we haven't fixed it all yet. The most egregious stuff got fixed in the 19th century, but the less egregious stuff is still there.

[Alorael at Large]

The Electoral College is generally held to be a bad system. Although it's rarely overtly important, as in 2000, it leads to things like the aggressive campaigning in states that are close while huge stats get ignored. A Republican voter in New York or California is useless even though there are many of them by sheer state population. A Democrat in Houston or the South might as well stay home. No one will run ads in any of those states.

 

Fortunately, there's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which if it gets enough signatory states to have 270 electoral votes covered can end-run the electoral college without actually abolishing it.

 

—Alorael, who thinks popular vote is probably the best one can do unless the president is going to be appointed by ruling coalitions in a multi-party system. One guy has to have the job. It might as well be the guy the plurality of voters want.

[Balladeer]

Actually, Obama won the electoral college because he had enough of a lead in the right places.

 

Which is the point of the original post, I think. Are you saying that neither the electoral college nor the popular vote should determine the outcome? If so, what do you suggest?

 

I think voting should be thrown out the window all together and any candidate who wished to become President of the United States must first undergo a rigorous testing period in which they must recite the Constitution and Bill of Rights from memory, name all the current countries of the world, their leaders names and their gov't types, demonstrate the ability to balance a budget, understand current economics, pass the same psychological/background testing that the secret service must, and take a 1000 question timed essay test on current events around the world. The person who does the best on the tests becomes President.

 

Votes will no longer be bought. Voter fraud will be a thing of the past. Instead our Presidents will be well educated persons who might just be competent enough to lead our nation into a better world.

 

>:oK

[Lilith]

I think voting should be thrown out the window all together and any candidate who wished to become President of the United States must first undergo a rigorous testing period in which they must recite the Constitution and Bill of Rights from memory, name all the current countries of the world, their leaders names and their gov't types, demonstrate the ability to balance a budget, understand current economics, pass the same psychological/background testing that the secret service must, and take a 1000 question timed essay test on current events around the world. The person who does the best on the tests becomes President.

 

Votes will no longer be bought. Voter fraud will be a thing of the past. Instead our Presidents will be well educated persons who might just be competent enough to lead our nation into a better world.

 

>:oK

 

how do you decide who gets to design and administer the tests

[Harehunter]

Are you suggesting that candidates for the Presidency would actually have to be qualified for the job? And be able to stand up to the scrutiny of a security clearance? And to understand how businesses actually work, especially those that are sole-proprietorship?

 

What a concept!

[keira]

I think voting should be thrown out the window all together and any candidate who wished to become President of the United States must first undergo a rigorous testing period in which they must recite the Constitution and Bill of Rights from memory, name all the current countries of the world, their leaders names and their gov't types, demonstrate the ability to balance a budget, understand current economics, pass the same psychological/background testing that the secret service must, and take a 1000 question timed essay test on current events around the world. The person who does the best on the tests becomes President.

 

Votes will no longer be bought. Voter fraud will be a thing of the past. Instead our Presidents will be well educated persons who might just be competent enough to lead our nation into a better world.

 

>:oK

 

okay, then we'll have a damn-fine test-taker as president.

 

i mean, it's a good idea on paper, just like nclb may or may not have been a good idea on paper. the problem is that was what is on good on paper doesn't always translate well to being good in reality.

[Harehunter]

Point well taken, Sylae. It would be nice though if the Commander In Chief of the armed forces, whose duty it is to defend the Constitution, actually understood what that document means.

[Balladeer]

how do you decide who gets to design and administer the tests

 

i'll design it, you administer it

 

i'm sure whatever we turn out will be better than the system we have now

 

But seriously, standardized tests are administered across the nation. There are already good policies in place that can be drawn upon. The design could go in any direction but there are examples to look at. It could be designed in a like manner as, say, the SAT or the ACT.

 

@Sylae: Not saying just a test is a perfect process, but neither is voting. Why shouldn't the President be a good test taker? Why shouldn't they have to prove themselves competent before being allowed to lead? Why shouldn't they be required to know certain things like the laws they are supposed to be representing for us? If they don't work well under the pressure of taking a test, how well are they going to work under the pressure of an imminent threat to the country? If they cannot concentrate well enough to read the test questions and answer them coherently, how well are they going to be able to concentrate on reading their daily briefings and make coherent decisions for the country?

 

I know the test wouldn't be enough. I know that any test/results could be manipulated. I know that the people will demand the ability to choose which candidate they want based on the policies they stand for, but something's gotta be better than what we have now. Maybe it's just the books I've been reading of late, but intrigue just galls me. I'm sick of listening to both political parties with their rhetoric and accusations and half-truths. Give me a list of competent candidates with their opinions on the issues (part of the essay test) and nothing more. No charming speeches or winning smile, no gender or race, I don't even want their name; just give me their proven ability and their stances on the issues I care about and I will vote on that.