Free and Fair Elections (a political thread)

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Virtual_Burlesque
You are talking about the system by which the political party that gets to load the Supreme Court can skew the country in their preferred direction for several decades, with precious little recourse for the population.

Right?

And the system by which the people elect the politicians that do that, yes.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

And the system by which the people elect the politicians that do that, yes.

You call the Supreme Court people!

 

[alyxen]

I, for one, actually believe in the system.

Its isn't perfect, but it does offer up a great deal more freedoms... my choice is free, my choice does matter. As such, I am encouraged--especially by the Bush/Gore election--in my belief that the system works.

You mean the system whereby the candidate who got fewer votes became president?

Personally I would prefer if our presidential elections were done sans the electoral process. The last election proved to me how flawed that process is, although I did read an interesting article in Scientific American about other election processes that are more 'accurate' (such as run off voting).

Article referenced above: The Fairest Vote of All; March 2004 issue; by Partha Dasgupta and Eric Maskin

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by alyxen
You mean the system whereby the candidate who got fewer votes became president?

If you mean the system whereby the candidate who got the most electoral votes became president, then yes.

...as that's the system we use, what other system would I mean?

Personally I would prefer if our presidential elections were done sans the electoral process. The last election proved to me how flawed that process is, although I did read an interesting article in Scientific American about other election processes that are more 'accurate' (such as run off voting).

See, I actually like the electoral system over straight election. If everyone in the country voted, then there would be an uneven distrubution of voice concerning rural and urban areas (for one) and states whose opinions matter (for another). At least, that's what my poli-sci prof taught me a few years ago. It's definitely a reasonable argument.

 

[alyxen]

Just to simplify lets say there are two states. In the electoral college if the two states have equal populations and equal electoral votes this is the scenario:

State A has 95% of the population vote for candidate X and 5% vote for candidate Y.

State B has 50.1% of the population vote for candidate Y and 49.9% vote for candidate X.

In the electoral system this equals a tie vote, even though the clear majority of the population that the government is suppposed to represent have shown a clear preference for candidate X.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

Well, since I'm free to speak politics now, I hate to say I agree with Doc. lol

Our system is set up to load the supreme court by the elected party. That nomination is a lifetime. So whoever appoints makes they're beliefs known for the continuance of the judges span.

Does our system need a recouping? Yes, most definitely. It's set to an electoral system. Not by the vote of the people. Each electoral candidate may change his vote according to the politics. While that has only happened once in history, it is still possible. That leaves someone upon to corruption. And mankind is always corrupt. It will happen again.

Which system is right? I have no idea. But America is a republic and not a democracy. Perhaps someday we'll get it right. Until then, I don't see any better solution than what we have for now.

 

[alyxen]

If everyone in the country voted, then there would be an uneven distrubution of voice concerning rural and urban areas (for one)

If the voting population is a majority of urban and rural voters, how is that an uneven distribution of voice?

More votes = more people = more voice does it not?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by alyxen
If the voting population is a majority of urban and rural voters, how is that an uneven distribution of voice?

More votes = more people = more voice does it not?

How can a voting population be a majority of urban and rural voters? Wouldn't it be a majority of either urban or rural voters? Unless there's another category for them to be majority to?

I'm a little lost.

 

[alyxen]

Ignore that post then, Joe. Was just quoting your previous post advising that if everyone voted it would create an unfair voice. I still don't understand the logic behind more votes equaling an unfair voice..

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by alyxen
Ignore that post then, Joe. Was just quoting your previous post advising that if everyone voted it would create an unfair voice. I still don't understand the logic behind more votes equaling an unfair voice..

Well, truth be told, it was something I'd heard in poli-sci a few years ago--not really my theory, so I'm not terribly prepared to defend it. Something to do with the unbalancing of concern for rural areas (farming, for instance) because urban areas would have greater population--despite rural areas being integral. Sort of the same rational that if it were strictly done by popular vote, nobody would ever campaign outside of major cities.

Thus, voices wouldn't be heard... unbalance.

Something like that. There are any number of policital science articles about that, they could give a better explanation than me. I'm not a poli-sci guy.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

How can a voting population be a majority of urban and rural voters? Wouldn't it be a majority of either urban or rural voters? Unless there's another category for them to be majority to?

I'm a little lost.

Technically it could be urban and rural versus suburban. In other words a class based divide.

Unrelated, Poli-sci is a funny science that I'm glad not to be a part of.





As far as Ogg goes and his theory. America is a corrupt little plutocracy slowly inching its way completely out of the so-called democracies (interestingly enough there are no working true democracies in the world, only republics. Why do we say there are so many democracies? Because we are all fucking morons.).

Voting is worthless if you want to change the system. Voting can only block temporarily the most heinous attacks against the will of the people and more importantly the will of the people with half a brain cell and don't vote based on political ads, hair style, manliness, personal life, etc... However, for social change voting is counterintuitive. By voting we all validate two corrupt parties so complacent with their base that they do very little beside playing vindictive lip service and robbing people. Our politicians are liars who pay out our treasury to prop up corrupt super-corporations that work digilently to bring shame to the so-called glories of capitalism.

Democrats and Republicans are shit and I've said it before that we need a four-party system of Left, Liberal, Conservative, Right. We also need a total removal of character-based elections in favor of a totally record and politic-based elections. Furthermore I say that if we keep our electoral college, it must be turned into a PR electoral college to insure that third-party votes are no longer "wasted" and people can express their distaste for the current parties.

Also, I believe our press needs to retake a role as watchdog of politics and to this end, they must be cut off from this slavery to corporations that force them into showing a skewed side of politics. (If a press with mostly liberal newscasters is presenting solely pro-conservative news shows, there is something wrong in the balance of power). Furthermore, religion needs to be removed from politics. Religion is kept separate from State, not just to protect the state, but to protect the Church from corruption. Remember the corruption of the RCC when they ruled the political system as well?

In other words, everything needs to change in our nascent dictatorship but it won't and everyday we will hear the clarion cry of "It's corrupt, but it's better than anything else I've seen". (which brings up the whole issue of our country being so foreign nation dumb that we have great disrespect for France, the nation who gave us the Statue of Liberty, the political beliefs that influenced the Founding Fathers, and most importantly our independence by doing most of the heavy work for our Revolutionary War.)

In summation, America is filled with fucking morons and we're paying for it. Oh, how we're paying for it.

 

[oggbashan]

In other words, everything needs to change in our nascent dictatorship but it won't and everyday we will hear the clarion cry of "It's corrupt, but it's better than anything else I've seen". (which brings up the whole issue of our country being so foreign nation dumb that we have great disrespect for France, the nation who gave us the Statue of Liberty, the political beliefs that influenced the Founding Fathers, and most importantly our independence by doing most of the heavy work for our Revolutionary War.)

The French President and Government were unpopular for refusing to take part in the Iraq adventure.

The main reason they didn't was because their voters didn't want them to. France has a large Muslim population and their voters are probably better informed about Muslim issues than any other European country. Their history and continuing involvement in Africa means that they knew that anyone invading Iraq would be faced with a no-win situation in a country that was filled with groups who hated each other and were only kept from killing each other by an even more ruthless killer.

The French politicians listen to their people. The events of 1968 showed them what happens when they don't.

Og

PS. How many of you don't know what I mean by 'the events of 1968'?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: You agree?

Do I take it from the lack of dissent above that the US citizens who are members of the AH agree that their political system needs reform?

Whatever the flaws in the system - please use your vote whenever you can. Apathy damages the validity of any government and is a betrayal of those who fought and died to ensure that we can still vote.

Og

Not sure how late I am here, but no, I don't agree. The system is by no means perfect, but it still gets the job done. Everyone still has the right to vote, excluding those who have forfieted it. Neither party serves my interestes in full, in fact neither serves even a plurality of my interests. Both are out to remove basic rights from me. Both are in the pockets of major corporations. In the end however we get to elect our represenatives, on the municipal, local, regional and state levels, as well as on the national level.

It's true that the man in the white house doesn't really represent me very well. The same will be true if he is defeated or reelected. No blood no foul. But on a state level, I get more representation, excluding of course Hil, who represents only herself. Moving down to regional, I get excellent represntation from Sue Kelly and Larkin. On the municipal level I am well served by Dinofrio. Where it really counts, in my everyday life, I am getting pretty close to superb representation. None of these politicians serve all my beliefs, but together, I feel like I get at the very least adequate coverage of the majority of my concerns.

Is it perfect? No. is there a better way to do it? Maybe. Has anyone proposed reform in the matter that I think will help? No. Are most of the proposals I have seen more likely to make it worse. IMHO, yes.

There is an old saying, if it works, don't fix it. It works. As an american I can name at least ten different people who represnet me in the political arena. Thats a lot of representation if you think about it.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The French President and Government were unpopular for refusing to take part in the Iraq adventure.

The main reason they didn't was because their voters didn't want them to. France has a large Muslim population and their voters are probably better informed about Muslim issues than any other European country. Their history and continuing involvement in Africa means that they knew that anyone invading Iraq would be faced with a no-win situation in a country that was filled with groups who hated each other and were only kept from killing each other by an even more ruthless killer.

The French politicians listen to their people. The events of 1968 showed them what happens when they don't.

Og

PS. How many of you don't know what I mean by 'the events of 1968'?

I believe I do, although I could be mistaken. i assume you are reffering to the great general strike?

-Colly