hacker

What do you mean by distortion?

Democracy is an expression of the people will.
When a small subset of the people have power that is larger (or smaller) than the average then the expression of peoples will is distorted.
Where one man/ one vote can be considered an ideal, and will ultimately reflect the expressed will of the people in the electoral contest, anything that may cause this will to be different distorts.

Examples in the American election of a President?
- the electoral college which can allow a winner who has not received a plurality of votes.
- the distortion by which a state receives electoral votes that do not represent its population within the country (or potentially the votes cast
- the potential for an electoral college member to vote other than for the candidate for whom he was nominated... (half the states at least)
- variance in registration and qualification for the franchise. In Florida about a third of blacks are disqualified because of criminal records. In Vermont, prisoners can cast a vote from their cells. (Someone convicted of marijuana possession does not stop being a citizen but their right to vote is often taken away.)
- variance in turnout because the regional nature of an election, with regional imbalances, can drive down voter turnout of minorities who despair at the effort of voting when the outcome is decided.... In a national contest, with equal standards for voters, this would be less likely to occurr as every vote would actually be equal.

Today its not. And therefore there is distortion.

(First pass the post system in a parliamentary election also can distort .... As can regional factors in representative areas... I'm not picking on just one system here.)

Hacker, what I'm getting at here is that there's a fundamental difference between saying "well, the EC isn't perfect but it's not such a major problem that we need to solve it" and saying "the alternatives are worse". In the latter case you need to present some credible argument as to why they're worse, and I haven't really seen anything yet which meets that description. What you started out with was a claim that a single constituency would grant disproportionate voting power to military personnel. When challenged on that with evidence that they do not actually vote as a bloc and never have then you seemed to walk back on that line without offering anything in its place, and yet you still maintain that the alternatives would be worse !

Fair enough. Gimmee a bit. I need to find stuff on electoral strategy. Because that's about what it comes down to.

I realize it's not an easy thing to "prove" or to "quantify". We do have some unknowns in the equation (what would happen in the future IF, etc...is not an easy thing to prove, but that doesn't mean we cannot try.)

First let me deal with some of the misinterpretations Ricky has presented. Then I'll deal with other aspects of this argument.

Examples in the American election of a President?
- the electoral college which can allow a winner who has not received a plurality of votes.

True, but extremely rare and unlikely. It's quite undesirable for a presidential campaign to actually want to win the EC after losing the PV. It looks silly. You might win the presidency but you look like a prick and forever carry the taint of "stolen election". Bush might have been re-elected, but Benjamin Harrison was not.

- the distortion by which a state receives electoral votes that do not represent its population within the country (or potentially the votes cast

You mean the smaller states are over represented vis-a-vis the larger ones? Yes, but that is typically exaggerated by the opponents of the EC. And considering point one, that 36 out of the last 38 elections (using 1864 as our terminus ante quem) have had the same result (same winner in the EC and PV), that distortion obviously isn't that great, or else more elections would have opposite results.

- the potential for an electoral college member to vote other than for the candidate for whom he was nominated... (half the states at least)

Possible but again, unlikely. The last instance of someone voting for the opposition was 1968. A Nixon/Agnew elector in NC (which has since passed regulations prohibiting it) voted for Wallace/LeMay. Fortunately, the election wasn't close. If it had been close, and that one elector tipped the election, I guarantee you the Republicans in Congress would have tried--and likely succeeded--to have his vote declared "Not regularly given" and thrown out. It's been interpreted for a long time that the CONGRESS has the authority to COUNT the votes and, by extension, to disqualify any.

In 11 elections since 1968, there have been a grand total of FIVE faithless electors. In none of these elections has it been greater than ONE elector doing it, and out of those five instances, only once, 1972, did it take a vote away from the winner as it did in 1968. (A Republican [Nixon/Agnew] elector voted for Libertarian candidate [Hospers/Nathan] in 1972.) Nixon still crushed his opponent, McGovern, in the EC and the PV in 1972 in what was a massive ass-whoopin' (60.7% PV/520-17-1 EC). In 1976, a Ford elector (loser) voted for Ronald Reagan; in 1988, a Dukakis elector "reversed" it (voted for Dukakis for VP and Bentsen for Prez); in 2000, the DC elector abstained, as I mentioned, and in 2004 a MN elector voted for Edwards for Prez AND for VP in protest of the EC system. Not really a big deal.

- variance in registration and qualification for the franchise. In Florida about a third of blacks are disqualified because of criminal records. In Vermont, prisoners can cast a vote from their cells. (Someone convicted of marijuana possession does not stop being a citizen but their right to vote is often taken away.)

That would not change with a NPV. It couldn't. Read the constitution carefully. Art. I, Ss. 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

That brilliant bit of 18th century legalese translates to, if you're eligible to vote in a state election, under your state's laws, you're equally eligible to vote in a federal election (specifically speaking of the election of congressmen, not "presidential" electors--"electors" here means just the voters.) In other words, Congress does not regulate suffrage, the states do. So an amendment superceding Art. II, Ss. 1 and Amdns. XII & XXIII, etc. (abolishing the EC and replacing it with a NPV) would not change the regulations for suffrage. It's long since been interpreted as a state matter.

- variance in turnout because the regional nature of an election, with regional imbalances, can drive down voter turnout of minorities who despair at the effort of voting when the outcome is decided.... In a national contest, with equal standards for voters, this would be less likely to occurr as every vote would actually be equal.

Doubtful. Again, see the above point on the qualifications for voters. I'm very skeptical that, just because the federal executive branch has gone to a NPV, that would make people magically turn out to vote "evenly". Don't forget, we don't just elect the president on 8 November 2016, we also elect our member of Congress, one of our two senators (in most states), state and local offices (in some states). Because the American voter is notoriously lazy--the main reason for my skepticism on this point--we have to "pancake" our elections. When you call a federal election in Canada, I was told by another Canadian, it's one race on the ballot. That is why you count them by hand--and so quickly.

Speaking of which (unrelated) MD is going back to optical marks ballots. No longer using the computer touch-screen voting!

hacker

In other words, Congress does not regulate suffrage, the states do.

That's irrelevant. If suffrage is different across the US then the election doesn't reflect the will of the people. Some are disenfranchised by their State. (Jim Crow laws, and voter ID laws are a part of this phenomenon.)
If all Americans are supposed to have equal rights, then why should felons in Florida lose the franchise, but felons in Vermont don't? Seems like a transgression of the 14th Amendment? Jsu wondering...

hacker

I'm very skeptical that, just because the federal executive branch has gone to a NPV, that would make people magically turn out to vote "evenly

Do you have evidence to support your skepticism?
There has been some research in this ...

In a paper published in 2008 called “If Everyone Had Voted, Would Bubba and Dubya Have Won?,” Sides explored through statistical modeling whether universal turnout would have changed presidential election outcomes. His answer: only in extremely close elections like the 2000 Gore-Bush match-up. Non-voters in most states are only slightly more Democratic than voters. However, there was one significant exception to the rule: Texas. Latinos in Texas tilt heavily Democratic but they don’t vote. Sides postulates that the primary factor may be the health of the state Democratic Party and the attractiveness of the candidates.
In Texas, “the Democratic candidates are not that viable,” Sides said. “There’s less that’s motivating Democrats to turn out and vote so the non-voter population becomes disproportionally Democratic.”

http://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/bubbadubya.pdf

hacker

Because the American voter is notoriously lazy

According to Fate that's because of socialism..

And according to you it's because of Jim Crow and the electoral college. I find neither of those two conclusions an adequate explanation.

And PS, neither of our countries has compulsory voting.

Hacker

And according to you it's because of Jim Crow and the electoral college.

I said American voters are notoriously lazy because of Voter ID laws?
Your starting to interpret as well as Fate..
I said if suffrage is different across the US it doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people.

And surprise surprise, I agree with that last statement. But you were also stating that if it were not so, the American electorate would be less lazy voters.

Now with THAT I must disagree wholly. After all, ditching the EC wouldn't change how we elect Congress would it? And we vote for congressmen at the same elections we vote for the presidency.

In FACT, the "midterm" elections, where we vote for the congressmen but not for the presidential electors, have lower turnout. If you were right, that the unfairness and inequity of the EC turned voters away, wouldn't we actually have a higher turnout in the midterms?

hacker

But you were also stating that if it were not so, the American electorate would be less lazy voters.

Not because of the difference in suffrage from state to state.
That was applied to how democracy is distorted... (From its purest ability to reflect the will of the people)

hacker

In FACT, the "midterm" elections, where we vote for the congressmen but not for the presidential electors, have lower turnout. If you were right, that the unfairness and inequity of the EC turned voters away, wouldn't we actually have a higher turnout in the midterms?

The gerrymandering of congressional districts provides the same affect that the EC does... Elections that are largely pre-decided... Diminishing the enthusiasm of the electorate .

You're always going to get a higher turnout when the big one is in play, that's only natural.

true, but that's not what Ricky said.

OK, I'm looking for academic papers (last resort) to prove my point. I admit, I walked into a brier patch, here. We have discussed this before in class, back when I was talking poli sci courses in college, and some of what I saw then pointed to "bad idea". But I have found at least a few points of information that most people haven't thought about.

Suppose you had a fraudulent election. You could order a statewide recount--as was almost done in FL in 2000, and the case Bush v. Gore ordered them to stop. But suppose there was a direct, national, popular vote and you had some election fraud. You'd have to recount not just one state, but the whole country. Every village and hamlet would have to recount their ballots. Not only that, you realize that 500,000 fraudulent votes in California would eclipse the results of several other states. You could end up tying up the results of the presidential election--for months perhaps. In other words the EC "compartmentalizes" the problem, not unlike a hospital quarantine: put the sick patient alone and cure him, without contaminating the other 50 patients.

Second, it's a key component of American federalism. You cannot abolish one component of it without making it all irrelevant. The United States is a federation, it acts like a federation, works like a federation...are you really going to dismantle that overnight just because one aspect of the constitution seems "undemocratic" or "unfair"?

Not only that, you would have to do more than one amendment to accommodate it. You can't just say "OK, amendment 28 that nullifies Art. II Sec I and Amendment XII, replacing it with a direct national popular vote." Because what about fringe candidates? You'd have a shitload of candidates trying to run for the presidency who could hijack the process. You'd turn the executive branch of the world's most powerful democracy into the Weimar republic pretty quickly. And wither the Congress? Do you plan to change that to proportional representation, and ditch the first past the post system partially or entirely? That's what you'd probably have to do, or else you'd have an executive branch where there's 20 different candidates, many of little fringe parties, running for the top spot. It's likely that with the mechanics of congressional elections, those elections would favor generally a 2-party system. So you have an executive that's a free-for-all, and a Congress that tends to favor a two party system (occasionally, there HAS been a third party in Congress, if you don't believe me look it up...but generally no more than that.)

Or do you plan to eliminate automatically candidates who do not poll say, 5% of the popular votes? Sure, that's wayyyy more democratic, yeah. But you'd have to do that. And you'd also have to have a runoff election, which aren't terribly democratic either, especially, as I mentioned, Americans are notoriously lazy voters. Ricky, they're lazy not because they feel unequal, it's just in our national character. As a Canadian I'm sure that's unimaginable, considering that, I just checked, your turnout was 69.1%. That would be an amazing feat for the US but the American People just aren't up to the task. And as far as your theories on why, it's hard to read the minds of people and assume why they're not voting.

And besides, the Senate is less democratic than the EC! Do you plan to throw that out, too? How much of the constitution would have to be dismantled just to make the election of the president "more democratic"?

The electoral college therefore does several important things:

1. "quarantines" improprieties in states that just haven't got their shit together, e.g., Florida (though I'll say more on that , before you object that it didn't!)
2. maintains a give-or-take two party system, which in a Presidential democracy is generally beneficial
3. prevents having to have a lot of other complicated regulations like runoff elections (which people would sit on their asses for one or the other round, making the result just as undemocratic) and 5% rules (like Germany did to prevent bizzilions of little candidates/parties from turning the process into a mess); put into the constitution.

Florida in 2000: what SHOULD have constitutionally happened was this: the Supreme Court should have refused to hear Bush v. Gore. If Congress did not like the result, they then could have nullified the 25 electoral votes of Florida, leaving both candidates without 270 electoral votes. The House of Representatives would then have elected the President, the Senate, the vice-president. Sounds a bit messy, but it is what is supposed to have happened. That to me, would have been more democratic than just stopping the recount and forcing everybody to be happy with it.

What *I* would do to make the process more 'democratic', "mend it, don't end it"
1. make the electoral college 436 members: just the size of the HOuse, not the House + Senate (DC would get 1 vote instead of 3)
2. change the bit about each state gets one vote in the House (when the EC deadlocks) to each congressman gets one vote.

That's a bit more democratic.

Hacker

You'd have to recount not just one state, but the whole country.

Why?
Only those precincts in doubt need to be recounted.

Hacker

Because what about fringe candidates? You'd have a shitload of candidates trying to run for the presidency who could hijack the process. You'd turn the executive branch of the world's most powerful democracy into the Weimar republic pretty quickly.
(The Weimar Republic was not dysfunctional due to the electoral process. It was actually the abandonment of the process and democracy. Hitler was invited into power, not voted into power..)
And wither the Congress? Do you plan to change that to proportional representation, and ditch the first past the post system partially or entirely?

Boy do you make leaps, imagining insoluble problems that have been solved elsewhere long ago.
Whatever standard you set for entry into a national election would be the same for everyone.
In France they had 10 candidates for President ...There they have a system where if no candidate receives 50% of the vote the first round, there is run off between the top two. This is similar to elections in the US in certain jurisdictions. (Georgia?)

Hacker

1. "quarantines" improprieties in states that just haven't got their shit together, e.g., Florida (though I'll say more on that , before you object that it didn't!)

I'll wait, since you notice the obvious contrradiction.
Hacker

2. maintains a give-or-take two party system, which in a Presidential democracy is generally beneficial

Really? Why? To my mind the effective duopoly in the US has limited options, and limited the process. And lead to the current situation where much of the electorate has decided that the process is rigged and only "outsiders" can fix it.

Hacker

3. prevents having to have a lot of other complicated regulations like runoff elections (which people would sit on their asses for one or the other round, making the result just as undemocratic) and 5% rules (like Germany did to prevent bizzilions of little candidates/parties from turning the process into a mess); put into the constitution.

What is complicated about a runoff election? If they can manage it in Georgia surely other parts of the US can cope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_France

Boy do you make leaps, imagining insoluble problems that have been solved elsewhere long ago.

Plenty of imagination to go around on Redscape; or perhaps I should say "lack thereof."

Only those precincts in doubt need to be recounted.

You recall that the subject of Bush v. Gore was to halt the STATEwide recount. That was because it was Florida's 25 electoral votes that were in doubt. But suppose the nationwide result in a NPV were in doubt. Yeah, they'd have to recount the country, if there were multiple improprieties, and we had a NATIONAL popular vote administered by the feds, not the states, as you prefer. Think that one through carefully.

Whatever standard you set for entry into a national election would be the same for everyone.

I don't understand what you mean; are you saying that our hypothetical NPV election would automatically work like France's? P.S.: France is not a presidential system! Semi-presidential systems are a kind of "third way", distinct from the presidential and parliamentary types. So I do not think France is a good basis for comparison.

Again, Ricky, a constitution must reflect the people, and their political and social culture. I just told you that Americans are lazy voters. We may very well go the way of Australia and have compulsory voting one day; though I hope it doesn't come to that. (Of course, their previously low turnouts were probably due to a more complicated electoral system, so really, Americans have no excuse!)

Really? Why? To my mind the effective duopoly in the US has limited options, and limited the process. And lead to the current situation where much of the electorate has decided that the process is rigged and only "outsiders" can fix it.

What "outsiders"? Like you? And yes, it has limited options to some extent. A little undemocratic. But you said it yourself, a democracy has to have a STABLE STATE. One of you went so far as to say a STRONG STATE. I agree. With a multiplicity of parties in Congress you would get even less done than the last two congresses have managed (which you both pointed out had done a lot less than their predecessors.) If the Democrats and Republicans in Congress can't get shit done...jeeze.

In fact, I can point to past experience. I don't recall the year, but when the American Party (AKA the "Know Nothings") captured a bunch of seats in Congress in the 19th century, prior to the Civil War it took two months to elect a compromise Speaker of the House. In the interim (even after) was the epitome of your favorite word, dysfunction. If you think the 111th and 112th congresses were unproductive and dilatory (and dysfunctional)...well, check it out. I took Era of the American Civil War in college (and no, it wasn't taught by a republican) and we discussed this topic. Two months to elect a friggin speaker before they could do business.

Maybe that's why we have a "duopoly" as you call it? Undemocratic? Somewhat, yes. I would encourage you to read that book by Alastair Smith and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. I don't have it handy right now, but part of the discussion is on multiparty systems. The authors think when it comes to a nearly-hegemonic party trying to stay in power as long as possible, the more little parties, the merrier. In Japan there are no fewer than eight parties in the House of Representatives, and ten in the House of Councillors. Yet, with only a couple small breaks, the Liberal Democratic Party has more or less monopolized Japanese politics since the first post-war elections (1954 if I'm not mistaken). Lots of little parties produces two results: 1) a power grab for two or three (maybe even ONE in some cases!) more powerful, hegemonic parties; 2) total paralysis.

(Aside: I personally believe that the reason the last 2 congresses were so pathetic was because the Senate was controlled by one party, the House, by the other. That was fine back when the President of the United States was partially a figurehead, but with the president as a third "power bloc" in legislation these days, it's deadly to not have a united front in the US Congress.)

So I think the two party system in the United States, seemingly undemocratic on the surface, is generally a better option than allowing for multiple parties. When significant third parties have made it into the House or Senate in the past, it's a case of "there goes the neighborhood".

Besides, the parties in the US aren't like parties in other countries. Even with greater polarization these days (Sass prefers the term "hyper partisanship") they're still a lot like brand names rather than European-style (or Canadian-style) parties that you typically see in a parliamentary system.

What is complicated about a runoff election? If they can manage it in Georgia surely other parts of the US can cope.

Typically the runoff elections are in primaries, believe it or not. And the people who vote in general AND primary elections are obviously the more conscientious voters; the kind of people who wouldn't say "I just voted last month so I don't feel like voting twice!"

Again, that's a strength of the EC: no runoffs. Besides, has anyone ever even considered the EC could be repaired, rather than abolished? To make it closer to a democratic system?

Ricky, your problem--and please don't get mad, I don't think you're stupid or I wouldn't bother to argue with you--is that you have this idealistic belief in pure democracy. You think that popular power of the majority, just because it comes from the majority, is going to be automatically more benevolent. If that's true, why do democracies bother to put a bill of rights into their constitutions? Because power is power, and it corrupts, even popular power must have some checks and blocks on it.

The majority voted for Prop 8 in California. RickyP, how did you feel about that? As I recall there was a "tyrrany of the majority" term bandied about.

hacker

You recall that the subject of Bush v. Gore was to halt the STATEwide recount. That was because it was Florida's 25 electoral votes that were in doubt. But suppose the nationwide result in a NPV were in doubt. Yeah, they'd have to recount the country, if there were multiple improprieties, and we had a NATIONAL popular vote administered by the feds, not the states, as you prefer. Think that one through carefully

if there is a question of impropriety, it would be based upon evidence at the precinct level. Only those precincts in question need to be recounted. All those precincts certified and unchallenged would stay with their original count.
The questions in Florida were state wide, mainly due to the construction of the ballot and the counting machines.. That situation would not happen across the nation. Could it again happen state wide? Maybe. But don't people learn from the mistakes of the past?


hacker

I don't understand what you mean; are you saying that our hypothetical NPV election would automatically work like France's

?
No. I'm merely offering it up as an example of a national election for Presient where they acomodate many candidates.

Hacker

What "outsiders"?

Your kidding right? You listen to the rhetoric of the various candidates?
Trump.
Cruz.
Fiorino.
Sanders.
Christies offers himself as a Washington outsider too.

hacker

With a multiplicity of parties in Congress you would get even less done than the last two congresses have managed (which you both pointed out had done a lot less than their predecessors.) If the Democrats and Republicans in Congress can't get shit done...jeeze.

Offered without evidence.
The US system requires compromise. So do parliamentary systems where a governing party doesn't achieve a majority.
It is often easier in multi party parliaments to achieve compromise as moderate factions can move one way or another - whilst the extreme parties cannot compromise.
In the US there used to be compromise but with the takeover of the republican party by the extreme right wing, compromise has virtually ceased.

hacker

The authors think when it comes to a nearly-hegemonic party trying to stay in power as long as possible, the more little parties, the merrier. In Japan there are no fewer than eight parties in the House of Representatives, and ten in the House of Councillors. Yet, with only a couple small breaks, the Liberal Democratic Party has more or less monopolized Japanese politics since the first post-war elections (1954 if I'm not mistaken). Lots of little parties produces two results: 1) a power grab for two or three (maybe even ONE in some cases!) more powerful, hegemonic parties; 2) total paralysis.

If the will of the people is reflected in the representation within parliament, that is democratic. Not undemocratic. The presence of "little parties" represent the view of a faction of the populace.
If the larger party is able to cobble together support of many little parties and govern that represents compromise. And successful governance.
Just because one party has been in power for a long period doesn't mean that the system is undemocratic. It may mean the one party has successfully appealed to the electorate time and again, and has governed with enough compromise to attract and keep support.

hacker

Maybe that's why we have a "duopoly" as you call it? Undemocratic? Somewhat, yes

Kind of like being a little pregnant.
The duopoly keeps competition out. In politics this means the competition of ideas...
Consider the very narrow range of policies proposed by republican candidates. In most cases they simply compete to become more extreme ...because they need to appeal to motivated primary voters who happen to hold extreme views.
In a multi party system, 10 or 12 policies are developed and expounded. There is room for more ideas. Once a legislature is formed, the mathematical variation that could find majority support by enlisting entire party support for legislation is great. In a two party system with undemocratic stuff like super majorities, the room for compromise requires individuals to hive away from their parties positions. As the extremists have taken over the republican party , party discipline has been much more rigid. And enforced through primary competitions...where again the extremists are the ones who vote.

hacker

Typically the runoff elections are in primaries, believe it or not

seven states have primary runoffs. Georgia has general election run offs. My point was that if the good people of Georgia can manage this complexity, surely all Americans could.

hacker

Ricky, your problem--and please don't get mad, I don't think you're stupid or I wouldn't bother to argue with you--is that you have this idealistic belief in pure democracy

Effective governments have to reflect the will of the people. They have to deliver on the needs and wishes of the electorate. Even dictatorships fail if they cannot manage to keep sufficient people happy, (sometimes a minority who have physical power, like the army) .
Democracy has proven to be the best system of responding to the aspirations of the most people. We do not have pure democracy anywhere. But we have managable systems that allow democratic expression and allow for good governance.
You keep wishing to discuss the arcane structures of the American system with a less than willing understanding of the futility in defending a system that has some inherent undemocratic features. Then claiming the features are somehow improvements on more obviously democratic representative systems.
Right now you have a congress that can't pass laws. And have had such for the last 7 years. You have an election in which ALL of the candidates have decried a rigged system that is not benefiting the average American to the extent it benefits a very small elite.
This is a cry for a more representative expression of the working and middle classes. And ts happening in both parties primary season. That its happening is an expression that what has come before has failed to met their needs.
Changing the EC wouldn't change that in a large way. (Though if the 2000 election had been based on votes, Bush lost .... maybe there wouldn't have been a war in Iraq. And i think that would have changed a lot of the last 15 years economically, and politically)