The point of USA elections?

[Artlav]

The questions obviously addressed only to USA citizens.
Quite simply put - do you care about who the next USA president will be, and do you care about the elections of the next president?

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I'm still voting this November, but it really doesn't matter because hitler...I mean obama or mccain has still won over the few dozen electors they need to win. The people's voice doesn't matter any more in this government, it might have been good back when the Constitution was first written because not everyone had access or capability to read up on who was really who in politics and make an informed decision. Nowadays however, most people could easily make an informed decision themselves instead of relying on bought-off electors to decide for them.

 

[Eagle]

Elections are very important. Always. Even politicians that aren't running for reelection see the presidential race as a mandate from the people of what we expect. If Obama wins then the politicians think that the people are tired of Bush's politics and look forward to some of Obama's policies on taxes, health care, whatever. If McCain wins the politicians see that the people are somewhat happy with the status quo and only desire small changes.

Elections are what drive the pendulum of conservatism and liberalism. The sum of the pendulum's motion is what the people want.

Even delusions from partisanship aren't wholly immune. Mostly because the partisans on the wrong side of the pendulum don't get reelected.

 

[Missioncmdr]

I would vote if I were old enough to do so. I know that for the Presidential eleciton, I would be voting Libertarian.

 

[GregBurch]

I'm still voting this November, but it really doesn't matter because hitler...I mean obama or mccain has still won over the few dozen electors they need to win. The people's voice doesn't matter any more in this government, it might have been good back when the Constitution was first written because not everyone had access or capability to read up on who was really who in politics and make an informed decision. Nowadays however, most people could easily make an informed decision themselves instead of relying on bought-off electors to decide for them.

Are you saying that you think that members of the Electoral College are bribed? You do know that the operation of the Electoral College is completely transparent and also functionally automatic and mechanical, right? Electors in the Electoral College have no real discretion to vote other than as the popular vote in their states dictates.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Yes I know, I'll admit I was over the top about the bribing part, but it could conceiveably happen. The part I'm going on about is that they can vote for whoever they want witout having to disclose who exactly they did vote for (please correct me if I'm wrong on this one) and technically, the candidates don't have campaign to the general population, all they need to do is win over 270 out of 538 other politicians. 538 is tiny compared to the popular vote.
Remember 2000? And look what we got! The people wanted Al Gore, but the politicians wanted bush.

 

[Missioncmdr]

You must be a little unfamilar with how the Electoral College works in today's world. The people in each state do not directly vote for a President, but they vote for electors who are sworn to a certain party (or independent). So if one state's citizens vote and a majority of them vote, say, Democratic, then that state's electors are expected to (and usually do) vote Democratic. I believe that electors are usually chosen by the parties which makes it highly unlikely for them to change how they are expected to vote once they are elected.

If you are interested, I would also look up the concept of the "faithless elector."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

 

[GregBurch]

Yes I know, I'll admit I was over the top about the bribing part, but it could conceiveably happen. The part I'm going on about is that they can vote for whoever they want witout having to disclose who exactly they did vote for (please correct me if I'm wrong on this one) and technically, the candidates don't have campaign to the general population, all they need to do is win over 270 out of 538 other politicians. 538 is tiny compared to the popular vote.
Remember 2000? And look what we got! The people wanted Al Gore, but the politicians wanted bush.

... sigh ...

First "faithless electors":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

As you can see, a near majority of states now have laws REQUIRING electors to vote in accord with popular vote, and the exhaustive list of "faithless electors" in that Wiki article is, under the circumstances of the long and contentious history of US politics, very short.

Second, the 2000 election.

Yes, by OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED votes, Gore had 500k more than Bush, a roughly 0.05% margin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

On the other hand, the one state that got HUGE scrutiny both before and after the election, Florida, had issues with their ballot-counting system well within this margin of error. For instance, despite the howls of "stolen election!" that have never let up since, the post-election recount undertaken by a number of press organizations showed, under half of the methodologies used, a Bush victory in Florida:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000_Florida_results#Media_based

Just as important to note, though, is the fact that the numbers varied, depending on the method used to count votes one way or another. Imagine if this had been done in all 50 states and DC. Do you think a 1/2 of 1% margin would have held throughout this process? I don't. It could have gone either way.

 

[n0mad23]

Double sigh,

It's not the first time someone's won the popular vote to have the (s)electoral college go another way.

And Florida continues to be disputed if you bother to research it at all. More than one source has Gore winning Florida with over 46k votes. But I don't think many people understand the real implications here, either. I urge you to read (in)Justice Scalia's opinion on the 2000 decision if you suspect we might have some political problems to tackle.

Edit:
Before anyone says I'm being a sore loser, I didn't vote for either of these bums in 2000. I just object to what we've got passing itself off as a democracy. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

 

[GregBurch]

Double sigh,

It's not the first time someone's won the popular vote to have the (s)electoral college go another way.

And Florida continues to be disputed if you bother to research it at all. More than one source has Gore winning Florida with over 46k votes. But I don't think many people understand the real implications here, either. I urge you to read (in)Justice Scalia's opinion on the 2000 decision if you suspect we might have some political problems to tackle.

Edit:
Before anyone says I'm being a sore loser, I didn't vote for either of these bums in 2000. I just object to what we've got passing itself off as a democracy. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Oh yeah!?!? And who says democracy is such a great thing, anyway!?!?!? Just kidding.

Sort of.

Anyway, for those not familiar with the intricacies of the case, Bush v. Gore presented to the US Supreme Court the relatively narrow issue of whether it was constitutional to apply different standards to judging the validity of ballots in different counties in the same state. I would be willing to bet that, had the actual case not happened, and the question been presented in a Constitutional law class at Harvard, you'd have had differing answers, but that the majority of them would have come down on the side of saying that a uniform state-wide standard for judging the validity of votes was required by the US Constitution. Ironically, having uniform and clear election laws across whole states had previously been a cause identified with the Left, dating back to the days of the civil rights movement.

 

[Missioncmdr]

I just object to what we've got passing itself off as a democracy. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Of course the United States is not a democracy. From Wikipedia:

The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

 

[Sherrif of Nottingham]

Um, I have issues with Obama, I really don't much care for politics. I'd be the person who chooses a person dependent on their hair style, but I vote McCain if I could. One vote in the entirety of Texas isn't much.

... Why does my iPod-Touch auto-correct Obama to Alabama?
Or am I spelling Obama wrong?

 

[Andy44]

Okay, first of all, the purpose of the electoral college is to keep New York and other big cities from picking a president for the entire country. Second, the United States is not a pure democracy, nor was it meant to be. It's a limited constitutional republic which uses democratic methods to choose public officers.

Having said that, I watch the election with amusement, since to me both candidates are just variants of the same statist theme. Amazing how a country of millions of people managed to narrow things down to these 4 (actually 2) unworthies.

 

[tblaxland]

Of course the United States is not a democracy. From Wikipedia:

You are confusing the type of "state" with its political system. No state is a democracy but its form of government may be a democracy. Australia is not a democracy either (it is a federation) but we have a democratic government. Republican states may have democratic governments (eg USA), or not (eg Cuba).

@N0mad23, in reading about your Electoral College system on Wikipedia, I firmly believe that what you have fits the definition of "democracy". Perhaps it is not an ideal democracy, or more specifically, your ideal democracy, but democracy comes in many flavours. A topic for "Sticks & Stones" perhaps?


-----Posted Added-----

Having said that, I watch the election with amusement, since to me both candidates are just variants of the same statist theme. Amazing how a country of millions of people managed to narrow things down to these 4 (actually 2) unworthies.

Be glad you don't live in a country with a compulsory voting system then. Every time there is an election on here, both major parties rush to the centre in an effort to win the swinging vote. Because we are required to vote, the parties don't need to spend any time preaching to their converted. This supposedly saves money in election campaigns but has the down side that policies become very centrist and hence, candidates very similar.

 

[Andy44]

I had heard that Aus. has compulsory voting, but I wasn't sure I could believe it. I don't understand how they can force you to do that, but I guess if they can take your income against your will and force you into the military to kill and die on command, what can't they force you to do...

I don't suppose you can vote for none of the above or find some other way to protest?

 

[Missioncmdr]

You are confusing the type of "state" with its political system. No state is a democracy but its form of government may be a democracy. Australia is not a democracy either (it is a federation) but we have a democratic government. Republican states may have democratic governments (eg USA), or not (eg Cuba).

@N0mad23, in reading about your Electoral College system on Wikipedia, I firmly believe that what you have fits the definition of "democracy". Perhaps it is not an ideal democracy, or more specifically, your ideal democracy, but democracy comes in many flavours. A topic for "Sticks & Stones" perhaps?

Australia is also a monarchy, but that does not mean much nowadays, either.

But, I can see what you are getting at. Interestingly, I remember hearing something about the Electoral College and how one of the reasons it was put into place was to prevent a pure democracy when electing a President (and VP). The Founding Fathers were quite wary of a democracy and the mob-rule potential, so they came up the Electoral College.

Either way, I still prefer the term "republic" when describing the United States.


-----Posted Added-----

I don't suppose you can vote for none of the above or find some other way to protest?

I think that protesters invalidate their ballot in some way. That is why despite compulsory voting, voter turn-out in Australia is about 95% (if I remember my numbers correctly).

 

[tblaxland]

I think that protesters invalidate their ballot in some way. That is why despite compulsory voting, voter turn-out in Australia is about 95% (if I remember my numbers correctly).

That is correct. If you don't complete the ballot in accordance with the rules your vote is declared "informal" and does not count towards electing a candidate. Quotas for getting elected are determined on the formal vote count only.

Informal votes for the House of Reps typical run at about 4-5%, and for the Senate about 2.5-3.5%. This suggests that about 1-1.5% of informal votes are probably accidental because the Senate ballot is arguably easier to complete.

The percentage of informal votes also varies with location. For example, the Australia Capital Territory typically has the lowest percentage of informal votes (2.3% in the last Federal election), which is not surprising since federal politics is the sole reason for that territory's existence. My research also suggests that areas with higher proportions of population with non-English speaking backgrounds have a higher informal count (up to 9.5%), despite the Australian Electoral Commission's best efforts.

 

[n0mad23]

You can "write-in" protest votes here, too. I keep advocating "no confidence," but voting for the lessor of Two Evils is somewhat of a U.S. tradition.

Did anyone see the episode on South Park that spoke to this theme?

 

[tblaxland]

You can "write-in" protest votes here, too. I keep advocating "no confidence," but voting for the lessor of Two Evils is somewhat of a U.S. tradition.

If I ever feel the need to make a "protest" when voting (more often as I get older and grumpier ), I normally do it by voting for an independent or "third" party as first preference. The major parties take a lot more notice of first preferences going to other candidates than they do of a high percentage of informal votes.

 

[David]

WRT the 2000 election, Greg is correct that the SCOTUS cases addressed a narrow aspect of the overall controversy. However, it seems to me that the ultimate result is undisputable (even in theory), since during the controversy, Florida's legislature voted to send to the Electoral College, those electors which had been determined as a result of the certified election, and the U.S. Constitution specifies that a State's electors shall be determined "in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct" (Article II, Section 1).

So, from a perspective of the extent to which the federal government, and SCOTUS, can be legitimately concerned, it was entirely the Florida legislature's prerogative, to decide its State's choice of who should be the U.S. President, and this was in fact done, and thus it cannot reasonably be argued that "Bush was selected [by a 'conservative Supreme Court'], not elected."

BTW, n0mad23 is correct that GW Bush was not the first person to become U.S. President after having arguably not won the popular vote. Bush was, however, the first such President to have been subsequently reelected to a second term.

Also btw, I did a research paper on the Electoral College, shortly after the 2000 election and, among the various things that I found, are that people have been arguing almost since the beginning of the USA, seeking to abolish or at least modify the Electoral College system, that there have been more proposed Constitutional Amendments, on this subject, than on any other, and that the various arguments on behalf of such proposals, are always the same.

I would add that Andy44 is correct, in identifying the basic purpose of the Electoral College, which is to ensure that a candidate for the U.S. Presidency, must concern himself with all the diverse interests in a diverse nation, and not merely the interests of a popular majority. The alternative would be, in the words of one of my source authors, "a recipe for civil war."