American electoral system... complicated

[mancroft]

Can anyone explain the historical reasons why the American electoral system is so complicated?

It seems an unduly protracted affair.

In the UK we don't have primaries or caucuses, just the one election on election day itself.

[outmywindow]

Mainly, it has something to do with the uneven distribution of population centers in the post-Revolutionary Unites States, and the fact that some of the colonies were are only the size of small closets.

The large (area) states didn't think it would be fair if the small (area) states were given equal representation in the vote because of the implications of possible land taxation issues that could be forced through the political system, and small (population) states didn't think it was fair that the large (population) states could be so dominant in a popular vote as to render the small states virtually vote-less. Thus was born the electoral college. Yay.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Mainly, it has something to do with the uneven distribution of population centers in the post-Revolutionary Unites States, and the fact that some of the colonies were are only the size of small closets.

The large (area) states didn't think it would be fair if the small (area) states were given equal representation in the vote because of the implications of possible land taxation issues that could be forced through the political system, and small (population) states didn't think it was fair that the large (population) states could be so dominant in a popular vote as to render the small states virtually vote-less. Thus was born the electoral college. Yay.


Shit - next time I have a history question needing an answer I am coming to you.

[outmywindow]

Shit - next time I have a history question needing an answer I am coming to you.
I didn't get the moniker "Human Encyclopedia" in college -- by a professor, no less -- for nothing.

[Limey]

Thankfully, I believe it gets a lot simpler as we progress by state, the Iowa Caucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus) is about the most complex/idiosyncratic system and is also one of the first, likely due to its Neighborhood theme.
Republicans have a straw poll, but the Democrats have a somewhat outwardly convoluted appearing system of preference groups.

Personally, I'd like to see some form of Highlander, there can be only one contest of decapitation.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Personally, I'd like to see some form of Highlander, there can be only one contest of decapitation.


and a betting pool - with stats - so the people win with online gambling predictions.

[C.J.Woolf]

and a betting pool - with stats - so the people win with online gambling predictions.
For what it's worth, there are betting pools on the presidential elections, like the Iowa Electronic Markets (http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/). The IEM runs a futures market (http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/Nomination08.html) where only the winner's contracts pay off. If I understand correctly, the trading prices are the market's estimate of the probability of each candidate winning the nomination (or election).

No decapitations here, though. But maybe it's just as well; winner-take-all-and-loser-dies is how they do it in dictatorships.

Current market quotes are here: (http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Nomination08_quotes.html)

Market Quotes: DConv08
2008 Democratic Convention Market.
Quotes current as of 17:00:00 CST, Monday, January 07, 2008.

Symbol Bid Ask Last Low High Average
CLIN_NOM 0.275 0.323 0.324 0.251 0.333 0.302
EDWA_NOM 0.040 0.042 0.040 0.030 0.042 0.033
OBAM_NOM 0.646 0.650 0.650 0.620 0.703 0.657
DROF_NOM 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.003 0.006 0.005


Market Quotes: RConv08
2008 Republican Convention Market.
Quotes current as of 17:00:00 CST, Monday, January 07, 2008.

Symbol Bid Ask Last Low High Average
GIUL_NOM 0.240 0.249 0.241 0.240 0.279 0.263
HUCK_NOM 0.159 0.167 0.167 0.136 0.168 0.150
MCCA_NOM 0.390 0.399 0.399 0.340 0.399 0.384
ROMN_NOM 0.148 0.165 0.155 0.150 0.187 0.166
THOMF_NOM 0.021 0.024 0.021 0.020 0.025 0.022
RROF_NOM 0.027 0.033 0.035 0.025 0.035 0.028

ROF = rest of field. The market's going nuts for Obama, while the people betting real money like McCain in spite of his 13% in Iowa. Verrrrry interesting.

[daseinmind]

Mainly, it has something to do with the uneven distribution of population centers in the post-Revolutionary Unites States, and the fact that some of the colonies were are only the size of small closets.

The large (area) states didn't think it would be fair if the small (area) states were given equal representation in the vote because of the implications of possible land taxation issues that could be forced through the political system, and small (population) states didn't think it was fair that the large (population) states could be so dominant in a popular vote as to render the small states virtually vote-less. Thus was born the electoral college. Yay.

First and foremost, we have a separated legislative branch (house and senate) for precisely the reason above. The electoral college was founded on nothing more than the fact that the early framers of our constitution were wealthy, educated men who had no faith in the concept of a purely popular election because they felt the average uneducated American (at the time...and maybe still now) was too dense to choose for themselves. They worried Captain Crunch would be elected because captains are natural leaders. It just happened when they decided how many electors (and thus electoral votes) a state was to have, they found it natural to match the total number legislative representatives that state had. It was an easy way to avoid argument by relying on a formula every had already agreed to once before.

To the concept of primary elections and general elections, I thought that was native to all governments that pandered to a party system. The primaries are so highly emphasized here because we're so polarized. The two parties are unwilling to put forth multiple candidates because they would steal each other's votes thereby improving the odds of the other party winning. Therefore, picking your party's candidate is a big deal when you you are picking a guy that is guaranteed to either win or come in second place. I can only leave with this...DON'T EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER LET YOUR POLITICAL SYSTEM DE-EVOLVE INTO A TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

[C.J.Woolf]

...DON'T EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER LET YOUR POLITICAL SYSTEM DE-EVOLVE INTO A TWO PARTY SYSTEM.
All democratic politics have coalitions. It's only a question of at what level they are formed. In a parliamentary system parties can form coalitions, but in a two-party system the parties themselves are coalitions: you can't win elections if you don't band together with kinda-sorta like-minded people who disagree on some things but agree that they'd rather win together and deal with it later than lose to the other guys separately.

In a democracy you will never get everything you want. Guaranteed. And to get anything you want, you will likely have to deal with a lot of people you don't like. I think INTPs in particular have a problem with that.

[Sojourner]

To the concept of primary elections and general elections, I thought that was native to all governments that pandered to a party system. The primaries are so highly emphasized here because we're so polarized. The two parties are unwilling to put forth multiple candidates because they would steal each other's votes thereby improving the odds of the other party winning. Therefore, picking your party's candidate is a big deal when you you are picking a guy that is guaranteed to either win or come in second place. I can only leave with this...DON'T EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER LET YOUR POLITICAL SYSTEM DE-EVOLVE INTO A TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

I don't think our nation's founders actually intended for the US government to become a two-party system.

[daseinmind]

I don't think our nation's founders actually intended for the US government to become a two-party system.

I don't think they ever expected an actor to become president, either. (Hence the electoral college)

[Sojourner]

I don't think they ever expected an actor to become president, either. (Hence the electoral college)

One is a situation, one is an event.

I'm just pointing out that people will always have differences, and they will band together with similar-minded people for strength.

[daseinmind]

Do we band with similar-minded people for strength or comfort? Imagine a society of INTPs. I don't think anything would get done.

[garak]

Mainly, it has something to do with the uneven distribution of population centers in the post-Revolutionary Unites States, and the fact that some of the colonies were are only the size of small closets.

The large (area) states didn't think it would be fair if the small (area) states were given equal representation in the vote because of the implications of possible land taxation issues that could be forced through the political system, and small (population) states didn't think it was fair that the large (population) states could be so dominant in a popular vote as to render the small states virtually vote-less. Thus was born the electoral college. Yay.

To add to this: the issue of states' representation versus the people's representation is also why we have the number of congressmen in each state proportional to the population, but exactly two senators for each state.

Or, better said:


The bicameral Congress arose from the desire of the Founders to create a House "of the people" that would represent public opinion, balanced by a more deliberative Senate which would represent the governments of the individual states, and would be less susceptible to variations of mass sentiment.

[Sojourner]

Do we band with similar-minded people for strength or comfort?
Imagined strength, whether real or not, is comforting, I suppose.


Imagine a society of INTPs. I don't think anything would get done.
Well, not an entire society of us - but a group within a society. Effectiveness is not predetermined, but I think there's a tendency for birds of a feather to flock together. I mean, we are currently posting on the largest INTP community on the net...

[daseinmind]

Damn you with that "imagined strength" comment! It sabotages every line of thought I try to come up with to illustrate that my two sentences were meant to be taken as a single point and not dissected separately.

[Sojourner]

Damn you with that "imagined strength" comment! It sabotages every line of thought I try to come up with to illustrate that my two sentences were meant to be taken as a single point and not dissected separately.

I assumed that the second sentence was meant as an illustration or elaboration of the first, but I addressed them separately because I had a general statement in response to your general statement and a specific statement in response to your specific statement.

[daseinmind]

But I desparately wanted to be able to do this to your specific statement:


I mean, we are currently posting on the largest INTP community on the net...

...for comfort.

[Sojourner]

But I desperately wanted to be able to do this to your specific statement: [cut quote] ...for comfort.

:happpy: Perhaps that's so. But it doesn't invalidate my general points.

[lowtech redneck]

First and foremost, we have a separated legislative branch (house and senate) for precisely the reason above. The electoral college was founded on nothing more than the fact that the early framers of our constitution were wealthy, educated men who had no faith in the concept of a purely popular election because they felt the average uneducated American (at the time...and maybe still now) was too dense to choose for themselves. They worried Captain Crunch would be elected because captains are natural leaders. It just happened when they decided how many electors (and thus electoral votes) a state was to have, they found it natural to match the total number legislative representatives that state had. It was an easy way to avoid argument by relying on a formula every had already agreed to once before.

To the concept of primary elections and general elections, I thought that was native to all governments that pandered to a party system. The primaries are so highly emphasized here because we're so polarized. The two parties are unwilling to put forth multiple candidates because they would steal each other's votes thereby improving the odds of the other party winning. Therefore, picking your party's candidate is a big deal when you you are picking a guy that is guaranteed to either win or come in second place. I can only leave with this...DON'T EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER LET YOUR POLITICAL SYSTEM DE-EVOLVE INTO A TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

Your first paragraph is correct, to the best of my recollection. Furthermore, the Founders did not expect the electoral college to reach a binding majority very often, leaving the legislature to appoint a President. Note that an elector voting contrary to the will of state voters has not happened in recent memory, so in the context of a national two-party system, the current system serves the same effective purpose that Outmywindow thought it did.

Your second paragraph is wrong: C. J. Woolf already explained one reason why, so here's another; primaries and their functional equivalents are an extremely rare form of "intra-party" democracy that is only possible in states with relatively WEAK parties in which the party leadership is unable to appoint candidates and control the votes of those candidates while they are in office. The United States is highly exceptional in this regard, which combined with single-member districts results in politicians being far more accountable to their constituents than they are to the national party leadership. Note that opinion polls constantly show relatively high levels of satisfaction with local representatives combined with low opinions of the national legislature in general. Finally, a national two-party system is the logical consequence of the aforementioned conditions in the context of a presidential system of executive authority. Without a presidential system, horizontal accountability (i.e. a balance of powers) is very limited.

Dispensing with (or foregoing) a two-party system cannot be done in the long-term without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. When I began studying international and comparative politics, I was very cynical and skeptical about my country's political and electoral system. The more I learn about the rest of the world, the greater appreciation I have for my own country's sorry institutions.

[Ellipsis]

The more I learn about the rest of the world, the greater appreciation I have for my own country's sorry institutions.


OK you earned a place in my signature...

[Nighthawk]

...DON'T EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER LET YOUR POLITICAL SYSTEM DE-EVOLVE INTO A TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

Agreed that it does create a quasi-monopoly on political power. The opposite extreme ... fragmenting ino an unmanageable group of tiny parties ... is also a nighmare. Look at what happened to pre-WW2 Germany. I believe they have a rule now where a party must represent a certain percentage of the populace to be valid. I guess either extreme is unwelcome. I'm not a big fan of what we (the US) have right now either. It's like choosing between dumb and dumber.

[daseinmind]

Note that an elector voting contrary to the will of state voters has not happened in recent memory, so in the context of a national two-party system, the current system serves the same effective purpose that Outmywindow thought it did.

The prevalency since 1912 is definitely significantly diminished but it still happens.

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

I appreciate your perception from the second paragraph. I opened that paragraph less emphatically for a reason. I do acknowledge that turning back from today's two party system is fairly impractical at this point. While there are evidently less effective systems in the world, I still can't quell the pure ideological disdain that suggests there ought to be a significantly better way. I'm relatively young (out of college, though) and can't help but feel that my introduction to our presidential election system was highly marred with having to choose a lesser of two evils rather than actually FOR someone.

[Wolf]

Mainly, it has something to do with the uneven distribution of population centers in the post-Revolutionary Unites States, and the fact that some of the colonies were are only the size of small closets.

The large (area) states didn't think it would be fair if the small (area) states were given equal representation in the vote because of the implications of possible land taxation issues that could be forced through the political system, and small (population) states didn't think it was fair that the large (population) states could be so dominant in a popular vote as to render the small states virtually vote-less. Thus was born the electoral college. Yay.
It was also for simplicity in an era when you couldn't accurately collect a total of the votes from all states.

It's totally off-balance again. They screwed up when they came up with the concept of senators and specified two rather than a formula for calculating their numbers. The allotment matched the then-current count of representatives divided by the number of states. We really should re-even the senate and house, either dropping the count of people in the house by upping the population they represent or increasing the senator count by using the above formula.

Then again, that would make the socialists cry because then they'd have to screw with low-population states that they can currently completely ignore.

[TONE381]

The thing is, the electoral college system has nothing to do with the primary process. In fact, the primary process has nothing to do with the constitution at all, it is run entirely by private organizations, the Republican and Democratic Parties, who happen to have almost complete influence over who actually gets elected.

It's quite right that the electoral system seeks to balance the rights of states with population as a whole. But I think it is also a misconception that the founding fathers were wholly democratic, in fact, they were highly influenced by Cicero's ideal of the perfect state, which was rooted in the Roman Republican system. If you read discussion by the founders, they are far more distrusting of the mob than culture portrays. Having electors who hold the "real" voting power was one way to guard against the impulsive mob doing something insane. It seems impossible today that electors would vote against their districts, but in the 18th century the idea of leaders going against the wishes of the people was not unusual, and in fact, expect. The founders were still part of the elitist imperial British culture.

And as Wolf says, from a practical standpoint, how are you going to count a popular vote in the 1700s over such a large geographic area? The best way is to have individual districts vote, and give a mandate to their elector, who then goes to Washington to cast the vote that represents their district. The term "representative democracy" really describes the United States constitution best, for every issue is not a direct vote by the people like the classical Athenian assembly, from which the name "Democracy" derives. The Athenian assembly model is impossible as all citizens never lived in single city-state.

[Architectonic]

The two parties are unwilling to put forth multiple candidates because they would steal each other's votes thereby improving the odds of the other party winning.

This can be solved by using a preferential system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) - that way each party can put forth a more reasonable number of candidates.

But of course the average voting American is not capable of numbering boxes past the number 1. :ph34r:

While we are at it, what ever happened to subsidiarity?