[Jason Vines]

Consider the presidential election system we have today: Every state has a number of electors, equal to their amount of representatives and senators, who vote for the President of the United States. In most states, every elector goes to the candidate who achieves the most popular votes, regardless of his margin of victory. This means:

1. Presidential candidates have little reason to campaign to the whole country. If partisan or personal loyalty makes victory certain in a state, a candidate can safely ignore it in favor of other states. Conversely, if a candidate will definitely lose in a state, then he won't waste his time there. Only competitive "battleground states" see much activity.

2. We have less national turnout. If a state will assuredly support one candidate, why bother voting? Also, lack of vigorous campaigning in a state might contribute to voter apathy during an election.

3. With the winner-take-all plurality system, candidates try to attract moderate voters, so to avoid turning people off, they emphasize their personalities more than their policies. This results in bland, visionless candidates who take those traits into the White House.

I believe a new presidential electoral system is in order. We need something that rewards candidates who have bold ideas, while drawing more voters into the process as well.

Therefore, I recommend we emulate the French.

Hear me out! The French have an excellent method by which to elect their president. It is a two-stage electoral process. In the first part, candidates from all the country's parties can run. Candidates who mobilize partisans with daring policy agendas will perform best here. Afterwards, during the second stage runoff, the first and second place finishers of the first round compete. Whoever achieves a majority vote wins. This requires the candidates to make themselves as palatable toward the center as possible.

Eliminating the Electoral College and implementing two-round direct popular vote elections here would deliver many benefits. It would reward courageous candidates with striking ideas in the first stage, but it would weed out dangerous fanatics in the second stage. It would allow smaller parties to achieve greater prominence than they could achieve in a winner-take-all elector paradigm. It would give candidates reason to campaign to every American. And it would give each voter a larger role in determining the outcome of the election.

What does everyone think?

[Sim]

I'm not American, but I like the French system more than the US system.

I don't quite get it that in the US, votes for the Greens i.e. are all lost, even help a candidate from the right to get into office (see 2000) -- a second turn of the elections would allow Green supporters to vote for the Democrat.

However in Germany, we have a parliamentary system, the Chancellor is elected not directly, but by the parliament. Because of that, the parliamentary elections are most important.

[Jason Vines]

Quote

a second turn of the elections would allow Green supporters to vote for the Democrat.

This brings to mind a good point: The major parties would have to give adherents of smaller parties reasons to vote for them. This would force the Democrats and Republicans to take other parties, such as Greens and Libertarians, seriously, and perhaps heed some of their political desires. This would make more Americans feel as if they play important roles in the republican process.

[Yoda]

Eliminating the Electoral College is a very good idea. It never did make much sence to me.

[Sim]

Quote

This brings to mind a good point: The major parties would have to give adherents of smaller parties reasons to vote for them. This would force the Democrats and Republicans to take other parties, such as Greens and Libertarians, seriously, and perhaps heed some of their political desires. This would make more Americans feel as if they play important roles in the republican process.

They may even offer a member of that party a job as minister. I.e. the Democrat could offer a Green Party member the job of minister for environment in exchange for their support in the second turn of the elections.

That would be almost as in Germany, where the big parties rely on small parties for their seats in the parliament, thus offering seats in the government in formal coalitions.

[Jason Vines]

While we're on the subject of two-stage elections, let's examine this:

At the time the Constitution was drafted, one of the Anti-Federalist objections to the document was to the pluralistic election of representatives. The Anti-Federalists argued this could allow the election of representatives whom most of the community despised, but who still managed to get more votes than anyone else. Instead, according to the Anti-Federalists, districts should select their representatives by majority vote.

I believe that Anti-Federalist objection has merit. How can a representative actually represent a district if most of the people there hate him? Changing congressional elections to two-stage elections, similar to what I outlined in my first post of this topic, would be a good idea. That way, we could ensure the majority of citizens in a district would have voted for their congressman. All the benefits of switching the national presidential election to a two-stage majority vote model would also apply here.

[Mephistox]

Jason Vines, on Sep 21 2005, 02:18 PM, said:

Quote

a second turn of the elections would allow Green supporters to vote for the Democrat.

This brings to mind a good point: The major parties would have to give adherents of smaller parties reasons to vote for them. This would force the Democrats and Republicans to take other parties, such as Greens and Libertarians, seriously, and perhaps heed some of their political desires. This would make more Americans feel as if they play important roles in the republican process.

the only problem with this is that you'd see stuff similar to Germany and Australia (and other countries that use the same system), in which political parties must form coalitions in order to rule. While I'm all for unity, I really think just having the two parties rule is better.
We don't have all the commotion of creating alliances and waiting for them to break or last.

I'm not saying America's system is better, but I don't see how the French's system you propose we adopt will solve any of the points you make.
First off, How would the french's system make people campaign around the country? There would still be loyalties in some states and definate losers in others. There will always be battleground states as well.
For example, we have 5 political parties, The Trees, the Bricks, the Boards, the Coats, and the Guns.
There will be some states in which the Trees definately have no chance of winning, either because they're a small minority, OR because the other 4 parties will be fighting so hard.
This is a problem I forsee in the united states. We'll have so many parties poping up that no one will pay attention to the first stage of voting.

Second, How would france's system increase our nation turnout? Same thing applies. Some states will be in favor of certain parties or candidates. So people may not vote. Either that, or there will be so many parties campaigning that they wont know who to vote for.

Third, While having more extreme parties would be nice, what happens if one gets into office. For example, the Neo Nazi party in Germany, or the Basques in Spain. They attract a small population of people who share their same ideas, and in spain's case, Cultural heritage. And while that's great, their ideas are mostly opposite of the rest of the country's (and the world's).
So If we were to adopt this idea, We could get an extremeist party. Or we may not, but the posibility is still there.
The other possibility is a coalition of parties which produces weaker bonds then the ones currently in place and more arguements.

We already have enough fillibustering in the Senate... can you think of trying to agree on anything with more political parties?

I totally agree we need bolder candidates, better ideas, and a different way of electing our nation's leader, but the french's way should not be ours.

[Jason Vines]

Mephistox said:

the only problem with this is that you'd see stuff similar to Germany and Australia (and other countries that use the same system), in which political parties must form coalitions in order to rule.

That's because they use pluralist systems with only one-stage elections. With just one stage, if no party achieves a majority on election day, then the strongest parties must join together to form coalitions.

Under my proposal, that wouldn't be necessary. The second electoral stage, in which only the top two candidates from the first stage would run, would ensure someone receives a majority of the votes.

Certainly, major parties would have more incentive to negotiate with minor parties for endorsements, thereby increasing their chances of winning the second stage. This might even lead to prearranged governing coalitions. But chaos like in Germany recently, where after election day, the parties had to jockey with each other to determine the composition of government, wouldn't occur.

Mephistox said:

First off, How would the french's system make people campaign around the country? There would still be loyalties in some states and definate losers in others. There will always be battleground states as well.

If we counted everyone's vote from the whole country to determine the winner, then candidates would have to campaign to the whole country in hopes of scrounging enough votes to surpass their opponents.

Mephistox said:

There will be some states in which the Trees definately have no chance of winning, either because they're a small minority, OR because the other 4 parties will be fighting so hard.

That would be a problem if we still divided the vote by states that retain the winner-take-all system. Under my idea, though, votes for a minor party from California, Rhode Island, New York, Illinois, and Oregon, for example, could add up to constitute an impressive percentage of the national vote. Major parties seeking victory in the second stage might then negotiate with the minor parties for their endorsements, and hopefully their percentages.

Mephistox said:

Second, How would france's system increase our nation turnout? Same thing applies. Some states will be in favor of certain parties or candidates. So people may not vote. Either that, or there will be so many parties campaigning that they wont know who to vote for.

In a national popular election, every person's vote would count, unlike now when a person would waste effort voting for, say, Bush in New York, because all the state's electors would go to Kerry, anyway.

Also, with more parties campaigning, more people would feel as if a candidate is running who supports their views. They would then go vote instead of sitting at home because they hate both the Democratic and the Republican candidates. (That describes me in 2004.)

Mephistox said:

Third, While having more extreme parties would be nice, what happens if one gets into office. For example, the Neo Nazi party in Germany, or the Basques in Spain. They attract a small population of people who share their same ideas, and in spain's case, Cultural heritage. And while that's great, their ideas are mostly opposite of the rest of the country's (and the world's).

That's why only the first two finishers in the first round would make it into the second round. And that's why a majority vote would be necessary to win the second round. So no one could win without the support of most of the country (unlike now; consider the 1992 presidential election).

Mephistox said:

We already have enough fillibustering in the Senate... can you think of trying to agree on anything with more political parties?

In the end, senators want results to show their constituents. Also, they want to go home for Christmas at the end of the year, like everyone else. So they won't let the situation in the Senate deteriorate too much. If necessary, they'd amend their operating rules, as the Republicans wanted to do regarding judicial nominees this year.

Additionally, we have quite a few laws already. If the Senate doesn't pass legislation as quickly, thereby increasing the heft of our legal code even more, I'm not sure that'd be a bad thing.

[Mephistox]

You mean that every single vote is counted?

We could just do that instead of the electoral college... instead of adopting their whole system.

[Jason Vines]

Mephistox, on Nov 11 2005, 01:53 PM, said:

You mean that every single vote is counted?

We could just do that instead of the electoral college... instead of adopting their whole system.

That would leave intact the plurality model by which the candidate needn't achieve a majority, but only the most votes, to win. A candidate whom most of the country disfavors could therefore go to the White House. (I refer again to the 1992 presidential election featuring George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot.) By providing a second contest between the top two candidates of the first, my proposal would ensure the final winner is a person most of the country could tolerate.

Also, for reasons previously described, the second stage would force the political establishment to take minor parties seriously, thereby increasing the amount of ideas Washington considers. And through the recognition and clout they gain from this process, minor parties could even transform themselves into additional major parties.

[Lemmiwinks]

Jason Vines, on Sep 20 2005, 05:26 PM, said:

Therefore, I recommend we emulate the French.

You mean like this?

[Jason Vines]

Lemmiwinks, on Nov 16 2005, 05:46 PM, said:

Jason Vines, on Sep 20 2005, 05:26 PM, said:

Therefore, I recommend we emulate the French.

You mean like this?

Yes!

[Sim]

I like the French system. It's especially funny how many strange parties get relatively high numbers of votes in the first stage of the elections.

But it can also lead to unfortunate situations like in the 2002 elections, when the far-right candidate Le Pen made it to #2 -- so in the 2nd stage, it was a conservative candidate running against a far-right extremist ... even leftists and socialists were forced to vote for the conservative candidate Chirac (who won with clearly more than 80%).

[Cymro]

Sim, on Nov 24 2005, 11:21 AM, said:

I like the French system. It's especially funny how many strange parties get relatively high numbers of votes in the first stage of the elections.

But it can also lead to unfortunate situations like in the 2002 elections, when the far-right candidate Le Pen made it to #2 -- so in the 2nd stage, it was a conservative candidate running against a far-right extremist ... even leftists and socialists were forced to vote for the conservative candidate Chirac (who won with clearly more than 80%).

Yes, it does present he same problem, and potentially worse. You could have a country where the hitler party got 13% of the votes, the stalin party got 14 and the other eight (who were incidentaly similarl oriented moderate parties) parties got 9% each, the country is forced to vote for one of two extremes, even though 73% of the original vote went to the different moderate parties, the extremists still end up in power, where in the single vote parliamentary system, the moderate parties could band together to stop such a thing from happening.

It makes you think though.

This post has been edited by Cymro: 17 December 2005 - 10:42 PM

[Sim]

Well if radicals really had a chance of winning, I'm sure the democratic parties would agree on a common candidate.

That's what polls are for.

[Jason Vines]

Many conservatives would object to the national scope of my reform plan. They’d correctly point out it would erode federalism. Because population centers—cities—would yield greater power, our executive branch might also shift to the left. Given the power of the presidency, this might produce a government similarly inclined to governments in Europe. Anathema to conservatives, that would be.

To counteract the leftward effect and to placate conservatives, I suggest we repeal the 17th Amendment. Let the state legislatures elect senators again. Senators who don't rely upon the people as an electoral base would be a lot more willing to challenge the president. Not only might the Senate be more conservative than the President, but they’d feel safer defying him since the people who put him in office wouldn’t be the same ones who put them in office. They wouldn’t have to worry as much about the President’s popularity.

In addition, with the people electing both the House of Representatives and the President under my plan, we'd need more checks against the tyranny of the majority. Election of federal senators by state legislatures would constitute such a check.

[Cymro]

Major population centres having the biggest say in government is an unfortunate side affect of democracy.

[tomba1701]

Cymro, on Feb 12 2006, 10:28 AM, said:

Major population centres having the biggest say in government is an unfortunate side affect of democracy.

True and agreed. But there are historical reasons for why the US government was structured the way it was and how it was originally a Union of States with different branches, a two house legislature, and numerous other features that balanced the views of the majority of the populace, regardless of State, and the needs of the many States, which in parts of government like the Senate, are treated as equal members of the Union.

But yes, in principle, the majority should, and does, rule. But you need both protections for the minority and (in the US's specific case) protections for the States.

Off topic but slightly related - what is your view on Devolution in the UK? How was the old system vs. the new one with a Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, and (when not dissolved) a Northern Ireland Assembly to deal with local issues, while the MPs in London deal with national stuff?

To me this seems to be a lot like our US Federal system of government, other than the gaping hole with respect to local English issues where MPs for the other areas still have a vote.

From your perspective, is this better, worse, or too early to tell?

[Cymro]

I'm in favour of it, but that's because I like decentralised government. I'm not too impressed with the results so far though, as the Welsh Assembly so far is turning out to me just another bottomless money pit from my perspective. But I hate my fellow Welsh anyway, so I'll hopefully be moving away as soon as I can. Afterall, there's not much call for computer programmers in this backward rural hellhole. And the assembly's full of leftists.

This post has been edited by Cymro: 14 February 2006 - 02:41 PM

[Yoda]

Associated Press

SPRINGFIELD-- The Illinois House wants to change the way Americans pick a president.



In a 65-50 vote Wednesday, the House joined a national effort to ensure that the candidate who wins the popular vote winds up in the White House. The measure now goes to the Senate.



Under the current system, voters don't directly choose a president. Instead, they choose members of the Electoral College, who cast the votes that ultimately elect the president.



Electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. That means a candidate getting 51 percent of the popular vote in a state would get 100 percent of the electoral votes.



A candidate who narrowly wins some key states while losing big in other states can wind up carrying the Electoral College, even though most voters backed someone else. That's what happened in 2000, when George Bush won the presidency over Democrat Al Gore.



But there's a nationwide effort to change that by having every state award electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The new system would kick in once states representing a majority of electoral votes have approved the plan.



Supporters of the change argue the Electoral College should reflect the will of the voters.



But opponents raised several objections.



For instance, if a candidate lost in Illinois but won the national popular vote, Illinois would have to give its electoral votes to a candidate rejected by the state's voters. And candidates might focus their campaigns only on the most populous states.



The bill is HB858.








National Popular Vote: www.nationalpopularvote.com



? 2007 Belleville News-Democrat and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.belleville.com

This post has been edited by Yoda: 03 May 2007 - 08:54 AM