PDA

View Full Version : Electoral System


mattsmith48
May 11th, 2017, 11:12 AM
What is your opinion of the electoral system of your country?

ShineintheDark
May 11th, 2017, 12:13 PM
I have a first past the post system in the UK which is great for ensuring that as many people are represented as possible but is not nearly as great as more representative systems like proportional representation

mattsmith48
May 11th, 2017, 12:32 PM
I have a first past the post system in the UK which is great for ensuring that as many people are represented as possible but is not nearly as great as more representative systems like proportional representation

FPTP is great if there is only two options like yes or no, but when there is more than two choices it is inevitable that results won't be representative of what voters wanted.

PlasmaHam
May 11th, 2017, 01:17 PM
Well, I wrote a big long post describing the various pros and cons in regards to electoral systems, but my PC decided to shutdown by browser without warning. So I'll just make this short and sweet.

There is no perfect electoral system, some people are always going to feel underrepresented under any sort of system. I feel the current system in the USA in regards to the presidency is not perfect, but is one of the best in the world. And apparently 99% of the country agreed with that assessment prior to November 9th, 2016.
FPTP is great if there is only two options like yes or no, but when there is more than two choices it is inevitable that results won't be representative of what voters wanted. Agreed, that is why I am strongly for a solid two-party system. The USA has little problem with third-parties, but I know countries with parliamentary systems like Canada and most of Europe has problems with them.

mattsmith48
May 11th, 2017, 03:51 PM
Well, I wrote a big long post describing the various pros and cons in regards to electoral systems, but my PC decided to shutdown by browser without warning. So I'll just make this short and sweet.

There is no perfect electoral system, some people are always going to feel underrepresented under any sort of system. I feel the current system in the USA in regards to the presidency is not perfect, but is one of the best in the world. And apparently 99% of the country agreed with that assessment prior to November 9th, 2016.
Agreed, that is why I am strongly for a solid two-party system. The USA has little problem with third-parties, but I know countries with parliamentary systems like Canada and most of Europe has problems with them.

There is a lot of problems with a two-party system, like a lack of choices. Just look at the presidential election last year, if you were liberal, socialist, environmentalist, anti-war, religious, or even centrist you didn't really had much of a choice. In what world does system that lead to a choice between a conservative woman everyone hates and a mentally unstable pussy grabber is a good thing?

That lack of choice leads to an angry population towards the system and a feeling that your vote is useless because no matter what happens you won't get what you want and no matter who wins you will still disagree with the winner. Finally the lack of choices of such system leads to a hatred of one or both political party and extreme partisanship, we see a great example of that is the US.

A two party system also guarantee one of the two will have a majority and be able as much damage they want with barely any accountability and consequences. That problem also exist here and in other countries with parliamentary system who uses FPTP to elect their MPs I would even say that this problem is worst with a parliamentary system because depending on multiple factors who would only need between 30 and 39% of the popular vote to win a majority and 100% of the power, in a two party system minimum can be between 46 and 48% but its still not a real majority. This is not democracy, it is an elected dictatorship.

Porpoise101
May 11th, 2017, 09:11 PM
I don't really like the electoral system for the US for Congress or the Presidency. It is based on an outdated notion that states form the basis of our government interaction. Look there has been a lot of hate for the electoral college. There has been attention on the gerrymandering issue. Both of these problems in the US can be solved with my controversial, but (in my opinion) superior system: 'nationalizing' the election

What does that mean? Well nationalizing it means making the election fit more within the framework of the country rather than that of the state. For example, in the Electoral College system, the votes are filtered through a majority-takes-all system at the state level, which then feeds into a national tally of electors. I say ditch that and go straight to the popular vote system. This is a controversial move, but after weighing it in my head it makes more sense to have a majority win than have a minority win in any case.

On the Congressional election level, I would say have people vote within their state as a whole without regard for districts. If 70% of the total votes in a state go towards the republican party for the congressional election, then ~70% of the seats should go towards republicans. This system in a way takes power away from entrenched politicians who gerrymander their way to success because there are no lines on the map (other than the state ones) to worry about. You can't game a district if there is no district. However, I can see one downfall. While it might reduce corruption through gerrymandering, it could also increase power on the party's side of things since they are probably going to have a significant say in who is allowed to run for Congress. It would entrench the two parties we have already.

Amethyst Rose
May 11th, 2017, 09:50 PM
I'd rather elect officials through popular vote than the electoral college. I think it would yield more accurate results of the public opinion. Plus, not having the fact that you live in a state whose electoral votes are for the party your beliefs don't align with will take away the feeling of not having the influence you would like (that wouldn't apply to everyone but I thought I should point it out).

Since the US is a democracy and there are people who argue for both sides, maybe eventually there will end up being a vote on which system to use... determined by popular vote, of course. xD

lliam
May 11th, 2017, 10:08 PM
There's no such thing like a perfect system. We only can get used to it, more or less, until there comes a time to replace these system with a newer one.

As for Germany, I've that gutfeeling that it's time to change our electoral system ... like much other stuff has to be redesigned in this country.

Living For Love
May 12th, 2017, 07:11 AM
The system used in my country (D'Hondt method) is pretty fair and reasonable, the problem is that the president can change the results as he pleases after the elections. But the electoral system per se is good.

SethfromMI
May 12th, 2017, 08:57 AM
could have used some more options. it is certainly not a perfect system. some times my party/candidate (while I lean more one way than the other, I guess I don't claim 100% allegiance to any specific party) has benefited and sometimes not. I guess in a perfect world maybe every persons vote should matter equally. in a perfect world we though would be truly looking out for the true benefit of everyone else and would want everyone to benefit.

In a perfect world it would help if everyone who could vote, actually voted. in such a situation though, it is still those in the cities who are going to be more represented and most of your major cities are often times more liberal in nature. think about the state of New York alone. over 8 million people live in the New York City area alone. yes I think the state went to Trump and so some would say well there is clearly a lot of conservatives/Republicans/whatever living there. and obviously, one could make the argument not every one of those 8million+ are democrats/liberals/whatever. but if you really think about it, New York probably/realistically went to Trump not because of New York city, but the smaller towns/smaller cities/smaller areas.

people living in New York, Chicago, LA, etc. are going to have a different life style and often different point of view. I live in Ann Arbor, MI, which is often a pretty liberal city/town. even in my city, which is much smaller than all of the other cities I mentioned so far, is very different from many of the smaller towns you come across throughout the rest of Michigan. the people of Ann Arbor do not often represent what many in Michigan would lean towards.

yet if it was vote for vote, the cities of Detroit, Flint, Ann Arbor (and a couple of others) would represent the "majority" of Michigan. but that is because of how many people live in those cities. many towns would never be heard.

some people would say that is simply the result of everyone's vote being equal. maybe some would still want it. but I can see why people would have problems with it and do have problems with it.

so like I said, I am not saying our current system is perfect, because it's not. but sure what would be the best way to replace it.

edit: I just wanted to clarify, I know electoral votes are not based on cities, but I was trying to point out how if it was done by popular vote, how the cities, in many states at least, would be the dominant factor.

ShineintheDark
May 12th, 2017, 11:11 AM
I don't particulrly mind the system in the UK tbh because it's a pretty fair way of voting. The US system is certainkly interesting and complicated if a not a little outdated,. However, i also respect how long it'd take to change it

Dmaxd123
May 12th, 2017, 12:36 PM
whether the person i like wins or loses I actually like the US system:

on the presidential side of things you vote within your state, then the majority of the votes from your state are applied to person X, Y, or Z (in reality X or Y) that adds a certain number of electoral votes to their overall tally. it gives states with smaller populations SOME representation on a national level

if you look at everything on the state level down to local school's it is purely most votes wins, so in the case of NY the residents of 3-5 cities pretty much outnumber the residents of the rural areas so those of us in rural areas don't get as much of a say in state elections.

so all in all not a "perfect" system that will keep everyone happy but a fairly decent blended system that gives everyone some forms of representation on all levels

ethan-s
May 12th, 2017, 02:02 PM
Hillary lost, guys. Get over it, alright? Please, for God's sake, accept the fact that she lost because she was a crook and a bad candidate. ACCEPT IT!

Periphery
May 12th, 2017, 02:10 PM
Hillary lost, guys. Get over it, alright? Please, for God's sake, accept the fact that she lost because she was a crook and a bad candidate. ACCEPT IT!

You know this isn't even about Hillary right? There's no need to turn this into a shitstorm because it's posts like these that honestly, turn everything in a shitstorm on here, please don't.

ethan-s
May 12th, 2017, 02:25 PM
You know this isn't even about Hillary right? There's no need to turn this into a shitstorm because it's posts like these that honestly, turn everything in a shitstorm on here, please don't.

That was never my intention, so sorry if I do. My message was directed at those who voted for the last option who can't seem to get over their loss.

mattsmith48
May 12th, 2017, 04:00 PM
On the Congressional election level, I would say have people vote within their state as a whole without regard for districts. If 70% of the total votes in a state go towards the republican party for the congressional election, then ~70% of the seats should go towards republicans. This system in a way takes power away from entrenched politicians who gerrymander their way to success because there are no lines on the map (other than the state ones) to worry about. You can't game a district if there is no district. However, I can see one downfall. While it might reduce corruption through gerrymandering, it could also increase power on the party's side of things since they are probably going to have a significant say in who is allowed to run for Congress. It would entrench the two parties we have already.

Another problem with this system, it eliminates the local representation and a lot of people wouldn't like that. Another good side would be that it could give a chance for new parties to be formed and give the voters a greater choice.

There's no such thing like a perfect system. We only can get used to it, more or less, until there comes a time to replace these system with a newer one.

As for Germany, I've that gutfeeling that it's time to change our electoral system ... like much other stuff has to be redesigned in this country.

Germany uses mixed-member proportional representation which is what the Green Party is wants us to have here, I'm curious to know what you don't like about your system.

ShineintheDark
May 12th, 2017, 05:20 PM
That was never my intention, so sorry if I do. My message was directed at those who voted for the last option who can't seem to get over their loss.
It would be a very dangerous mistake to confuse distrust and contempt for a certain form of electoral system as just being bitter at political loss. The complaints about the electoral college have spanned decades before Trump even considered running, let alone won the presidency. As citizens, it's their right to criticise a political system without being dismissed as being butthurt and therefore I would strongly advise in the kindest and least contemptful wasy possible not to bring poluitcal smugness into an otherwise neutral discussion :)

lliam
May 13th, 2017, 02:25 PM
I'm curious to know what you don't like about your system.


I prefer a more direct democracy. The people should have the say, even the responsibility, and no elected representatives in the government.

Once, my preferred model was the Swiss system.

Nowadays, I tend to a more radical transformation of our system to a direct democracy, which isn't based on a party system anymore.

But I've to admit that my visions are still too vague at the moment, as I could sketch out a relatively contoured picture of it.

Porpoise101
May 13th, 2017, 11:23 PM
Another problem with this system, it eliminates the local representation and a lot of people wouldn't like that. On the Federal level and with our modern ways, it is doubtful that local representation even matters. Many Americans do not know their local Congressman to begin with, and if they do it's not as if they have the need to interact with them on a local basis. With technology such as highways and airports, our nation has become more integrated from the time that Washington was trotting about on his horse. In my proposed system, the different parties would have a representative assigned to deal with different tasks maybe. Perhaps there would be one for cities, one for rural interests, and other positions that cater to certain needs within the state. If this still creates a disconnect, then it's a sign that states are too big population wise. For example, Texas and California account for 1 in 5 Americans, which is absurd. Our Union was not designed to handle such extreme population imbalances, or even large populations to begin with. Ideally, states would maybe be broken up.

Even today, if states were more evenly populated then the current electoral system would work far better.

Dmaxd123
May 14th, 2017, 07:28 AM
Even today, if states were more evenly populated then the current electoral system would work far better.


see i figure the lack of even population is WHY the electoral system works, if the population density per 100 sq miles was close to the same across the whole nation then a direct democracy would work. but with the electoral system states with higher populations do get a bit more of a say, but states like Wyoming with a smaller population are still relevant to an extent where if it wasn't an electoral system the city of LA would have more say than the whole state of Wyoming

i think that is why other countries may look at our system as crazy is because they do have a more even population distribution and are a lot smaller.

mattsmith48
May 15th, 2017, 01:26 PM
On the Federal level and with our modern ways, it is doubtful that local representation even matters. Many Americans do not know their local Congressman to begin with, and if they do it's not as if they have the need to interact with them on a local basis. With technology such as highways and airports, our nation has become more integrated from the time that Washington was trotting about on his horse. In my proposed system, the different parties would have a representative assigned to deal with different tasks maybe. Perhaps there would be one for cities, one for rural interests, and other positions that cater to certain needs within the state. If this still creates a disconnect, then it's a sign that states are too big population wise. For example, Texas and California account for 1 in 5 Americans, which is absurd. Our Union was not designed to handle such extreme population imbalances, or even large populations to begin with. Ideally, states would maybe be broken up.

Some people actually like having that local representation.

Even today, if states were more evenly populated then the current electoral system would work far better.

Not only population, but also the party affiliation should also be even through the evenly populated states. But you would still have the problem like only having two parties, the president not being decided with the popular vote, gerrymandering... yes it would be better, but still one of the worst system in the world

see i figure the lack of even population is WHY the electoral system works, if the population density per 100 sq miles was close to the same across the whole nation then a direct democracy would work. but with the electoral system states with higher populations do get a bit more of a say, but states like Wyoming with a smaller population are still relevant to an extent where if it wasn't an electoral system the city of LA would have more say than the whole state of Wyoming

You have one of the worst system in the world. Los Angeles should be worth more than Wyoming because there is more people living there and every vote should count.

i think that is why other countries may look at our system as crazy is because they do have a more even population distribution and are a lot smaller.

The US are the 3rd most populated country and the 3rd largest country which is why the population looks like its unevenly distributed, but most countries have the same problem.

Dmaxd123
May 15th, 2017, 02:51 PM
why should LA be worth more? they should have more of a say with what goes on in LA but i'll bet 99% of the residents in LA don't have a freaking clue what goes on in the rural communities of Wyoming or any of the breadbasket states.

i honestly believe that if the nation as a whole were run in a true democracy that we would end up having another civil war of some form. As it is California politically has a lot of power but if it were to go to a true democracy I think a lot of states would say enough is enough we are done and pull away thus instead of being 50 states we would be split into a few countries

PlasmaHam
May 15th, 2017, 07:22 PM
mattsmith48

Given that the population of California is approximately 40 million people, and that the population of Los Angeles is 4 million, we can deduce that Los Angeles contributes to 10% of the population of California. The electoral college votes allocated to California is 55, so we can deduce that 5.5 of those votes goes to represent the population of Los Angeles. Therefore, Los Angeles contributes approximately 6 votes towards the electoral college, wouldn't you agree? Wyoming, on the other hand, only counts for 3 electoral college votes.

Therefore, Los Angeles does count towards more in presidential elections than Wyoming, and even more so in terms of House Representatives.

Bull
May 15th, 2017, 07:45 PM
The electoral college has outlived its usefulness. No way should people whose names are unknown be allowed to cast votes for president on my behalf. I want my vote counted for the person for whom I voted. The president should be elected by the people, not by States. One person one vote. We all live in America. We elect a president of America. It is not a state thing. It is long past time to abolish the electoral college. btw, I am a Republican and I voted in 2017.

mattsmith48
May 16th, 2017, 10:15 AM
why should LA be worth more? they should have more of a say with what goes on in LA but i'll bet 99% of the residents in LA don't have a freaking clue what goes on in the rural communities of Wyoming or any of the breadbasket states.

I bet that president doesn't have a clue either. Every vote should count and since LA is the 2nd biggest city in the US they should be worth more and politicians should spend more time campaigning there instead places where no one lives like Wyoming.

i honestly believe that if the nation as a whole were run in a true democracy that we would end up having another civil war of some form. As it is California politically has a lot of power but if it were to go to a true democracy I think a lot of states would say enough is enough we are done and pull away thus instead of being 50 states we would be split into a few countries

1. Why would states be against democracy, you know the thing their country was founded on?
2. Besides maybe California, who are by them self the 7th biggest economy in the world, if any of the states would leave they would fail with in a week.

mattsmith48

Given that the population of California is approximately 40 million people, and that the population of Los Angeles is 4 million, we can deduce that Los Angeles contributes to 10% of the population of California. The electoral college votes allocated to California is 55, so we can deduce that 5.5 of those votes goes to represent the population of Los Angeles. Therefore, Los Angeles contributes approximately 6 votes towards the electoral college, wouldn't you agree? Wyoming, on the other hand, only counts for 3 electoral college votes.

Therefore, Los Angeles does count towards more in presidential elections than Wyoming, and even more so in terms of House Representatives.

Most states will always go for the same party, like the Democrats in California that 55 votes is a guarantee to go to the Democrats before anyone even voted, any votes in California for another party or any surplus votes for the Democrats are worthless, In the 2016 election 8.7 millions Californians voted for Clinton, 4.4 million voted for Trump, 478 thousands voted for Gary Johnson, 278 thousands voted Jill Stein and 39 thousands voted for Evan McMullin, 147 other. Couple things wrong here first Hillary Clinton got 61% of the votes but 100% of the electoral college votes, secondly 5,427,807 of Californian who voted for someone else than the candidate who was guarantee to win the state, so their votes where worthless plus counting the 4.2 millions extra votes the winner got that she didn't need to win the state, for a total 9,697,785 worthless votes, all those voters put together would be the 10th most populated state ranked between North Carolina and Michigan, and the 87th most populated country. So under this system the population the size of Sweden all those votes are worthless just in one state, how is this fair?

refrigeratorx
May 16th, 2017, 11:25 AM
see i figure the lack of even population is WHY the electoral system works, if the population density per 100 sq miles was close to the same across the whole nation then a direct democracy would work. but with the electoral system states with higher populations do get a bit more of a say, but states like Wyoming with a smaller population are still relevant to an extent where if it wasn't an electoral system the city of LA would have more say than the whole state of Wyoming

i think that is why other countries may look at our system as crazy is because they do have a more even population distribution and are a lot smaller.

Using that same example though, that means a vote in Wyoming means a lot more than a vote in California, which is not really that fair either.

mattsmith48
May 17th, 2017, 01:21 PM
Looking at the poll results most of the votes for - It’s perfect system it provides fair and equal elections. Should have picked - It’s great because it gives an unfair advantage to my party


Using that same example though, that means a vote in Wyoming means a lot more than a vote in California, which is not really that fair either.

Not really because as I said earlier most states always vote for the same party Wyoming is one of those states and what I explained in my previous post is also true for Wyoming. Only a few states are actually worth something.

Pilyk
May 20th, 2017, 04:29 AM
The French two-round system is used for most of the elections (from mayors to representatives or president). The main problem with it is that it favors the tactical or default voting.

For instance, in the last presidential election the results of the first round was :
- M. Emmanuel Macron (Centrist), 24%
- Mme Marine Le Pen (Nationalist), 21%
- M. François Fillon (Republican), 20%
- M. Jean-Luc Mélenchon (Far Left), 20%
- Other "Small" Candidates, 15%
M. Macron wins the second round whith 66% against Mme Le Pen.
But he truly represents something like 24% of the votes, because 76% didn't choose him as their first choice.

78% of the French did vote for the 1st round, versus only 65% on the second (26% didn't participate, 9% blank voting). And most of the people who vote for M. Macron at that moment did that for they were afraid of the other party, even if they highly despise M. Macron themselves.

During the legislative elections, a party that obtains the best score on the first round could have zero seat in the Parliament, because most of the people vote for the other on the second round. It is a quite common situation that lead the citizen to feel they are ill-represented. Even if our country has one of the highest number of elected officials per capita.

ShineintheDark
May 20th, 2017, 01:09 PM
The French two-round system is used for most of the elections (from mayors to representatives or president). The main problem with it is that it favors the tactical or default voting.

For instance, in the last presidential election the results of the first round was :
- M. Emmanuel Macron (Centrist), 24%
- Mme Marine Le Pen (Nationalist), 21%
- M. François Fillon (Republican), 20%
- M. Jean-Luc Mélenchon (Far Left), 20%
- Other "Small" Candidates, 15%
M. Macron wins the second round whith 66% against Mme Le Pen.
But he truly represents something like 24% of the votes, because 76% didn't choose him as their first choice.

78% of the French did vote for the 1st round, versus only 65% on the second (26% didn't participate, 9% blank voting). And most of the people who vote for M. Macron at that moment did that for they were afraid of the other party, even if they highly despise M. Macron themselves.

During the legislative elections, a party that obtains the best score on the first round could have zero seat in the Parliament, because most of the people vote for the other on the second round. It is a quite common situation that lead the citizen to feel they are ill-represented. Even if our country has one of the highest number of elected officials per capita.
It's really unfortunate and misrepresenting but that system is probably the best there could be since, whilst he may not be their initial choice, the people of France DID vote him in fair and square, with his majority being the majority for all of France, not just the largest share of the vote

mattsmith48
May 20th, 2017, 02:11 PM
The French two-round system is used for most of the elections (from mayors to representatives or president). The main problem with it is that it favors the tactical or default voting.

For instance, in the last presidential election the results of the first round was :
- M. Emmanuel Macron (Centrist), 24%
- Mme Marine Le Pen (Nationalist), 21%
- M. François Fillon (Republican), 20%
- M. Jean-Luc Mélenchon (Far Left), 20%
- Other "Small" Candidates, 15%
M. Macron wins the second round whith 66% against Mme Le Pen.
But he truly represents something like 24% of the votes, because 76% didn't choose him as their first choice.

78% of the French did vote for the 1st round, versus only 65% on the second (26% didn't participate, 9% blank voting). And most of the people who vote for M. Macron at that moment did that for they were afraid of the other party, even if they highly despise M. Macron themselves.

During the legislative elections, a party that obtains the best score on the first round could have zero seat in the Parliament, because most of the people vote for the other on the second round. It is a quite common situation that lead the citizen to feel they are ill-represented. Even if our country has one of the highest number of elected officials per capita.

What I like about the French is your centrists are actually calling them self centrist not liberal.

It's really unfortunate and misrepresenting but that system is probably the best there could be since, whilst he may not be their initial choice, the people of France DID vote him in fair and square, with his majority being the majority for all of France, not just the largest share of the vote

Actually the best system currently available seems to be Germany's. 55% of the voters didn't want neither of the two candidates to pass to the 2nd round, that doesn't seem fair. Pilyk said it most people voted in the second round for Macron because they were scared that Crazy Cat Lady would win, it doesn't mean they wanted the other guy, they just didn't have a choice.

Living For Love
May 20th, 2017, 02:27 PM
Not really because as I said earlier most states always vote for the same party Wyoming is one of those states and what I explained in my previous post is also true for Wyoming. Only a few states are actually worth something.
You're making no sense. On one hand you say it's good to have local representation, but on the other, you agree that the votes of LA inhabitants should worth more than the votes of Wyoming inhabitants. Just because LA is more developed and has more population doesn't mean they should have more voting power. Also, it would be foolish of Trump or Clinton to campaign in California because everyone takes for granted that state will always vote Democrat, no matter what. Same with Texas and the Deep South voting Republican. They campaign in the so called swing states (Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana...) that sometimes vote Democrat, sometimes vote Republican, and even so, the electoral votes are won by one of the candidates by a very small margin.

mattsmith48
May 21st, 2017, 01:18 PM
You're making no sense. On one hand you say it's good to have local representation, but on the other, you agree that the votes of LA inhabitants should worth more than the votes of Wyoming inhabitants. Just because LA is more developed and has more population doesn't mean they should have more voting power. Also, it would be foolish of Trump or Clinton to campaign in California because everyone takes for granted that state will always vote Democrat, no matter what. Same with Texas and the Deep South voting Republican. They campaign in the so called swing states (Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana...) that sometimes vote Democrat, sometimes vote Republican, and even so, the electoral votes are won by one of the candidates by a very small margin.

I didn't say the votes in LA should be worth more, I said the city it self should be worth more than Wyoming because there is more people living there

Porpoise101
May 24th, 2017, 08:56 PM
Some people actually like having that local representation.Yes, but I would say that local representation is an anachronism. It is not necessary when technology has "shrunk" the states into smaller groups. I'd rather that a representative shared my view on national policy priorities than know my hometown quite honestly. It's a bonus, but it is not needed for national projects. Local representation is more relevant for non-national issues. If this doesn't convince you consider this: our Founders planned this out in a time that local representation was key because it would take weeks for correspondence to travel around the country. Now it takes seconds, and our leaders are a message or phone call away. Any technical and logistical reasons for local representation at the national level are an anachronism at the least.