The USA the greatest democracy ?

Manic Moran

Ibid wrote:

Using the European definition, the victor of the 2000 Presidential Election did not receive a simple majority.

I'm not sure how to make this more clear. "Presidential Election" is a misnomer. When voters go to the polls on the third Tuesday in November (or whenever it is), they are not partaking in the Presidential Election, but are particpating in the overall process.

You seem to be failing to make a distinction between a simple ballot and constituent vote.

And you are failing to realise the the President is not President of the American People but of the United States. The fact that the simple popular vote of the population of the entire Federation is not used is no accident. The States vote for the President, not the individual citizens. I, as an individual citizen, have voted in the direct election of my political/legal entity's leader, currently the Governator. The States' electors, when voting for President, are entitled to use whatever method they chose to determine which way to vote. If the states wish, the votes can be allocated by sticking names on snail shells and seeing which name crosses a finish line first. I like the New Mexico version, where ties are broken by drawing cards.

NTM

monosharp

eoin5 wrote:

As an IT guy let me say you should look into e-voting systems a bit more. These systems are designed and tested by the leading experts in Crypto and Formal Methods. Theyre not open systems (though the software may be) and they require an obvious crime to even get near them. At the end of the f'ing day theyre easily as secure as any manual system.

Bull-muck.

In florida last year they discovered votes meant for republicans were going to democrats, apparently this was a "screen calibration error". ha

Computers are insecure, cryptography is insecure.

Look at all the anti-pirate crypto stuff out there and name a single one that hasn't being hacked around ? Just one ?

Whatever about the e-voting machines, the crypto stuff on them and any physical security its still hardware running software and therefore about as secure as a sieve patched with chewing gum.

Your probably right in that e-voting machines would be more secure then an average workstation machine but they are still insecure.

Time Magazine

Manic Moran wrote:

The fact that the simple popular vote of the population of the entire Federation is not used is no accident.

Thank you.

I know it's no accident. I never said it accidentally happened that they assigned points to each state. I quoted bonkey to clarify it's not a simple popular vote.

Now there may be an opportunity to debate the merits of the vote by proxy.

djpbarry wrote:

The majority of Americans do not want Bush as president; only about 18% of the population voted for him in 2000

Lol, can I see your calculations on that please?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

40 percent voter turnout, and about 50% of the vote that turned out?

Time Magazine

Surely you shouldn't count under-18s in the population though?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I guess not, but i've often heard the 40% figure trotted out on news channels so i assumed it was 40 percent of the elegible voters, but i am frequently wrong in my assumptions.

eoin5

monosharp wrote:

Bull-muck.

In florida last year they discovered votes meant for republicans were going to democrats, apparently this was a "screen calibration error". ha

Computers are insecure, cryptography is insecure.

Look at all the anti-pirate crypto stuff out there and name a single one that hasn't being hacked around ? Just one ?

Whatever about the e-voting machines, the crypto stuff on them and any physical security its still hardware running software and therefore about as secure as a sieve patched with chewing gum.

Your probably right in that e-voting machines would be more secure then an average workstation machine but they are still insecure.

I never said that e-voting was completely secure, I said it was easily as secure as manual voting systems. A better way of thinking about it is that people are insecure too. As oscarBravo said theres a forum for that if you want to discuss it further.

djpbarry

Ibid wrote:

Lol, can I see your calculations on that please?

Certainly. About 50.46 million people voted for Bush in 2000. The population at the time was about 281.421 million (According to the 2000 census). That means about 18% of the population voted for Bush. If we discount the under-18's (72.29 million), that means about 24% of the electorate voted for Bush.

Hotblack Desiato

eoin5 wrote:

I said it was easily as secure as manual voting systems.

Pigs might fly, and that's all I'll say on that topic in this forum.

Getting back on topic - the well known and numerous problems with voting machines (mechanical and electronic) in the US would certainly be a big minus in the 'greatest democracy' stakes - though not nearly as much imho as the manipulation of voter rolls. Perhaps it's time that the prohibition on convicted felons voting is removed as that appears to be the most frequently abused rule.

Time Magazine

Do you not think the percentage you quote (18%) is entirely unfair seeing as the maximum "percent" any candidate could get, had s/he received all the ballots of that election, would be less than 38%?

bonkey

Its not entirelyunfair...but it is somewhat of a logical non sequitor to conclude that because the President only received votes from 18% of the population (or 24% of the adult population) that the majority didn't want him as President.

Ignoring that people didn't actually vote for either candidate in the first place, its still not necessarily true to claim that someone who did not vote did not want this man elected. Some may have. Some, in fact, almost certainly did, but for one reason or another did not vote.

Its also important to note that "did not want him" is distinct from "wanted someone else". People who didn't care who got elected President fall into the former category, but not into the latter.

Time Magazine

Logical non sequitors aside, I don't like mis-representations of anything (except positive mis-representations of me, of course). Had every ballot in that election been cast for Candidate A, nobody would doubt his/her democratic mandate. However, using the Huge Denominator Method, "only 37.5% of the population voted for him/her". This, to my mind, is a mathematical misnomer to distort the reality of his/her approval.

In the same way you could increase the denominator further by including all Americans ever born and then trot out the line "Only 10% of Americans ever voted for Candidate A." Although that's laughable, as the denominator djpbarry includes 80 million under-18s who have has much of a chance of voting as the deceased, it's only adding insult to the mathematical injury.

Back on the more general topic, here's what economists are useful for. The Economist's "Democracy Index" ranks countries based on functioning government, freedom of press, personal liberties etc. It's interesting, America doesn't make the top 15. In fact it comes behind Spain, who were recently ruled by a one-party dictator for forty years and only have a democratic constitution since 1978.

That said, I can see some flaws with the report. Switzerland, with its ridiculous amount of direct participation, is apparently only 0.1% more of a democracy than Ireland.

Manic Moran

ninja900 wrote:

Perhaps it's time that the prohibition on convicted felons voting is removed as that appears to be the most frequently abused rule.

I doubt it. The usual one is the Dead Vote. I seem to recall there was one small town where more dead people voted than live people, but you'll see reports all over the kip.

There are only a dozen states which prohibit felons from voting for life. (Remember, States set the rules, not the Federal Government) The ones who are in prison who are barred (In another 20 states or so) are easy to keep track of and shouldn't be an issue. Whilst it may be an issue in swing states with high criminal rates, it's not a notable nationwide problem. There are bigger fish to fry.

NTM

eoin5

Ibid wrote:

Logical non sequitors aside, I don't like mis-representations of anything (except positive mis-representations of me, of course). Had every ballot in that election been cast for Candidate A, nobody would doubt his/her democratic mandate. However, using the Huge Denominator Method, "only 37.5% of the population voted for him/her". This, to my mind, is a mathematical misnomer to distort the reality of his/her approval.

In the same way you could increase the denominator further by including all Americans ever born and then trot out the line "Only 10% of Americans ever voted for Candidate A." Although that's laughable, as the denominator djpbarry includes 80 million under-18s who have has much of a chance of voting as the deceased, it's only adding insult to the mathematical injury.

Back on the more general topic, here's what economists are useful for. The Economist's "Democracy Index" ranks countries based on functioning government, freedom of press, personal liberties etc. It's interesting, America doesn't make the top 15. In fact it comes behind Spain, who were recently ruled by a one-party dictator for forty years and only have a democratic constitution since 1978.

That said, I can see some flaws with the report. Switzerland, with its ridiculous amount of direct participation, is apparently only 0.1% more of a democracy than Ireland.

If you take what the US have been doing and compare it to the wishes of the population it doesnt seem too odd to me that theyre so far down the list. The press is only free to a certain extent. Personal liberties are being eroded by The Patriot Act and others. I dont think its top 15 material.

Mr.Micro

eoin5 wrote:

The press is only free to a certain extent. Personal liberties are being eroded by The Patriot Act and others. I dont think its top 15 material.

Quite right .Democracy is only a word .Those in power have a way of eroding democracy in the name of security ,percieved threats or national interest . When US adopted the Patriot Act civil liberties are slowly being eroded ,with e mails ,phones and many other forms of communication being monitored . When the unfortunate US soldiers were killed in Iraq in recent times , the US Government would not even allow the press to show the pictures or related matters in the press .Even us Europeans have to give too much of our details if we wish to enter the US.I fear it is draconian and far too invasive .So what price has will be paid for the the "big brother measures". The US is no longer the greatest democracy.

extragon

The US is not "the greatest democracy" because of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM.
This may be reasonable in Congress, but at State level, even at city and county level - there are only two parties with little to choose between them. You might imagine somewhere like California having a Green representative, for example, in the State assembly, or a member with radical ideas about health care reform.
Not a chance. Not a single one. All opinions come filtered through the two party system and the big money interests that pays for it. It's almost bizarre, when you look at the composition of even the humblest council chamber and compare it to what would be the norm in Europe. Apart from the very occasional, and personally wealthy, independent - there are only two parties. Period.

Add to that - no free TV slots for minority parties, the need to raise millions of dollars to make a reasonable bid for national election, the first past the post system, unlimited gerrymandering opportunities for whoever is in power with the drawing up of electoral boundaries which make no geographical sense. You can change the personalities, but you cannot change the ideas, or even make a dent ( unless they come pre-approved by big business ). It may seem like this in Europe, sometimes, but the fact that an established party could split, or that a swing to the left is at least possible makes leaders more responsive to social issues.

Manic Moran

Whilst I agree with you, for the sake of being picky, there are a number of Green Party types in elected office at local (County and below) level, and I was able to track down at least one State Assembleyman in Maine. And of course, there's Jesse Ventura, independent, not Green.

The Governator is considered a de-facto independent as well, even though he's officially a Republican.

NTM

Mr.Micro

I agree with Extragon. Democracy as we know it in most western countries is heavily influenced by big business and paid lobbyists.It is rare that the ordinary consumer ,individual or voter benefits .Once the 2 party system is voted in the members of the 2 party system generally stick to party policy even if that policy offends their principles and values .We have seen it here in Ireland many times ,most recently the appointments to the Seanad , no ability required .and in the US I believe Mr .Bush appoints many of his friends to key posts.So democracy is only on polling day.

djpbarry

bonkey wrote:

it is somewhat of a logical non sequitor to conclude that because the President only received votes from 18% of the population (or 24% of the adult population) that the majority didn't want him as President.

Ok, fair enough, I phrased that poorly. What I should have said was that only 24% of the population wanted Bush as president.

bonkey wrote:

Ignoring that people didn't actually vote for either candidate in the first place, its still not necessarily true to claim that someone who did not vote did not want this man elected. Some may have. Some, in fact, almost certainly did, but for one reason or another did not vote.

If someone wanted Bush elected president but did not vote (for whatever reason), I’m going to assume that they did not feel all that strongly about it. If they had, they surely would have found the time to vote (in most cases at least).

Ibid wrote:

Had every ballot in that election been cast for Candidate A, nobody would doubt his/her democratic mandate. However, using the Huge Denominator Method, "only 37.5% of the population voted for him/her". This, to my mind, is a mathematical misnomer to distort the reality of his/her approval.

The point I was trying to make was that a relatively small percentage of the population partook in the election, probably due to disillusionment with the system.

Manic Moran

Or disillusionment with the candidates. (Which, granted, can be a byproduct of the system)

I'm one of the people who didn't vote in 2004. Nobody really seemed deserving of my vote.

NTM

extragon

Dail Eireann: 6 political parties, plus 5 independents
California State Assembly ( for example ): 2 political parties, no independents.

The powers of the US president are also quite interesting, and unique in any democracy, being based on those of George 111 ( there being no other model available, in 1776 ). Even in other presidential systems, such as France, there is always a prime minister who is directly dependent on a parliamentary majority.
The set up in Washington is the equivalent of a Royal Court - with the whole cabinet consisting of unelected appointees, not to mention the thousands of lesser officials.

Sand

The US is not "the greatest democracy" because of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

Im not really familiar with US domestic politics but I dont think there are two parties in the US in the sense that the parties control their elected members with the control we are familiar with in Europe. Presidential candidates are elected by the party base, not the party leadership - often in spite of the party leadership such as it is. Most Presidential candidates run "against Washington" even thought most of them and their parties are a major factor in Washington. There are liberal and conservitive [in the American sense at least] wings to both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the last elections, for all intents and purposes it was the liberal Republicans who lost votes and seats to their Democrat counterparts, not the ultra conservitive firebrands who secured their seats through their opposition to compromise on immigration reform.

What I think is a major disadvantage is that ideas are put in one of three boxes - Conservitive, Liberal or "bipartisan" [I.E. Common sense]. Thats a failing of most high level overviews of politics though tbh.

There is a constant battle though - who controls congress? who controls the white house? who controls the judiciary? who controls the state governments? Each has a built in check on the others power. I dont have stats to hand but Id consider it very unlikely that either Reps or Dems have as much consistent influence on the levers of power in the US at any one time as Fianna Fail does in Ireland.

The point I was trying to make was that a relatively small percentage of the population partook in the election, probably due to disillusionment with the system.

Or complete disinterest in the result - I.E. neither candidate was so repulsive that they felt compelled to vote against them or agreeable that they were compelled to vote for them. "Who cares?" is a perfectly valid option in terms of voting if your concerns only run to the buses running on time. It doesnt imply a mass rejection of democracy, but possibly a mass trust in the liberal checks on democracy - I.E. "Whoever wins, they cant intefere with me or my rights that much".

I dont think its top 15 material.

What would be your top 15?

I agree with Extragon. Democracy as we know it in most western countries is heavily influenced by big business and paid lobbyists.

Ive seen very persuasive arguments put forward that a lot of this is down to the openess of democratic systems. Most people only track which parties voted for what measure in the vaguest sense. Professional lobbyists can and do track every single vote made by every single elected representitive and can use that information to reward or threaten those representives. Lobby groups are far more democratically active than the average voter of any western democracy. Hence they control it to a larger extent.

Theres a couple of angles to resolve that - secret ballots by representitives, removal of private political funding and removal of any mass media exercise of free speech [ television ads, newspaper, radio etc etc]. Pick the least worst option and roll with it.

eoin5

Sand wrote:

What would be your top 15?

I think the economists arent too far off the mark. Interestingly Iran didnt make the last 15, but the Saudis did. You dont hear the US saying they want to bring microsoft democracy 2.0 to those guys .