The Cellar - Generation Q

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Generation Q (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=15610)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 394507)

If they were obligated to make a choice, then maybe they'd put more thought into it.

The reasoning does have merit. Some nations require voting - subject to prosecution if a registered voter does not vote. Forgot which nation has this law.

well, we have that law here, and it comes in the form of a fine if you don't vote, however, it is rarely put into force.

Also I'd add that if you have an obligation to vote but don't want to, you can always do a 'donkey vote' which is of course where you get your name marked off the list but don't vote for any one of the candidates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 394541)

I have worked as a polling place staffer in Australia four times. Boring, but pays ok.
It is illegal to not turn up - the fine is $20 unless you come up with a plausible excuse.
It is illegal to deliberately cast an informal vote (same fine I think) but it is criminal to try to find out how someone is voted, so you can vote informally with impunity. (Informal = ballot paper blank or otherwise not demonstrating a clear intention).
The "donkey vote" as I have always heard the term is where people number the candidates in the order they appear on the ballot. These votes are formal and so candidates can get extra votes if they are lucky enough to be first on the paper. When counting votes we find a fair few like this.
Some jokers like to get creative with their ballot papers; adding candidates, political spiels, sketches. This normally, but not always, makes them informal, but they're great amusement when we have to sort through and count the bloody things. :zzz:

Now, about the US election process ... :censored: I'm going to presume we've had that thread. Repeatedly.

Thanks for all those 'facts' Zen. :alien:

I agree with pierce completely.
Most of my friends are very apathetic, and I am likewise. I mean we'll crack Bush jokes and stuff I guess but we aren't discussing Burma.

Pierce can vouch, my friend's are probably more worried about cramming for their midterm or determining which bar to go to on the weekend than Bush's shrinking safety zone.
Maybe it comes with age. Probably. But from my environment for the past, 19 years, not now.

We have, Zen.

Those who can't believe Republicans ought to be President bitch, and the ones who care about the Republic in general chew on them for being beyond the pale. The pale of reason, most usually: there has been some flaky shit talked. Mostly, it's the left-of-center set failing to adapt to the reality that the electorate is turning away from them, percentage point by percentage point: the pendulum is swinging to the right.

I've worked election polling stations myself. The money's okay, though hardly an enormous hourly rate given the length of the day you put in, fifteen or sixteen hours total, with thirteen of that given to the actual balloting. And I've processed absentee ballots before -- the protocols to protect the Office of the Registrar's probity are pretty impressive. Never saw anybody draw little pictures, though write-ins could provide amusement: there were a few votes for Ah-nuld the Governator even a couple of elections before he won the Governorship in that improbable recall election. This term in office will be Schwarzenegger's last, due to term limits. Nothing much is being said about his future plans, but he's the sort to have them.

sigh (okay, complete lack of self restraint: )

:2cents:

1. Abolish the electoral colleges. Have one gigantic bucket, put all the votes in there, count 'em up. Most votes wins.
(This is mostly to eliminate the "battleground states" phenomenon. Minority presidents are very rare.)

2. Once folks have got the hang of that, consider preferential voting. It's a bit complicated, but you can make giving preferences optional.

3. Can the process be shortened somehow? It takes a year and a half! Even I am getting bored already, I hate to think what it must be like inside the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 394879)

1. Abolish the electoral colleges. Have one gigantic bucket, put all the votes in there, count 'em up. Most votes wins.
(This is mostly to eliminate the "battleground states" phenomenon. Minority presidents are very rare.)

Can't do it. Then we would have a democracy.

Quote:

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

Thanks Merc, but two questions:
Minor question: who and what were you quoting? I always like to know.
Major question: how was any of that democracy-versus-republic discussion relevant to electoral colleges? The quote seemed to say, we must have a constitution (which the elected leaders cannot tinker with too easily) and some kind of statement of rights, to protect minorities and individuals. If we have either a direct or representative democracy without this, then the mass mob, or the elected group, can violate the rights of individuals, which would be bad.
Plausible enough, although I think it belongs in the "definition of democracy" thread. But please, how is this affected by whether you use the popular vote or electoral colleges? You could still have the constitutional limits on the president's power, the bill of rights, congress, the supreme court, and such, while using the popular vote. I'm just advocating a slightly different method of counting the votes, not a change in the powers the president gets. What's the connection?

Zen, as a general rule, we Americans consider that the workings of political power should not be either too swift nor for that matter slickly efficient. The ultimate example of a swift and highly efficient working of power would be an autocracy -- a real "L'etat, c'est moi," the purest sort of dictatorship, one where only the dictator has rights, and all his subjects are appendages of himself. A fine system... for ants.

The excitement about the Electoral College this and the Electoral College that rather obscures one subtle but necessary point: the Presidency and with it the Vice Presidency are the only such elected offices in the entire Federal system. Everyone else is directly elected. This is inserted as a check and balance, however toothless it may or may not be.

UG, why are you refering to 'we Americans' so much just now. Are you suggesting that your views represent the views of every American?

In this, yes. Any reason why not?

Just curious. I think it's a bit presumptuous that's all. I'm pretty sure it's going to get you in trouble when a few others see it. ;)

The connection, Zen, is that as a republic we elect people to vote for us rather than just voting directly. While I agree with 95% of that quote, btw, it seems a little biased in language. I do think a direct democracy with separation of powers (something that was somewhat under-discussed in the Federalist papers) would have a fair chance of succeeding, especially if states retained their rights.

The whole point is that if we do away with the electoral college, we will create a direct democracy which has little buffer against reactionary actions. I don't really see how it DOES this in presidential elections, though.

It makes more sense that congressmen, being elected by their states and not directly by the entire country, would act as a fine buffer against despotism of sorts. The president, however, should be directly elected. The whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader. It would eliminate the almost unavoidable two party system if we did directly elect, though, because now all we have are people voting for the lesser of two evils.

He must be trying to be funny. And it worked--it's hilarious!