If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal

3/19/2012 2:55 PM EDT

1) I stand corrected re Puerto Rican citizens being U.S. citizens (i sometimes find it hard to wrap my brain around the way things are done in the USA).

2) I didn't realize that you had to be registered -- that makes sense, otherwise everyone would be voting in such a way as to mess everyone else up (as opposed to now where they just vote in such a way as to mess themselves up :-)

My mom came from a poor part of town (in Sheffield, England) where they talked with a very strong accent. As a teenager she listened to the BBC newscasters on the radio and taught herself how to "speak proper"

One of her "hobbies" when there's an election is to wait for someone from the party she's not voting for to come on the local radio being interviewed.

She will call in and start by talking posh and sounding like she doesn't have a clue -- and she will lead them along saying "so you are saying that..." and "... in that case you are saying that..."

Then when she has them where she wants them she switches into the "working man's dialect" and says things like "You must think I'm stupid .. I remember in the last election when you said ...." (all of this in an accent that you wouldn't understand unless you were born there).

Oh well, it's nice that she keeps herself busy

3/21/2012 7:23 AM EDT

It always amazes me how the USA is so confident that they are the paradigm of democracy, when the presidential elections fail three of the most important aspects of democracy:

1. Voting should be anonymous. This is vital to avoid corruption, vote-buying, peer pressure, etc., so that people feel free to vote as they want without personal consequences. Yet in the USA people are publicly stamped as "republican" or "democrat".

2. Equal rules and rights for everyone. It doesn't really matter what age limits you use, or whether criminals can vote or not. But the rules should be the same for everyone, not vary by state.

3. All voting must be done at the same time, and all results hidden until the polls close. That is the only way to make every vote count matter, and to make everyone equally involved. The USA fails abysmally on this one.


There are lots of other choices that need to be made regarding how voting is done, and in many cases the choices in the USA presidential elections are wrong (the obvious one is that it should be done as a simple popular vote, not via state representatives). But the three points above should be changed before calling it democracy.

3/21/2012 9:41 AM EDT

All good points...

3/23/2012 1:21 PM EDT

Voting is anonymous in the US. No one HAS TO identify themselves as Republican or Democrat, and no one HAS TO vote by party. You HAVE TO claim to be Republican to vote in a Republican primary, and any donations to a party must be made publicly. That is the limit of required disclosure. Pollsters often try to get you to tell them more, so that they can improve their predictions, but you are required to tell them exactly nothing, not even the truth.

I don't lie, but I once told a pollster that if they really believed in our system of government they would quit their job. Of course, I told them nothing else, at all.

3/23/2012 4:59 PM EDT

The choice of president is as much about the particular candidate as about the party. You cannot influence the choice of candidate for a party unless you are a registered member of the party. Therefore you cannot anonymously make a choice of president.

Additionally, the distinction between republican and democrat is persuasive throughout American society, especially amongst the leadership in society. It doesn't matter if you are a court judge, a police sheriff, the leader of a large company - your choice of republican or democrat is public knowledge, and can have a major influence on your appointment to a job.

3/23/2012 4:29 PM EDT

Wow!

First, the US is not a democracy. It's a federal constitutional republic. One reason for this *is* to ensure that everyone's rights are respected. Tyranny carried out by a majority is still tyranny.

1.) Voting is supposed to be anonymous. People choose to affiliate with a political party. In most states you must be a member of a political party to help nominate a candidate to represent that party. Membership to a part is not a requirement for voting or running for office.

2.) In the US
* Everyone is supposed to have the same rights.
* Rights are *not* granted by the Constitution or any other earthly entity.
* The founding document clearly states that valid governments are formed by the people to secure these rights.
* The Constitution is merely a contract wherein the people, on a limited basis, transfer some of their rights and power to the government.

3.) Because the real power was meant to lie with the states (and the people,) the states are given wide latitude in how they elect their representatives to the Electoral College. Study this idea until you understand why it is a good thing. (Hint you don't care if your rights are taken away by one all powerful person or a majority not all powerful people.)

I am not sure when this started but it is an incorrect and dangerous idea to think that the Constitution grants *any* rights or restricts ordinary citizens in any way. The Constitution is simply a contract wherein the people transfer certain specific rights and powers (owned by these same people) over to a small group of people in order for them to do very specific things.

It is the concentration of power in the Federal government (a relatively small group of people) that facilitates and invites that corruption we see today.

3/23/2012 5:08 PM EDT

1. Because you can't influence the choice of president beyond two candidates without declaring your party affiliation, voting is not anonymous.

2. Maybe everyone is /supposed/ to have the same voting rights, but not everyone does. The most obvious example is differences in the voting rights for criminals between states.

3. It doesn't matter (for this discussion) whether the power was meant to lie with the states or not - or whether that is a good thing or not. The USA is one country, and much of it is run by federal powers. American citizens in different states do not have the same voting rights and powers. In particular, the timing differences in elections skew the voting wildly - as long as there are people who believe it doesn't matter how they vote, since it will all be decided in Iowa, or Florida, or whatever, then you don't have fair democratic elections.

3/23/2012 6:56 PM EDT

Of course we can't have democratic elections. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!

It does matter where the power will lie. As long as the power lies in a central location the common man will have very little *real* influence not matter what rules you use.

When you close the polls doesn't change how the votes add up. If you are arguing that you can't have fair election because people don't believe something or another then you are arguing that you *can't* have fair election.

3/19/2012 7:59 PM EDT

Thanks for the correction. I forgot about open primaries and caucuses.

With respect to the last comment, I think the U.S. has moved away from the principle of least privilege (political power in this case), though the increased speed of communication (which facilitates centralization of decision making) and greater impact of local issues on larger scale matters (increased speed of commerce?) may justify substantially more power at the higher levels of government now than in the 1780s.

3/23/2012 6:30 PM EDT

Oregon normally has a closed primary but I just got an interesting postcard from the elections division. It seems that the state Republican party has decided to allow unaligned voters (I'm registered independent) to participate in the republican primary.

I've never seen that before.

3/23/2012 1:35 PM EDT

One thing to remember about the caucus system and the college of electors is that they are historical artifacts. Two hundred years ago, information could not be transmitted anywhere near as quickly and reliably. So systems were devised so that voting could happen locally, and the results carried elsewhere. The naive response to this is "why didn't they just send certified local counts?" The answer is, because circumstances could change in a month's delay and if a few of the counts got waylaid, that could shift the ballot significantly. So voters elected representatives to select the president for them. This has been made unnecessary by vastly improved communications, but there hasn't been a compelling reason to change it.

3/19/2012 4:02 PM EDT

In his book "In a Sunburned Country" (also titled "Down Under" in England), Bill Bryson talked about the Australian electoral system ... I don;t have that book here in my office (I wanted to quote from it), but I recall the system as being incredibly complicated ... would you care to comment?

3/19/2012 4:15 PM EDT

I did try to immigrate to Australia, but never made any study of the electoral system.

Canada on the other hand is very federal in that there are powerful provincial governments and a federal one as well, but in all cases it is pretty much the Westminister system.

3/19/2012 4:23 PM EDT

Hmmm -- why did I think that you were currently hanging your hat in Australia?

Maybe it's because you and David Ashton (who DOES live "Down Under") both come from Zimbabwe (you Zimbabweians all look the same to me :-)

3/21/2012 5:37 AM EDT

And as an Australian who DID immigrate, I can confirm that the only difference between Australian politicians and those from Zimbabwe is that here they don't shoot each other, or us. In all other respects they are not much different.

They say they have a democracy here, but in fact it is a series of dictatorships where we get to choose the dictator every few years. Once they get chosen, they do exactly as they please (which usually means getting their snouts in the trough) and hope they don't do a bad enough job to get chucked out next election.

In addition, Australia is (population wise) a small country, but has 3 levels of government. It really only needs 2, but there is a lot of rivalry between states so the 3-tier trough system is likely to persist.

In fairness to Aussie, most other first world countries don't seem a lot better. I'm all for compulsory referendums on major issues, so the buggers can't say "well you voted us in so that means we have a mandate to (insert idiotic action here).

This would severely limit the politicians power and hand it back to the people, so it's never likely to happen....

3/19/2012 7:06 PM EDT

As an Australian (who didn't even have to try and immigrate...) we basically use the Westminster system, although there are a few key differences, one being that voting is compulsory which means the vote is not limited to those who care. The other main difference is that most polling is done on a preferential basis: you don't just put a cross next to your preferred candidate but give all of them a ranking of 1, 2, 3... This allows two candidates of a similar position to stand against each other in each seat without cannibalising each others' vote. It's a kind of instant run-off with the least popular candidate in each round being eliminated and their votes getting distributed according to the voter's next preference until one candidate gets a clear majority. It does get more confusing for the state elections since some states use optional preferential voting (number as many or few as you like) or other methods. Then, of course, the whole Westminster system is different to that of the US, where the Prime Minister is the leader of the House of Representatives while the Governor General (like the English Queen) does not generally play an active political role as the US President does. Unless things get really bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

3/22/2012 3:59 AM EDT

Sounds like you're half way there Duane. I guess what is needed is a fairly high entry bar, in terms of financial amount, or (verifiable) signatures on a petition, etc. And anything that requires a politician to break an election promise should trigger an automatic referendum.

I wish......half the politicians in Australia would be out of business...

3/23/2012 1:42 PM EDT

Dear Lord! Not a financial bar! If that were the case, only the wealthy would make changes! We would be back to feudalism in ten years!

3/23/2012 1:56 PM EDT

We are going this way already and even faster after the most inane decision of our Supreme Jokers ("no evidence of the corrupting influence"[of money found according to them...]).
Our system was probably spanking modern democratic in 18th century but I think after more than 200 years could use some more adjusting in better direction. If not, let us just agree how rich a person needs to be in order to be called squire, count, baron, duke and stop pretending that we are something else ...

3/23/2012 6:50 PM EDT

No No NO!! By Financial, I meant that any government proposal (to build something, to tax someone,to spend money on something, etc) that involves over a certain amount of money, would have to be subject to a referendum. For example, the NSW govt are in the process of selling off most of our power generator utilities to private hands. Most people are opposed to this and I think in a referendum it would be rejected. But the NSW govt, knowing this, would not even think of having a referendum on it.....

I'd also be horrified if you could "buy" a referendum. The super rich have too much influence already.

3/23/2012 3:32 PM EDT

The owners of the country hired and pay them for different services to be rendered.

3/23/2012 6:52 PM EDT

masher, don't forget that like OR, AZ has very accessible initiative, referendum and recall processes.

The recall process in particular was used last year to oust the guy who sponsored that controversial immigration law. Apparently the voters in his district felt there were other issues he should pay attention to, and they let him know their dissatisfaction by firing him before his term was finished.

Sometimes voting matters.

3/23/2012 7:02 PM EDT

You are certainly welcome to vote for Jerry Lewis. You can write in anybody you would like to.