The USA is the only Democratic Country in the World. Discuss.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But the electoral system means the vote of Joe Schmoe in S. Dakota is worth a lot more than mine here in N.Y. How on earth is that Democratic?

It isn't Democratic. However, it is democratic.

Anyway, how does making your vote more valuable than mine (living in MS) as youy propose make it more democratic?

[Seneca]

I don't know if anyone's said this yet, as I can't be arsed to read the whole thread, but the exact same thing was posted a year or two ago - either this is cut-and-paste from some freeper-type website, or the same guy is trying his luck again...

[Stefu]

Actually the most powerful Democrat in the country, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is from South Dakota.

I was talking about presidential elections, you big silly.

Anyway, how does making your vote more valuable than mine (living in MS) as youy propose make it more democratic?

How does it make his vote worth more than yours?

[Urban Ranger]

Because of the electoral college.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What?!

You're comparing the number of votes of Gore to the AMOUNT OF LAND for Bush. Land doesn't vote, nor should it. It's the votes of people that should matter. And one person's vote should matter just as much as the next. But the electoral system means the vote of Joe Schmoe in S. Dakota is worth a lot more than mine here in N.Y. How on earth is that Democratic?

I'll expand upon Ned's brief statement. The US is a Federal system. We aren't one unified country like France, we are more like the EU. A collection of initially independent states. Let me make the analogy with the EU. If it were a straight popular vote (not that that is terrible, i'm just presenting the other side) then small states like Beguim and Luxumberg and the Netherlands would get get ignored. National politiciatans would only focus on big areas like Germany, France, etc.

And yes, one person one vote is important, but when dealing with a Federation like the US or the EU it is key to respect each state involved. Most states (with good reason) fear being swept away into some powerful centralized government, the Electoral College is at least one way of maintaining a degree of states rights. The EU will go through all this drama when the EU gov't starts taking power away from the member states.

[Sandman]

small states like Beguim and Luxumberg and the Netherlands would get get ignored

What makes you think that there is a Belgian or Dutch 'voice'?

[Victor Galis]

"They all can be abolished by the legislature. The legislature is the one and only power."

-This is actually more democratic than having a non-directly elected President and an Appointed Supreme Court.

"Not, land, states."

-What happened to the concept of one man, one vote?

"I'll expand upon Ned's brief statement. The US is a Federal system. We aren't one unified country like France, we are more like the EU. A collection of initially independent states. Let me make the analogy with the EU. If it were a straight popular vote (not that that is terrible, i'm just presenting the other side) then small states like Beguim and Luxumberg and the Netherlands would get get ignored. National politiciatans would only focus on big areas like Germany, France, etc."

-So what you're saying is that it's ok to disenfranchise massive swaths of the population as long as it's for a good cause

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Stefu
How does it make his vote worth more than yours?

New York's population is about 7 times greater than that of my home state of Mississippi. Without somesort of counterbalance to the power of the large states, the small states would have effectively no voice in Presidential elections.

[Ned]

The United States Constitution was originally stuctured to have three independent, co-equal branches, but with the Supreme Court really more equal than the others. The Legislature was composed of two branches: a directly elected House of Representative with each representative representing roughly the same population; and a Senate composed of two Senators from each state, appointed by their legislatures. The president was elected by electors appointed by each state in a manner determined by each state's legislature. Each state was accorded a number of electors equal to the total number of senators and representatives.

In the beginning, the state legislatures actually appointed electors without a popular vote. Later, some legislatures appointed electors according to a popular vote. Some alowed a state-wide election for the two "senate" votes, with the other electors elected by congressional disctrict. At times, states would apportion the number of electors according to the popular vote. But today, almost all states award the whole slate of electors, as did Florida, to the winner of the state's popular vote, even it is by only one vote.

One can see an evolution here from a system dominated by state legislatures to one dominated by a popular vote; but each state still tries to maximize its own impact by according all of its electors to the candiate that wins the vote in the state.

The result of this system is that the election is really conducted in "close" states. Gore was well ahead in New York. I seriously doubt if he spent very much money there at all. However, Florida was close. It was clear that whoever won Florida would win the election. Where was Gore on the day before the election? Florida.

Each presidential election is different from every other election because the states that are close are different.

But our whole system of electing a president has never been based on "one man" "one vote." It has been based on winning states.

Ned

[Victor Galis]

"New York's population is about 7 times greater than that of my home state of Mississippi. Without somesort of counterbalance to the power of the large states, the small states would have effectively no voice in Presidential elections."

-Which is how it should be. Why should someone's vote in a smaller state count more? Why should state lines even matter in a Presidential election?

"But our whole system of electing a president has never been based on "one man" "one vote." It has been based on winning states."

-This makes it far less democratic than other countries.

Heck, if the number of electoral votes each state got was strictly proportional to its population, Gore would have won even that.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
-Which is how it should be. Why should someone's vote in a smaller state count more?

The important question you have to answer is why should my vote count for less than that of Boris from NY?

[Victor Galis]

Yours counts more as is.

Every vote should count equally.

[Lung]

Congratulations, Ozzy. All you've succeeded in doing is to highlight the flaws of your own system Of course, that's what happens when you talk out of your arse

Please show further ignorance by commenting on the Australian system of government. *casts bait into water*

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


The important question you have to answer is why should my vote count for less than that of Boris from NY?

Seems like standard misconception...

Boris' vote doesn't count for more, because his vote has less impact on way his state's votes in electoral college go. This exactly offsets the fact that his state gets more votes in electoral college, as long as they're based strictly on pop. (or eligible voters, whichever). By giving equal voice in Senate to MS and NY, though, you've made his vote less weight there...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Boris' vote doesn't count for more, because his vote has less impact on way his state's votes in electoral college go.

He wants to get rid of the electoral college, KH. Comparisons based on the cuurent system don't wash in this instance.