No point vote in USA!

[ebastler]

Hillary won by 3 million in the popular vote but she won by nearly 4 million in California.  One could argue then that California made up her deficit of 1 million votes in the other 49 states and would have handed her the win even though the other 49 states, in aggregate, didn't want her.  I don't think California Rule would be popular in Wyoming.

Huh?! But it shouldn't be "the states" voting, it should be "the people", I think! If 1 million more Americans voted for Clinton than voted for Trump, why the heck did Trump become president?! Why should it matter in which states the various voters live?

I think the Electroral College system created in 1787 is pretty reasonable and as a voting scheme, it reflects our Senate and House of Representatives arrangement for representation.  But the system certainly has quirks.

I couldn't help but grin when I read up on the history of the US electoral system at https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html:

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

They should have kept the original system in place. One doesn't have to be a tyrant to manipulate public opinion...

[rstofer]

Hillary won by 3 million in the popular vote but she won by nearly 4 million in California.  One could argue then that California made up her deficit of 1 million votes in the other 49 states and would have handed her the win even though the other 49 states, in aggregate, didn't want her.  I don't think California Rule would be popular in Wyoming.

Huh?! But it shouldn't be "the states" voting, it should be "the people", I think! If 1 million more Americans voted for Clinton than voted for Trump, why the heck did Trump become president?! Why should it matter in which states the various voters live?

The discussion re: the Electoral College comes up after every election.  Further, there are variations on how the electoral representative are required to vote.  Some have to vote for the winner in their state, others are free to vote however they want.  Some are required to vote for the winner on only the first vote if multiple votes are required.  The individual states make the rules.  It's truly a mess!

BUT...

If we went to direct election, the high population states would dominate the election much as 'blue' voters do in California elections.  California is a classic example of direct election and if you are a 'red' voter there is no point in voting.  You might as well save the stamp.  Worse, we are now a 'top two' state so it is very likely that both candidates on the ballot are from the same party.  So not only is a 'red' vote meaningless, there isn't even a 'red' candidate to vote for.

It is the states voting!  That's the whole point!  Each state gets as many votes as they have senators (2) plus representatives (varying by population).  Even Wyoming with 1 representative (versus 53 for California) gets the extra two votes for senators (same as every other state).  So, they get 3 votes.  It's clear that whatever Wyoming wants is meaningless in a direct vote (based on population) but they get outsized representation due to the extra 2 votes.  In effect, the smaller states punch above their weight even though they still don't have much of an influence.  But put a bunch of them together and they make a difference.  It was just 3 rust-belt states that threw the election to Trump.  Every single pundit said Trump couldn't possibly win right up until the counts started adding up and 3 states threw the election.

States are only loosely related.  If you ask the people of Wyoming what they have in common with the people of California, I'm pretty certain they will say "absolutely nothing!".  The US is not a homogeneous amalgamation of like minded individuals.

But, you're right, there is a lot of teeth gnashing after every election over the Electoral College.  In spite of it all, nobody has gotten a Constitutional Convention together to change it.  It can be changed but it isn't easy and it takes a lot of states to agree.  Guess what?  The MANY small states aren't going to agree.  Their influence, small as it is, would be even less.

US politics are strange, the voting system is abysmal and there are any number of issues.  Personally, as long as the stock market climbs, I don't care about any of it.  It's about the money!

[Eka]

US politics are strange, the voting system is abysmal and there are any number of issues.  Personally, as long as the stock market climbs, I don't care about any of it.  It's about the money!

Then I'd suggest not looking to closely at the stock market and what is really driving the current valuations. It will be interesting to see what happens to the market when more retired people are selling than employed are buying. With salaries not keeping up it should be even more fun.

[vk6zgo]

That wasn't what is normally meant by a "paper ballot".
The punched hole idea is very early 1960s  "high tech".

With a paper ballot, the voter manually marks their vote on the paper with a pencil.

Punched holes in paper were 1st used in an early 20th (late 19th) century census, and started a little company called IBM who made machines to count them.

Indeed, & were used by early Morse code telegraph systems (before it was realised that decoding it by simply listening to the "clack" sound was much faster & just as accurate) & later, for tape reperforators with teleprinter machines.

My point was that the "hanging chad" type of balloting system was an early electronic system introduced in the 1950s/1960s.

The 19th century ones were either counted by fully mechanical or electromechanical equipment.

[vk6zgo]

Gerrymandering is widely and rightly reviled when it is purely party engineering, but suddenly becomes pure good when it is used to guarantee a safe seat for an ethnic minority, or an economic zone, or.....

Like everything political, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I might counter that with "Politics is the art of the possible."

Federal systems, like Australia, Canada, the USA & others all have "trade offs" inherent in the whole idea of Federation.
States which had a small population were afraid that they would be  "steam rollered" by the more populous (& usually wealthier) States, so some inducements were necessary to get them to "sign up" to what must have been a bit of a scary prospect.

In the case of Western Australia, it was the provision of a railway line from the Eastern States to WA plus the fact that all States would elect the same number of Senators, which got us across the line.

New Zealand was also involved in the early Australian Federation discussions, but the trade offs weren't good enough, so they went their own way.
If things had gone a bit differently, Australia would have included NZ, but would had to share a continent with the independent country of Western Australia!

Even within countries which are not federations, but have single member electorates, any increase in a Party's vote may be concentrated in "safe seats", so that the other party may have more members elected, & will form government with a smaller "popular vote" overall.

The USA's founding fathers could not foresee a time when the Monarch would have been stripped of almost all executive power, with that power being wielded by the Legislature, which is what happened in the "Westminster system".

They therefore included an elected "King" in the person of the President.
Maybe part of the rationale was that the President would, as he was separately elected be "above" the hurly burly of party politics, but that hasn't happened.

[David Hess]

The USA's founding fathers could not foresee a time when the Monarch would have been stripped of almost all executive power, with that power being wielded by the Legislature, which is what happened in the "Westminster system".

They therefore included an elected "King" in the person of the President.
Maybe part of the rationale was that the President would, as he was separately elected be "above" the hurly burly of party politics, but that hasn't happened.

Their private writings reveal that some were aware of this problem but they had no remedy because the science to objectively describe the problem and evaluate solutions did not exist.  Maybe it still does not but we know a lot more now.  So they did the best that they could within what was considered possible, or at least made different mistakes.

[rstofer]

US politics are strange, the voting system is abysmal and there are any number of issues.  Personally, as long as the stock market climbs, I don't care about any of it.  It's about the money!

Then I'd suggest not looking to closely at the stock market and what is really driving the current valuations. It will be interesting to see what happens to the market when more retired people are selling than employed are buying. With salaries not keeping up it should be even more fun.

I once saw a chart that projected the market heading south due to withdrawals and it suggested the downturn would start in 2002.  Today, the early post WW-II baby boomers (born, say, '45-'46) are in their 70s and presumably retired.  I am...  The thing is, with pensions and Social Security, dipping into 401(k) isn't necessarily required.  I'm not using mine and don't plan to.  I have a real issue with the mandatory withdrawals and I'm counting on 4% growth to cover up the withdrawals.

BTW, I'm pretty happy with the dividend rate of British Petroleum (BP) - 5.69%.  The stock I bought has done well the last couple of years but it's the dividends that keep me interested.

http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/basic-materials/major-integrated-oil-and-gas/bp-bp-plc/

[mathsquid]

I understand exactly how this 'red voter in blue state' thing works out.  I AM a red voter in a blue state.  Overwhelming blue! 

I'm also in a state where I'm in a fairly small minority; because of that the electoral college renders my vote (and yours) to be practically meaningless. I don't like that. The electoral college gives a highly disproportionate amount of power to the voters in the swing states. The power of a person's vote should not depend on where they live. We would be far better off if you, me, and everyone in the swing/purple states had equal votes in the presidential election.

[David Hess]

The House electors could be tied to the House districts instead of the state which would produce or almost product the same result as the two states which divide their electors.  Offhand I do not remember why this was not done originally.

The state controls how the electors are selected but of course that will never change now that the two parties control the process because the current system benefits only them.

[boffin]

I'm also in a state where I'm in a fairly small minority; because of that the electoral college renders my vote (and yours) to be practically meaningless. I don't like that. The electoral college gives a highly disproportionate amount of power to the voters in the swing states. The power of a person's vote should not depend on where they live. We would be far better off if you, me, and everyone in the swing/purple states had equal votes in the presidential election.

It's not just electoral colleges that do this.  British Parliamentary systems like the UK and Canada have a similar issue on a smaller scale. The leader of the government is chosen by the number of seats won in the house that each party wins, so you can be a blue (conservative) voter in a red (liberal) riding (district), and also have little influence; it's just on a smaller scale (338 seats in Canada).

Also, it always amuses me that the US uses Red for Republican (conservative) and Blue for Democrat (Liberal), whereas it's pretty much the opposite every where else.

[David Hess]

Also, it always amuses me that the US uses Red for Republican (conservative) and Blue for Democrat (Liberal), whereas it's pretty much the opposite every where else.

That was largely true in the US with red representing the left and blue representing the right until the 1980s but the media managed to reverse the colors after 2000.

[rstofer]

Also, it always amuses me that the US uses Red for Republican (conservative) and Blue for Democrat (Liberal), whereas it's pretty much the opposite every where else.

That was largely true in the US with red representing the left and blue representing the right until the 1980s but the media managed to reverse the colors after 2000.

It had to be dumbed down so the media could follow  Red = Republican, Blue = <anything else>

[rstofer]

It's not just electoral colleges that do this.  British Parliamentary systems like the UK and Canada have a similar issue on a smaller scale. The leader of the government is chosen by the number of seats won in the house that each party wins, so you can be a blue (conservative) voter in a red (liberal) riding (district), and also have little influence; it's just on a smaller scale (338 seats in Canada).

It's the number of parties in Parliament that confuses me.  In order to form a government, some large party has to form a coalition with some smaller party in order to gain a majority.  This allows the small parties (DUP, SNP) to punch above their weight.  Watching UK Parliament and Brexit is like watching a train wreck.  You know you should look away but you just can't.  We have minority parties in the US but they aren't really a factor in anything.

[ebastler]

It's the number of parties in Parliament that confuses me.  In order to form a government, some large party has to form a coalition with some smaller party in order to gain a majority. 

That generally results in a situation where different parties can actually talk to each other, strike compromises etc.. Do you really prefer the state of affairs in the US, with its extreme polarization between the two major parties? Too strongly polarized "enemy camps" don't lead to good, constructive politics in my opinion.

That being said, the current situation in the UK seems a mess indeed. Might have something to do with the Brexit vote?

[David Hess]

It's the number of parties in Parliament that confuses me.  In order to form a government, some large party has to form a coalition with some smaller party in order to gain a majority.  This allows the small parties (DUP, SNP) to punch above their weight.  Watching UK Parliament and Brexit is like watching a train wreck.  You know you should look away but you just can't.  We have minority parties in the US but they aren't really a factor in anything.

If third parties in the US had any influence, then they would be made illegal.  As it is, various election laws help to keep them marginalized.

It is always fun to watch when the Republicans or Democrats complain about them throwing an election though.

[vk6zgo]

I'm also in a state where I'm in a fairly small minority; because of that the electoral college renders my vote (and yours) to be practically meaningless. I don't like that. The electoral college gives a highly disproportionate amount of power to the voters in the swing states. The power of a person's vote should not depend on where they live. We would be far better off if you, me, and everyone in the swing/purple states had equal votes in the presidential election.

It's not just electoral colleges that do this.  British Parliamentary systems like the UK and Canada have a similar issue on a smaller scale. The leader of the government is chosen by the number of seats won in the house that each party wins, so you can be a blue (conservative) voter in a red (liberal) riding (district), and also have little influence; it's just on a smaller scale (338 seats in Canada).

Also, it always amuses me that the US uses Red for Republican (conservative) and Blue for Democrat (Liberal), whereas it's pretty much the opposite every where else.

I think you mean "the party which can form a government"---as far as I know, the leader is elected by the Parliamentary Party, or by a combination of that & the lay Party, in some Parties.
Certainly that is the case in Australia.

[boffin]

I'm also in a state where I'm in a fairly small minority; because of that the electoral college renders my vote (and yours) to be practically meaningless. I don't like that. The electoral college gives a highly disproportionate amount of power to the voters in the swing states. The power of a person's vote should not depend on where they live. We would be far better off if you, me, and everyone in the swing/purple states had equal votes in the presidential election.

It's not just electoral colleges that do this.  British Parliamentary systems like the UK and Canada have a similar issue on a smaller scale. The leader of the government is chosen by the number of seats won in the house that each party wins, so you can be a blue (conservative) voter in a red (liberal) riding (district), and also have little influence; it's just on a smaller scale (338 seats in Canada).

Also, it always amuses me that the US uses Red for Republican (conservative) and Blue for Democrat (Liberal), whereas it's pretty much the opposite every where else.

I think you mean "the party which can form a government"---as far as I know, the leader is elected by the Parliamentary Party, or by a combination of that & the lay Party, in some Parties.
Certainly that is the case in Australia.

I was trying to simplify for our American friends, who aren't used to our type of Parliamentary system.

The party with the most seats is asked by the crown to attempt to form government, either alone (if they have a majority of seats), or by forming a coalition. In very rare cases (such as the provincial legislature of BC where I live), the #2 party and the #3 party can join to form government; Quite unusual though.

But back to the original point, that riding based systems also have the same problem as the electoral college in that there are really only a few 'battleground' ridings, (or states in the US case).  I read somewhere that election spending in Ohio is 30x what it is in most states (per capita), because Ohio is a swing state.  https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/11/01/163632378/a-campaign-map-morphed-by-money

[Stray Electron]

Did you forget the paper ballot fiasco on Florida. The results detirmined a Presidential election. Does the term " hanging chad ring a bell"? After the election, a local Florida newspaper did a careful recount of the paper ballots and many were inconclusive.

  I'm calling Bull ShITE on this one. I was a resident of Florida during that election and after the election the ballots were turned over to the Florida Secretary of State where they still remain. NO newspaper had access to them then or now so no such newspaper recount was possible.

   Nice try though.   

   Q: would you really be stupid enough to believe a newspaper's count of the results of an election? Not just Florida or in the US but anywhere.   If you are, George Soros wants to hire you!