Did FPTP kill People in the USA?

[Finder]

T he Electoral College is more than just an antiquated anachronism that can misfire and elect the candidate who loses the national vote; it has come to establish and entrench political inequality. When Hurricane Katrina struck Louisiana in 2005, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were slow to go to the scene. The 2004 campaign certainly hadn't helped them know the way; in the last five weeks of the campaign, the major party presidential and vice-presidential candidates traveled a whipping 61 times to Florida, but not once to Louisiana and 25 other states.

As proven definitively in FairVote's new reports The Shrinking Battleground and Who Picks the President?, the Electoral College system will, if not reformed, relegate two-thirds of Americans to the sidelines during presidential elections for years to come. Today, record-setting campaign resources are targeted at just a handful of states. Voter mobilization money, advertising dollars, campaign energy, candidate visits and almost certainly policy decisions are all spent to sway voters in roughly a dozen states. That number of competitive states is far smaller -and more consistent election to election- than it was just two decades ago. The result is rapidly growing inequality in voter turnout, especially among young people. Racial fairness is undermined because these states are disproportionately white.

The American people have reliably supported a national popular vote for president, but public support has not led to change. Reform efforts have started and ended in Congress as Constitutional Amendments. Even in 1969, when more than 80% of House Members voted for direct election and backers included the NAACP, AFLI-CIO, Chamber of Commerce, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Senate opponents were able to kill direct elections with a filibuster.

The problems the Electoral College created in the 1960s were real, but nothing like what it does to democracy today. Still, reformers' despair about the potential to abolish the Electoral College has severely limited debate about what the Electoral College does to our modern democracy. To correct this failure, in 2005 FairVote established our Presidential Elections Reform program. We have helped show that our talk of a national vote for president is not just an intellectual exercise. The program has helped develop a coalition of groups and individuals to support the National Popular Vote campaign designed to achieve a national popular vote for president through action in the states. The program's major reports The Shrinking Battleground and Who Picks the President? have established with clarity and power that electing the president state by state rather than nationally hurts our democracy.

This publication collects these reports and other fact sheets and writings from the Presidential Elections Reform program. We believe it will be an essential resource for those seeking to base American democracy on every American having an equal and meaningful vote.

You might all know that I'm a member of Fare Vote Canada a non partisian group with representation from all the major Canadian political parties in an effort to push for a new system. Often pushing for MMP (A mix of FPTP and PR) in the provinces and in Ottawa.

This poltiical journal came from fair vote USA's website and I thought it brought yet another argument to the field. Some of you may think it's a little too abstract, but I don't think it can just be dismissed completely even by those here that may believe in pure FPTP.

 

[FiveParadox]

:arrow: My Position on First-Past-the-Post

In my opinion, the First-Past-the-Post system is one which, in terms of Canada, must be retained in order for our system of governance to continue to function effectively and represent the citizens of Canada. I would support a system where, say, 205 seats in the House of Commons are elected by continued FPTP elections, and the remainder of the 103 seats (by way of example) would be distributed between the parties recognized by Elections Canada in accordance with their popular vote.

Each citizen must continue to have a member responsible to their contituency in particular, and each member must be accountable to the electorate. In this sense, I suppose I support FPTP; however, by way of a compromise, I would be supportive of a mixed system.

 

[Finder]

How'd I know you were going to say something like that. Of course we both believe generally in MMP.

But what did you think of the Journal argument?

 

[FiveParadox]

I do not have a true understanding of the electoral college system, so I couldn't comment on anything in particular. At first glance it seems to be a somewhat stupid idea, to be honest; somewhat redundant.

 

[Finder]

Well just like pure FPTP in Canada I think it out lived it's day, but it still has benifits. But I really think they should keep the electoral collage, but just make it a little more PR so that the electoral votes are not winner take all. Thus so even if you lose in a state, by lets say, 51% to 49% it's not winner takes all. It doesn't have to be pure PR even. You could have it where winner takes 2/3's or 3/4's deepending on the margin of victory. This way States are not completely ignored or not cared about by presidents who don't win in them later, or have no chance in winning I should add. Though just like FPTP here there are many in the USA who just want to keep pure FPTP and just don't wanna here about even a slight reform.

I'm glade your sticking to your MPP guns Paradox. =-D

 

[FiveParadox]

I am not opposed to reform, in its entirety — although in light of our extensive debates in the past in terms of reforming the system here in Canada, Finder, I think you would have to agree that I am perhaps a tad conservative when it comes to such reforms. In my opinion, though, I have at least made progress in reaching a compromise.

However, in light of this conservatism, I oppose ideas for the direct election of the Senate of Canada; I oppose any sort of election-related requirements for the appointments of judges and justices; and I oppose the direct election, or overt partisanship, of Her Majesty's representative in Canada.

But that much should be quite clear, by now.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Did FPTP kill People in the USA?

I am not opposed to reform, in its entirety — although in light of our extensive debates in the past in terms of reforming the system here in Canada, Finder, I think you would have to agree that I am perhaps a tad conservative when it comes to such reforms. In my opinion, though, I have at least made progress in reaching a compromise.

However, in light of this conservatism, I oppose ideas for the direct election of the Senate of Canada; I oppose any sort of election-related requirements for the appointments of judges and justices; and I oppose the direct election, or overt partisanship, of Her Majesty's representative in Canada.

But that much should be quite clear, by now.

I think we both made it clear in the whole judges thread that we agreed on that much and on the senate, FPTP, MMP or prov appointed would do me good.

 

[Lotuslander]

I think the title of this thread a tad misleading to say the least. Just because presidential candidates don't have to campaign in every state doesn't mean they don't care about the people there.

In some ways the electoral college is a good thing, it gives disproportionate weight to smaller states which are usually overlooked and makes candidtates go where they otherwise would not. In other ways it is archaic and discriminatory. Perhaps one of the worst aspect of the electoral college system is that it excludes candidates from places. Most years a Republican candidate would have little need to go to California or New York where a Democrat is almost assured to win. Likewise there is not much hope of a Democrat pulling off an upset in Louisiana or Mississippi. I think this has helped lead to the polarisation of America which some talk about, the divergent culture of Red state versus Blue state. As well it disproportionately gives influence to states and the cultural or ethnic groups therein which they do not deserve. The Cuban population in Cuba springs to mind. Or Ohio,Tennesse.

Would a new formula for the electoral college work?

Some have proposed giving a third of electoral college votes to the loser of the state. This is a good idea but which loser? There are usually at least three candidates on the ballot of every state. It seems somewhat unfair to me to give the votes only to the person who finished second. Furthermore, even if this were to happen I am not sure the outcome would change that much. The Republican candidate would pick up some votes in California while the Democrat would pick up votes in the South, the outcome would be the same we would just use a slightly different system to get there and since the winner still gets two thirds or three quarters of the state's EC votes Republicans woudl still not campaign in California.

As for having a truly proportional system (which I am not advocating) it runs risks as well most especially that there is a very good chance that no candidate would receive a majority of the popular vote, you could also see a third party candidate winning a plurality. I think this would lead to two rounds of voting but, this would require another constitutional amendment to terminate the right of the House of Representatives to vote for President in the event of a tie or lack of a outright winner in the electoral college.

Personally I think the US political system is so poorly designed in the first place they would be best to start from scratch and replace it with some form of parliamentary government.

As for PR in Canada. I'm totally opposed we already have a fractured parliament and any form of PR would exacerbate the problem. Even worse a PR system could institutionalise a centre left coalition in this country and cause governmental turnover to cease.

 

[Finder]

my fault, I knew someone would point that out, but I wanted a title which would bring people in to read the journal article. =-D

 

[Finder]

On top of that I can't believe Paradox you would make it sound as if the NDP were lieing. These are quotes from excerts on CTV's website. Please tell me how you can believe his words are being twisted by the NDP!!!!!!

"I believe that the discontent expressed by Canadians on this matter cannot be attributed merely to the machinations of partisan politics," said Shapiro.

"Fairly or unfairly, this particular instance has given many citizens a sense that their vote -- the cornerstone of our democratic system -- was somehow devalued, if not betrayed."

Shapiro said he can only follow existing rules, but added, "in the final analysis, the most appropriate place to settle issues of this kind is not in the office of the ethics commissioner but in Parliament itself."

EDIT:
Source
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...emerson_ethics_060320/20060320?hub=TopStories

 

[I think not]

Interesting post Finder, I'm not quite sure where to begin. Perhaps I'll start with FPTP. Whether or not FPTP works, depends on the political structure of a country, for example the US.

The US elects it's President, House of Representatives and Senate seperately. I think it's fair to say, implementing something other than FPTP during a Presidential election would be useless, only one person can govern, something along the lines of proportional representation simply wouldn't work.

Whereas the House of Representatives is voted in via FPTP, it can however, to a certain extent, be considered proportional representation, in terms of population (which it is by state population). It is true, a representative running in a district that gets the majority of votes will win the seat in the House, I really can't think of a way proportional representation would work in this situation. You can have 3 or 4 delegates running for office competing against one seat within a district. It doesn't appear proportional representation can be applied, or I just don't understand the mechanics of it. The seats in the House are restricted by the population shift from one state to another, holding firm at 435 representatives across the Union.

The US Senate is slightly different from the House. Two Senators are elected from each state regardless of population, again, winner takes the seat. Again I can't see how proportional representation could be applied.

As for the Electoral College, I am personally an advocate, it has strong points and it has weak points. The Electoral College keep in mind is only implemented during Presidential elections. Contrary to what an earlier poster claimed, the electoral college promotes cohesiveness by distributing the vote throughout the country, if the Electoral College didn't exist, New York, California with a few other states could win every time. The Electroal College prevents that. An example for you in Canada would be, by the time Quebec and Ontario have voted, it's pretty much over. Another major factor in my opinion is that the Electoral College enhances minority interests which can go virtually unnoticed.

There are flaws however with the Electoral College, the largest one being electing a minority President, at this point he is not representative of the people and perhaps the issue that it promotes a two-party system. Other parties can and do participate (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader), but it is difficult to get support from the people if you don't have campaign money.

As for the American political structure, it isn't perfect by no stretch of the imagination, but I believe it to need minor adjustments. The checks and balances for example (which I hold dear) can only be achieved through this type of system of government. We need to change a few things, but not much, just my opinion.

 

[Kreskin]

I like the idea of an elected Senate with seats elected during Provincial elections. Rather than the Canadian Senate become a mirror of Federal elections the focus would be on Provincial representation in Federal politics.

 

[FiveParadox]

Finder, while an interesting article, the fact remains that the Ethics Commissioner of Canada has not acted as an advocate for the enactment of anti-floor-crossing legislation — nowhere has he said anything that would lead me to believe otherwise. I have read the entire report, and the furthest that Dr. Shapiro goes is to suggest that the situation should be discussed in Parliament rather than the OEC.

 

[Finder]

I think you should read into what he has said on TV and has been quoted into saying. Here let me quote him again.

"I believe that the discontent expressed by Canadians on this matter cannot be attributed merely to the machinations of partisan politics," said Shapiro.

"Fairly or unfairly, this particular instance has given many citizens a sense that their vote -- the cornerstone of our democratic system -- was somehow devalued, if not betrayed."

Shapiro said he can only follow existing rules, but added, "in the final analysis, the most appropriate place to settle issues of this kind is not in the office of the ethics commissioner but in Parliament itself."

Paradox unless you think Mr Shapiro believes in an anti democratic system and he said that to show how well it is working, I think "was somehow devalued, if not betrayed." and he goes on to say how he believes it should be fixed "the most appropriate place to settle issues of this kind is not in the office of the ethics commissioner but in Parliament itself".

He basically saying if you have watched the interviews and him in the newspapers that yeah it's with in the law to do this, and I think it's wrong, but my hands are tied and I'm not going to change this but parliment has the ability to (wink wink nudge nudge).

 

[Finder]

Interesting post Finder, I'm not quite sure where to begin. Perhaps I'll start with FPTP. Whether or not FPTP works, depends on the political structure of a country, for example the US.

The US elects it's President, House of Representatives and Senate seperately. I think it's fair to say, implementing something other than FPTP during a Presidential election would be useless, only one person can govern, something along the lines of proportional representation simply wouldn't work.

Whereas the House of Representatives is voted in via FPTP, it can however, to a certain extent, be considered proportional representation, in terms of population (which it is by state population). It is true, a representative running in a district that gets the majority of votes will win the seat in the House, I really can't think of a way proportional representation would work in this situation. You can have 3 or 4 delegates running for office competing against one seat within a district. It doesn't appear proportional representation can be applied, or I just don't understand the mechanics of it. The seats in the House are restricted by the population shift from one state to another, holding firm at 435 representatives across the Union.

The US Senate is slightly different from the House. Two Senators are elected from each state regardless of population, again, winner takes the seat. Again I can't see how proportional representation could be applied.

As for the Electoral College, I am personally an advocate, it has strong points and it has weak points. The Electoral College keep in mind is only implemented during Presidential elections. Contrary to what an earlier poster claimed, the electoral college promotes cohesiveness by distributing the vote throughout the country, if the Electoral College didn't exist, New York, California with a few other states could win every time. The Electroal College prevents that. An example for you in Canada would be, by the time Quebec and Ontario have voted, it's pretty much over. Another major factor in my opinion is that the Electoral College enhances minority interests which can go virtually unnoticed.

There are flaws however with the Electoral College, the largest one being electing a minority President, at this point he is not representative of the people and perhaps the issue that it promotes a two-party system. Other parties can and do participate (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader), but it is difficult to get support from the people if you don't have campaign money.

As for the American political structure, it isn't perfect by no stretch of the imagination, but I believe it to need minor adjustments. The checks and balances for example (which I hold dear) can only be achieved through this type of system of government. We need to change a few things, but not much, just my opinion.

But I think it raises the ethical question which Katrina, brought up. It is evident that Bush didn't care two sh*ts about Louisiana, his slow reaction time in acting to avoid first a catastophy and then reacting to it, mirrors almost is ability to visit states which are battle grounds during an election and totally jump Louisiana since it is completely usless to him during an election. However I'm not saying this was the only cause but it could be an ethical argument to change the electoral collage to not reflect the winner take all aditude it currently has. FPTP in the states you could argue has killed people by making Louisiana a state where the president has no interest in since he has very little support in it. However if they changed the system so a postion depending on the vote results goes to the loser then Bush would have a reason, or any president would have a reason to care about every state.

 

[Lotuslander]

I think not wrote:

Whereas the House of Representatives is voted in via FPTP, it can however, to a certain extent, be considered proportional representation, in terms of population (which it is by state population). It is true, a representative running in a district that gets the majority of votes will win the seat in the House, I really can't think of a way proportional representation would work in this situation. You can have 3 or 4 delegates running for office competing against one seat within a district. It doesn't appear proportional representation can be applied, or I just don't understand the mechanics of it. The seats in the House are restricted by the population shift from

The only way true PR can work is if the whole state is one district and you vote for a party not an individual. Of course this has many drawbacks. In some place most notably Ireland and Tasmania a form of proportional representation called multi-member-single-transferable-vote is used. This would work something like this. California has 53 House members I believe. Instead of the state being divided up 53 times it would be divided into 8 districts each with between 6 and seven representatives. When you go to the poll on election day you would get a ballot with7 Republicans and 7 Democrats on the ballot plus Green party etc.. since each District has seven members you would have seven votes which you could split amongst the parties however you want (you would still vote for candidates not a party). You mark your ballot 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 your first vote is counted first. If your first preference is not elected then your second preference is counted instead and it goes on till all the seats in California are filled. (Sometimes ballot counting works differently and there are at least 2 or three ways in which the ballots can be counted but, as I am not an expert on the process I'll leave it for another day).

 

[Finder]

I think not wrote:

Whereas the House of Representatives is voted in via FPTP, it can however, to a certain extent, be considered proportional representation, in terms of population (which it is by state population). It is true, a representative running in a district that gets the majority of votes will win the seat in the House, I really can't think of a way proportional representation would work in this situation. You can have 3 or 4 delegates running for office competing against one seat within a district. It doesn't appear proportional representation can be applied, or I just don't understand the mechanics of it. The seats in the House are restricted by the population shift from

The only way true PR can work is if the whole state is one district and you vote for a party not an individual. Of course this has many drawbacks. In some place most notably Ireland and Tasmania a form of proportional representation called multi-member-single-transferable-vote is used. This would work something like this. California has 53 House members I believe. Instead of the state being divided up 53 times it would be divided into 8 districts each with between 6 and seven representatives. When you go to the poll on election day you would get a ballot with7 Republicans and 7 Democrats on the ballot plus Green party etc.. since each District has seven members you would have seven votes which you could split amongst the parties however you want (you would still vote for candidates not a party). You mark your ballot 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 your first vote is counted first. If your first preference is not elected then your second preference is counted instead and it goes on till all the seats in California are filled. (Sometimes ballot counting works differently and there are at least 2 or three ways in which the ballots can be counted but, as I am not an expert on the process I'll leave it for another day).

Nobody in canada is really calling for Pure PR.

Mostly we are calling for MMP a mixture of PR and FPTP. however for some reason in BC they keep trying to bring back STV which I personally don't like.

Really I agree with what the experts have said on the matter that Canada should have a mixture of Proportional representation by provinces and FPTP seats.

I couldn't imagine what a STV government for Canada would look like.... It would be scary!!! STV is like flipping a coin at times.

 

[I think not]

But I think it raises the ethical question which Katrina, brought up. It is evident that Bush didn't care two sh*ts about Louisiana, his slow reaction time in acting to avoid first a catastophy and then reacting to it, mirrors almost is ability to visit states which are battle grounds during an election and totally jump Louisiana since it is completely usless to him during an election. However I'm not saying this was the only cause but it could be an ethical argument to change the electoral collage to not reflect the winner take all aditude it currently has. FPTP in the states you could argue has killed people by making Louisiana a state where the president has no interest in since he has very little support in it. However if they changed the system so a postion depending on the vote results goes to the loser then Bush would have a reason, or any president would have a reason to care about every state.

From your point of view, any President would have the same reaction during the time this occured. Bush had already won, he was in his second and final term in office. You have to realize there is also a political cost of what happened. Bush's approval rating dropped like a brick in the aftermath of Katrina. He is President, but he is still part of the Republican party, and there have been consequences already from mishandling Katrina. You're trying to tie the electoral college with deaths related to disasters? I can't see any connection.

 

[I think not]

The only way true PR can work is if the whole state is one district and you vote for a party not an individual. Of course this has many drawbacks. In some place most notably Ireland and Tasmania a form of proportional representation called multi-member-single-transferable-vote is used. This would work something like this. California has 53 House members I believe. Instead of the state being divided up 53 times it would be divided into 8 districts each with between 6 and seven representatives. When you go to the poll on election day you would get a ballot with7 Republicans and 7 Democrats on the ballot plus Green party etc.. since each District has seven members you would have seven votes which you could split amongst the parties however you want (you would still vote for candidates not a party). You mark your ballot 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 your first vote is counted first. If your first preference is not elected then your second preference is counted instead and it goes on till all the seats in California are filled. (Sometimes ballot counting works differently and there are at least 2 or three ways in which the ballots can be counted but, as I am not an expert on the process I'll leave it for another day).

If this is the way it works, we would need a constitutional amendment, which would require 2/3 of the Senate to pass the bill. I'm not sure if the pro's outweigh the con's to such a system, other than more parties representing government.

 

[Jay]

You're trying to tie the electoral college with deaths related to disasters? I can't see any connection.

Well proportional representation killed a good friend of mine you know!