US Presidential Elections.

[apathy maybe]

Is the US Presidential electoral process "democratic"? What reform, if any, would make it more "democratic"? Please defend your assessment with data from more than one US electoral cycle.
Word Limit:2000, Word Count: ~2013


The US Presidential electoral process is considered, with good reason, not to be 'democratic'. The case of less then fifty percent of registered voters, voting; and less then fifty percent of those voting for Clinton in 19961, is a fine example of why. There are however, a number of reforms that would make the system of electing a president in the US more representative. For that is what is generally meant when a person speaks of democracy, not truly rule by the people, but rather rule by their representatives. These reforms would affect not just the process of voting and of counting the votes, but also the advertising and campaigning before any election.

What is democracy? Literally the word means 'rule by the people'. If we take this definition we can point to no country on Earth that is literally 'democratic'. Nowadays, however, it tends to be taken as meaning "rule by the peoples' representatives". If this second definition is taken as the meaning, then a number of rules must be put in place to define how the representatives are selected, and how they govern. Firstly, the representative must be selected by the people (through elections generally); with out this a despot could claim to be 'representing' the people. Secondly this selection process must be fair, universal and free; all people (generally narrowed down to citizens) must have an equal vote, and be able to vote with out fear or favour. Thirdly, the representative must be 'representative' of the people (generally accepted as the majority) or at least their wishes. Representative 'democracy' will rarely produce a candidate who enjoys 100% support, but it will generally produce a candidate supported by the majority of people.

If we take these rules and apply them to the USA Presidential election we can see that it does not fit the first rule (selection by the people), nor fully the second rule (fair, free and universal) or fully the third rule. The Electoral College system, through which the President and his Vice are selected, does not always represent the majority viewpoint. This results in a weak mandate and conflicts with the need for representing the people's wishes as who does he represent? The people who elected him or the majority? Also once elected the President is not held to any promises made during the campaign. As to the conflict with the second rule, outlawing felons from voting (even after they have served their time), non-compulsory voting and date of election (on which many poor people work) prevent a universal election. While it is accepted that all people have an equal vote, in many cases because of the voting system (which changes across counties) many people's votes do not even get counted (the infamous 'hanging chad', was only a small problem among many), the weight of money also means that some people have more influence then others.

The current US Presidential electoral process produces a weak mandate for the reason above, a person can become president with less the a quarter of the eligible voters voting for him or her. One of the reasons this happens is because voting is not compulsory. It is accepted in the US by many political theorists that if a person does not vote, then they are happy with either the status quo or with whoever got elected. Generally from minorities, many people do not vote because they feel disenfranchised. They feel that the system is rigged so that their voice will not be heard anyway, so why bother voting. And because the voting system is 'first past the post' (in the majority of instances) this leads to a situation where it is theoretically possible for a President to be elected with 10% support of the people who voted, with only 10% of people voting (or one percent support).

Compulsory voting is currently not in place in the USA because it would restrict the freedoms of people, i.e. they would lose their right to not take part in the political process. However, as has been seen, this results in large segments of the population not voting, and thus not being represented. While many people do not vote in elections because they are happy with the way things are, many people are apathetic or disenfranchised. This then leads to the minorities that did not vote feeling even more disenfranchised. If voting was made compulsory in the presidential elections it would mean more people voting. Since 1976, less then 55 percent of those registered have voted in Presidential elections, less then 75 percent of eligible people registered.2 This leads to results where less then fifty percent of those voting voted for a candidate, that candidate winning and thus having less then fifty percent of fifty-five percent of 75 percent support (in some cases that is less then 20 percent of the population)!

Preferential voting would enable people to vote in order of whom they would most prefer to be elected (or in some cases who they would least dislike to be elected). This and the previous idea would help to legitimate the President as any president would have to get a majority of the people voting, and because everyone is voting, it is a majority of the people. Enabling people to preference certain candidates ahead of others would prevent what happened in 2000, where many Democrat Party supporters blamed Ralph Nader (the Green candidate) for the lose of Al Gore (the Democrat candidate). With Gore 'loosing' in Florida (and thus the election) by less then 500 votes, many of his supports blame Nader for 'stealing' Gore's votes. While it is certain if Nader had not been running, that many of the people who voted for him would have voted for Gore, many others would have voted for one of the Socialist candidates (who all received more then 500 votes each in Florida3).

The Electoral College system was designed because the 'Founding Fathers', did not trust the people. While there are some arguments for this indirect voting (including that the states opinions are more important then political minorities) it is fundamentally 'undemocratic'. The 'Founding Fathers' even saw this, they felt there needed to be a check in place to prevent the mob from ruling. Enabling direct election of the President would over rule the problems with the Electoral College. If the College is not removed, it can still be made more 'democratic'.

The 'winner takes all' nature of the Electoral College is also something, which is 'undemocratic'. In all, but two, states if a parties candidates for the College get a plurality of votes, that party receives all the places. The reason for this is to provide a 'magnifying effect' for the winning candidates' victory margin with in states4 (e.g. in the 2000 election in California, the Republican candidate (Bush)received 42 percent of the popular vote, however, the Democrat candidate (Gore) won 100 percent of the Electoral College votes5). A system of proportional representativeness, where in the above example Gore would receive approximately 52 percent of the Electoral College positions (27), Bush would receive 48 percent (25) and Nader would get 2 College votes. If this was taken over the rest of the country it would enable a more representative College and thus a President that more accurately reflected the people's wishes. At the end of the 1992, elections Clinton who had only won 43 percent of the popular vote received 68.8 percent of the College votes. In 1996, he received 49 percent of the popular vote and received 70.4 percent of the College votes. The Reform Party candidate received 8 percent of the popular vote, and received zero percent of the College votes. These statistics show that the Electoral College system is capable of producing large differences between the popular vote and the vote given to the President. If it was meant to be democratic it would be more representative.

The Electoral College and the office of President it self, both tend to limit the number of parties. The office is only one, and as such two parties tend to contest it. There is no room in both the office and the Electoral College for a third party. So while third parties and independents regularly run they do not generally have the media attention or the campaign funds to make an impact, even if they did, they are unlikely to be represented in the Electoral College, let alone the single member Presidency. The last time a third party was represented in the College was 19686.

Currently in the USA large amount of money are needed to get a campaign running. If you do not have the cash, you do not have a chance. In 1992, Bush had $90 Million dollars spent by his campaign or on his behalf, Clinton $130 Million7. While there are limits on how much money a person can donate to a candidate, and a prevention of organisations such as labour unions and corporations from donating money directly to a candidate, there is no limit on the amount that a person or organisation can donate to the party committee8 or a 'political action committee' (PAC). These PACs are allowed to donate up to $5000 to a candidate and more importantly, are allowed to spend an unlimited amount on campaigning for or against a particular candidate.9 This means that candidates that do not have the support of large organisations or wealthy individuals are not likely to have as much money spent for them as other candidates. While the national government provides funds for parties, it requires success in previous elections and other conditions apply. These vast funds are used generally for advertising. Because it is hard for individuals or small parties to raise the amount of money needed reforms could limit the amount of advertising (on radio, TV, newspapers, signs etc.) that was allowed by or for a candidate; however, in a court case it was found that the Congress had no right to limit spending as this was seen as an infringement of freedom of speech.10 Another reform that would make it more equal for candidates and thus make the election fairer and more 'democratic' is making it compulsory for networks to provide equal time for candidates.

For historical reasons the Presidential election is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Today however, these reasons are no longer valid and prevent many poorer people from voting. You also need the ability to get off work to go and vote; the date is on a Tuesday and for this reason many people are unable to vote (they are unable to get the day off work). Changing the day election is held on to a Saturday would enable more people to vote. While in many states Election Day is a holiday, in many others not even the bars are closed.

The problem of having different voting systems across counties all so leads to a lower turnout and thus discrimination. Because each county has a different system (or potentially different system) if a person moves regularly they may not know how to use a particular system. It may also discriminate against older voters or people who do not speak English. Having a national system for voting and for vote counting would eliminate the problems of different systems, including other languages (particularly Spanish) on ballet papers and instructions would also enable these citizens to vote.

While the present system for electing the US President is not truly 'democratic', reforms needed are many. Such things as changing the day the election is held on, while small, require constitutional changes. Other reforms can be implemented at a state level, these are more likely to happen, however, it is unlikely that they would happen across the country. Because of these problems it would probably be better (if one wanted a more 'democratic' system) to scrap the entire model and start from again. However, the system currently in place was not meant to be democratic, only to provide a system of rule.



references

1 http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/summ.htm, cited 8/5/2004.

2 http://www.fec.gov/votregis/turn/natto.htm, cited 8/5/2004.

3Stupid White Men, M. Moore. (HyperColins Publishers Inc.: USA, 2001.) p.255

4The Electoral College: How it Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections, T.H. Neale. (CRS Report for Congress, 2001.)

5 http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm, cited 8/5/2004. Statistics were converted to rough percentages.

6 http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/arch...ect00/table.htm (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/archive/elect00/table.htm), cited 9/10/2004.

7 http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0996/ijde/alex.htm, cited 6/5/2004

8 http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/structu...ook-potter.html (http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/structure/book-potter.html), cited 6/5/2004

9The Buying of the President, C. Lewis, A. Benes, M. O'Brien. (Avon Books: USA, 1996.) p.9

10The Road to the Whitehouse 1992, S.J. Wayne. (St. Martin's Press: USA, 1992.) p. 33

(not part of the essay)
The belief that enhanced understanding will necessarily stir a nation to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions.

[Poderosa III]

I'm impressed, it's a damn good essay, made a lot of good points.

[RedAnarchist]

I concur. Its very good and you have written it very well.

[apathy maybe]

Well thanks chaps. I did think that the bit on the Electoral College was over done. I think it is about 500 words, far too much when what could be done is simply abolish the thing.
I did need more on the money aspect. But I did't have references in front of me for most of the time I was writing it, and so it is only small.

[Funky Monk]

Very good, although if you were looking to further it i would advise you to include more specific examples.
Partially related:
Did you hear about that farmer who ran in the Republican senate race for somewhere? Spent $1 for each constituency, and managed to win with a budget of just $200. When he was in the race proper he advised his followers to vote Democrat.

[apathy maybe]

I had a word limit of 2000 words. I used over that anyway.
I probably should point out that I'm not a USA citizen, nor even living in North America.

[Funky Monk]

Quite a tough limit, hell im over a 2500 word limit when covering something a lot less expansive than that.


To be honest i think it is a lot better to write about something like hte electoral system when you come from somewhere far away, allows youy to be more objective.

[redstar2000]

Also once elected the President is not held to any promises made during the campaign.

Even though it was only one line in your essay, I think this is by far your strongest point and the crippling weakness of "bourgeois democracy" considered abstractly...there is no accountability of the "representatives" to the people who elect them.

We are asked to write a "blank check" every so often...but if our "representative" chooses to "fill in the blanks" with imperialist war, tax breaks for the rich, abolition of social welfare programs, quasi-fascist repressive laws, etc., it is not he who suffers, it's us!

Is there a reform that could "fix" that? Sure. Run an opinion poll every week; as soon as public approval of him among adult citizens drops below 50%, out he goes and a new election is scheduled.

Will they do that?

No.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[James]

hmm
Well if they go back on their word, the people won't vote them in next time.
If they do re-elect a bastard, thats the fault of the people: not the system.

"the people deserve the government they get"

Also i disagree that politicians should have to court the very tempremental public opinion in such a manner.
One very good aspectof the UK system is that if a prime minister is VERY unpopular, the MPs can pass a vote of no confidence.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:55 PM
hmm
Well if they go back on their word, the people won't vote them in next time.
If they do re-elect a bastard, thats the fault of the people: not the system.

"the people deserve the government they get"

Also i disagree that politicians should have to court the very tempremental public opinion in such a manner.
One very good aspectof the UK system is that if a prime minister is VERY unpopular, the MPs can pass a vote of no confidence.
hmm great, and then elect another capitalist bastard, you genius.

If the PM comes under attack from the left, then big business and the establishment will come to his aid (eg For Blair, Conservative support, Media Support and Hutton Report).

How is it fair that he/she can be supported by a more powerful minority than a weaker majority?

[James]

Kamo, i assume that your point is also directed at Redstars comment: which mine was in response to
i.e. "Is there a reform that could "fix" that? Sure. Run an opinion poll every week; as soon as public approval of him among adult citizens drops below 50%, out he goes and a new election is scheduled."


How is it fair that he/she can be supported by a more powerful minority than a weaker majority?

Pardon?

[Funky Monk]

I think Kamo is making an attack on the majoritarian system.

Well Kamo, as James has already said "people deserve the government they get" this effectively means that if someone doesnt vote they forfeit the right to complain. Hence a minority can get a President elected because other people do not oppose them

[redstar2000]

Also I disagree that politicians should have to court the very temperamental public opinion in such a manner.

Either "representative" means what it says or it doesn't.

Whether public opinion is "temperamental" or not is irrelevant. Once an office holder loses the support of the majority, out s/he goes!

If that means s/he has to "pay close attention" to what the majority actually wants, well, isn't that the idea?

As things stand now, those rich bastards have a license to "run amok" for two years, four years, six years, etc. Even if they are deposed in a subsequent election...what's their "punishment" for being brazen liars in the previous election that they won?

A book contract worth millions, a lucrative speaking tour, membership on corporate boards of directors, a fat pension for life, etc. How's that for a "deterrent"?

After all, what is an election but a public opinion poll taken on a certain date? What makes that date "sacred" and all subsequent dates "irrelevant"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[James]

Either "representative" means what it says or it doesn't.

Representatives are not delegates. And i'm glad about this.


Whether public opinion is "temperamental" or not is irrelevant. Once an office holder loses the support of the majority, out s/he goes!

But public opinion can be easily swayed - look at the US for example - it was alarming the amount that thought Saddam was linked to Bin Laden.


If that means s/he has to "pay close attention" to what the majority actually wants, well, isn't that the idea?

Well they do in the UK, as i demonstrated.


As things stand now, those rich bastards have a license to "run amok" for two years, four years, six years, etc. Even if they are deposed in a subsequent election...what's their "punishment" for being brazen liars in the previous election that they won?

I believe the US system has a re-call option. I'm not sure about this though...


After all, what is an election but a public opinion poll taken on a certain date? What makes that date "sacred" and all subsequent dates "irrelevant"?

And if you look at the way public opinion swings - it is clear governments would change constantly.
Personally, i don't like governments that are only there for a brief period of time.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 04:53 PM

Either "representative" means what it says or it doesn't.

Representatives are not delegates. And i'm glad about this.


Whether public opinion is "temperamental" or not is irrelevant. Once an office holder loses the support of the majority, out s/he goes!

But public opinion can be easily swayed - look at the US for example - it was alarming the amount that thought Saddam was linked to Bin Laden.


If that means s/he has to "pay close attention" to what the majority actually wants, well, isn't that the idea?

Well they do in the UK, as i demonstrated.


As things stand now, those rich bastards have a license to "run amok" for two years, four years, six years, etc. Even if they are deposed in a subsequent election...what's their "punishment" for being brazen liars in the previous election that they won?

I believe the US system has a re-call option. I'm not sure about this though...


After all, what is an election but a public opinion poll taken on a certain date? What makes that date "sacred" and all subsequent dates "irrelevant"?

And if you look at the way public opinion swings - it is clear governments would change constantly.
Personally, i don't like governments that are only there for a brief period of time.
my earlier post was in response to you.

Now let us look at your post.

"Representatives are not delegates. And i'm glad about this."
-Ah yes, because the working class is too stupid to make its own decisions, and therefore we need "better" people to make decisions for us.
- Hows about we have direct democracy, where only the peoples voice is recognised, and not of those who have great bundles of money to throw around for their private interests...

"But public opinion can be easily swayed - look at the US for example - it was alarming the amount that thought Saddam was linked to Bin Laden."
- Yes, and whose fault was that???!?!? it was our glorious "representatives" who told us this!! and the media who support the establishment...

"Well they do in the UK, as i demonstrated."
-Since when do they pay close attention to what the majority are saying?
-do the majority want tuition fees? No
-Do the majority want foundation hospitals? No
-Did the majority want this war? No
-How on earth are they representing us?

"I believe the US system has a re-call option. I'm not sure about this though..."
-Hmm, great so another wanker who is a lackey of the capitalists can come to power, brilliant. If the recall option was a genuine option then there wouldnt be 30 million people in the US under the poverty line.
- The bolsheviks wanted an immediate recall, but at that time there was no big business to smear the genuine authenticity of a recall, ie that a new person would come in.

Comrade Monk:
"Well Kamo, as James has already said "people deserve the government they get" this effectively means that if someone doesnt vote they forfeit the right to complain. Hence a minority can get a President elected because other people do not oppose them"
-This is assuming the people have a choice... Do people see a party which will fight for its interests? No, so is it fair they are forced to have no voice because tehre is no valid option?

[James]

my earlier post was in response to you.

Which was related to Redstars origional comment. So the answer is yes.


"Representatives are not delegates. And i'm glad about this."
-Ah yes, because the working class is too stupid to make its own decisions, and therefore we need "better" people to make decisions for us.
- Hows about we have direct democracy, where only the peoples voice is recognised, and not of those who have great bundles of money to throw around for their private interests...

Representatives are better than delegates because they mean the system can work faster (how are they going to go back and ask all the time? Also - its unworkable. People would get bored). Direct democracy is unworkable with a large population.
Also, such a diverse range of views means that you have one view represented; many other views could be ignored. Not only is this "unfair", but its dangerous for minorities.


"But public opinion can be easily swayed - look at the US for example - it was alarming the amount that thought Saddam was linked to Bin Laden."
- Yes, and whose fault was that???!?!? it was our glorious "representatives" who told us this!! and the media who support the establishment...

Yes... and you think delegates will remain faithful when they are many miles away?
Trade Unionists can also be corrupt you know kamo.

The point is that public opinion is easy to sway.
Having a system that redstar suggests, would be very unproductive, and expensive, as the government would constantly change.


"Well they do in the UK, as i demonstrated."
-Since when do they pay close attention to what the majority are saying?
-do the majority want tuition fees? No

Prove it.
And its not as if it had a landslide kamo - it only passed by a few votes. And that was only because some scotish bastards with no morals voted.


-Do the majority want foundation hospitals? No

prove it


-Did the majority want this war? No

The majority are against it now - but opinion at the time was slightly in favour of the war.
The protests? Well that was 1 million out of HOW many people in the UK?


"I believe the US system has a re-call option. I'm not sure about this though..."
-Hmm, great so another wanker who is a lackey of the capitalists can come to power, brilliant.

This was redstars point kamo...

[DaCuBaN]

Comrade Monk:
"Well Kamo, as James has already said "people deserve the government they get" this effectively means that if someone doesnt vote they forfeit the right to complain. Hence a minority can get a President elected because other people do not oppose them"
-This is assuming the people have a choice... Do people see a party which will fight for its interests? No, so is it fair they are forced to have no voice because tehre is no valid option?

There is still (in my opinion) no excuse for not voting against someone you do not want to be in power. The system we have is there: lump it. Not participating does simply mean that your voice is never heard.

The 'Glorious Revolution' may never come, it may come tomorrow but we need changes now. Sitting out of bourgious politics because you don't believe they 'work' is idiotic when you can do a hell of a lot - not as much as we'd like but a lot - from within that system.


Direct democracy is unworkable with a large population

What's to not work about it? it's laborious and time consuming but so are most forms of labour and governing a nation is (or at least should be) no different.

[James]

well Direct Democracy was okay in the greek city states; where there were only a few actually counted as "the people" - but when you add millions to it... well: you have to go to some form of representation. Otherwise u have too many voices.

[DaCuBaN]

This is idealistic rhetoric, but


well Direct Democracy was okay in the greek city states

The example of the greek city states (inequality aside) is a great one. Lots of thinking happened with very little action. Ideal as far as I'm concerned.

Scaling it up I admit complicates matters, but again this shouldn't be a big problem. If, for example, you issue ID cards you could have 'polling booths' just as you have atm's nowadays - you go each day and see what needs your approval or otherwise. Combine this with a jury-esque system of representation without decision making powers and you have, in my mind at least, an ideal form of government.

The hole in the argument appears when you add the word 'compulsary'. Soon as you force people to vote, it becomes totally unrepresentative: if someone cannot be bothered to vote they shouldn't have a vote.

One thing I've always liked about the UK system: if you don't vote you get dropped of the register. Serves ya right ;)

FYI I'm vehemontly opposed to ID cards.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:20 PM

-Did the majority want this war? No

The majority are against it now - but opinion at the time was slightly in favour of the war.
The protests? Well that was 1 million out of HOW many people in the UK?


"I believe the US system has a re-call option. I'm not sure about this though..."
-Hmm, great so another wanker who is a lackey of the capitalists can come to power, brilliant.

This was redstars point kamo...
The polls indicated consistently against the war.

the protests of 2million were faced by pro-war demonstrations of 0.
Not everyone can get time off work, family commitments, get to london, and protest.

i didnt read redstars point, showing its a point that is accepted on the left.

[redstar2000]

Representatives are not delegates. And I'm glad about this.

Why? Do you like being lied to?


But public opinion can be easily swayed.

So?

Is public opinion "legitimate" on election day and "illegitimate" on every subsequent day until the next election day?


Well they do in the UK, as I demonstrated.

I believe your British colleagues would vehemently disagree.

But, in any event, that's certainly not the case in the U.S.


I believe the US system has a re-call option.

Not at the federal level...where all the real power is. A number of states and municipalities have recall options but they are rarely used. They are just like regular elections here...for sale to the highest bidder.

What I suggested is "cheap and easy"...if your approval rating drops below 50%, out you go.


And if you look at the way public opinion swings - it is clear governments would change constantly. Personally, I don't like governments that are only there for a brief period of time.

Are we discussing your personal tastes here? I don't care for green vegetables myself...so what?

If "representative" actually meant what they claim it means...then yes, it's quite likely that few governments would last a year in office.

All things considered, a considerable improvement over what we have now!


Representatives are better than delegates because they mean the system can work faster (how are they going to go back and ask all the time? Also - it's unworkable. People would get bored).

Are these "arguments" intended seriously? What has "speed" got to do with this question? How do you "know" that "people would get bored"?


Also, such a diverse range of views means that you have one view represented; many other views could be ignored. Not only is this "unfair", but it's dangerous for minorities.

We have that now!


Yes...and you think delegates will remain faithful when they are many miles away?

Their geographical location is, again, irrelevant. Their "approval rating" falls below 50% and out they go!


The point is that public opinion is easy to sway.

Perhaps because the public knows that their opinions don't matter.

If they knew that their opinions would bring down the government, perhaps they would consider matters more thoughtfully and would not be so easily "swayed".


Having a system that redstar suggests, would be very unproductive, and expensive, as the government would constantly change.

What we have now is neither productive nor cheap!

But most importantly, it is not genuinely representative.


And that was only because some Scottish bastards with no morals voted.

:lol:


There is still (in my opinion) no excuse for not voting against someone you do not want to be in power. The system we have is there: lump it. Not participating does simply mean that your voice is never heard.

It is "never heard" NOW!


...but we need changes now. Sitting out of bourgeois politics because you don't believe they 'work' is idiotic when you can do a hell of a lot - not as much as we'd like but a lot - from within that system.

Standard reformist crapola!

But I have actually proposed something other than "sitting out"...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...ndpost&p=392257 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24823&view=findpost&p=392257)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

The point is that public opinion is easy to sway.


Perhaps because the public knows that their opinions don't matter.

If they knew that their opinions would bring down the government, perhaps they would consider matters more thoughtfully and would not be so easily "swayed".


A suitable analogy: The child who is trusted becomes worthy of that trust.


Demonstrate Against Fake Elections!

Now this is a better course of action than apathy. I can totally understand doing this: my whole argument hinged on the fact that leftists purely sit out and as such do nothing for either themselves or their cause.

Personally, up until recently I voted for the SSP - they wanted to DOUBLE the minimum wage in the UK and reform the parliamentary system (amongst others) - so far so good. However they have since tried to 'widen their appeal' by pulling in Scottish Nationalists and claiming they are for independance. They have since lost my vote, and I now have no one to vote for - meaning I will probably have to sit out of this election on the basis there is noone I vehemontly object to over the other candidates.

I may well choose to advocate your proposal, if you do not mind ;)




There is still (in my opinion) no excuse for not voting against someone you do not want to be in power. The system we have is there: lump it. Not participating does simply mean that your voice is never heard.


It is "never heard" NOW!


You guys get it really bad over there with the amount politicians spend on advertising and the like - it means the small man of politics really has no way to join into the system - we actually do get a large number of independants in our UK parliament as it only costs (hah, only) £500 (US$850 approx) + 10 names to sit for a seat. (one of) Our problem is the house of lords, but that's another story.

Again, with the other thread you linked this becomes less relevant because at least some action is being taken, but if you don't advocate what RedStar proposes there, or a similar idea to disrupt or put into disrepute the voting system you really shouldn't be calling yourself a 'revolutionary'


Standard reformist crapola!

Standard hard-line bullshit! You know you're just being pedantic ;)

[apathy maybe]

In my opinion direct democracy is possible even with a large population. Just not for everything. For things that require almost instantanious responces direct democracy does not work. Thus we need a council of representitives (randomly selected) which would make these desicions for us. They would be in position for say a year, then they go back to whatever they were doing and we get a new lot in.

The major problem with having a 'president' or any small group of people to make decisions is that it is un-representitive. So a larger executive randomly selected, not perfect but better then what we have now in either Australia or the USA.


"However, the system currently in place was not meant to be democratic, only to provide a system of rule. "

As to the USA President, I think this sums it up. The system in the USA was not meant to be democratic.

[Kez]

why is it hard for a large population?
If theres a vote, you show on tv for example 3 points of view, each gets same budget, 10minutes each, after which, the view goes to the internet and votes. Simple as that, if the argument is good, then it deserves to win, as they all had an equal platform.

James, stop regurgitating shit from your College Books, theyre bullshite

[Valkyrie]

Representation does not speak for ALL of the people and could only do so if there were equal proportunate representation of all the political parties at the highest levels of governement. Currently, now, it's nowheres near a democracy.

I think direct democracy could work utilizing the internet for such purpose after ironing out the bugs in security and so forth.

[Valkyrie]

Ooops. sorry Kamo, didn't read your post.. But yeah, exactly like that.

[James]

Representation does not speak for ALL of the people

and delegates do?
No; they don't represent the minorities views EVER - because they arn't allowed. What the majority say/think, is represented. And that alone.



Whilst i agree that it would be nice and ideal to have direct democracy - i think it is very unrealistic, unless you are going to have a revolution. Revolution is not likely in the UK though - so reform is the best way forward at the moment.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 03:52 PM
Revolution is not likely in the UK though - so reform is the best way forward at the moment.
According to who?

The left doesnt need pessimists like you to put brakes on the movement.

[Valkyrie]

HEll no, Delegates don't either. Look, I think the whole entire election system is an idiocracy. It's shit. In the US, It was set up in the 1700's, when only white men had the vote.. and generally, that was affluent white men.

I don't believe that the majority are also being represented, because they are basically limited to a two party voting system - the Republicans and the Democrats.. Most of the 3rd parties are never represented because they don't get on the ballot, if they do, they don't have equal access to all States. and they don't get media representation either, which really can make or break their campaign (Just look what they did with Dean) Plus, there's still problems with corporate donations of campaign funding. etc.

The majority are hardly being represented.

[James]

According to who?

The left doesnt need pessimists like you to put brakes on the movement.

Start a revolution tomorrow kamo.


+ + +

Good points - i was replying in this topic with a "reality" frame of mind (capitalist to kamo): i personally don't think revolution is likely - change is most likely to come through reform. And reform usually is only bit by bit.
Thus why my comments may seem "uncool" to some of the little lenin's on here.

[Valkyrie]

I believe in fixing what you can now, or trying to at that end, i.e. reforms in the immediate short-term. But, With the overall goal of a Revolution of long duration, with a quick, perferably clean, overthrow.

I tend to regard the immediate quick fixes as the transitional period leading up to that, rather than the typical Leninist "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" after the revolution is in place.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:22 PM
I believe in fixing what you can now, or trying to at that end, i.e. reforms in the immediate short-term. But, With the overall goal of a Revolution of long duration, with a quick, perferably clean, overthrow.

I tend to regard the immediate quick fixes as the transitional period leading up to that, rather than the typical Leninist "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" after the revolution is in place.
that is 100% correct, and what is proposed by Trotsky (a leninist thru and thru). Read The Transitional Programme.

Of course we should fight for reforms, but only with a view of overthrowing capitalism

[James]

Of course we should fight for reforms, but only with a view of overthrowing capitalism

Does that mean supporting reforms that only have the intention of destroying capitalism?

Or reforms that simply contribute to it, in the long term?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Kez+May 13 2004, 05:40 PM--> (Kez @ May 13 2004, 05:40 PM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 05:22 PM
I believe in fixing what you can now, or trying to at that end, i.e. reforms in the immediate short-term. But, With the overall goal of a Revolution of long duration, with a quick, perferably clean, overthrow.

I tend to regard the immediate quick fixes as the transitional period leading up to that, rather than the typical Leninist "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" after the revolution is in place.
that is 100% correct, and what is proposed by Trotsky (a leninist thru and thru). Read The Transitional Programme.

Of course we should fight for reforms, but only with a view of overthrowing capitalism [/b]
Lenin said that reforms would only perpetuate a false consciousness. He talked of a trade union consciousness where workers would not develop a revolutionary consciousness because trade unions would only ever gain concessions from the ruling class.

[Valkyrie]

Well, for me, reforms consist all all social action, ... like get Mumia out NOW, not wait until the revolution is installed. Feed the Poor Now, not sometime in the future. Squat houses now... fight against the corporate and military machine now. Unionize now... All of it part of the Struggle, and the Struggle itself, the sum parts, to be the transitional period leading up to a wholly transformed condition, -- synthesized in the Revolution.

I think the Revolution IS happening Now. We are in the first stages.. No one can tell me that it isn't. For I have seen for myself comparing it to the last few decades, where there was nothing of this globalized oppositional political climate, and it's finally been correctly pinpointed at globalization and imperialism in mass direct action. How it ends, is based on whether the momentum and the mobilization is retained. Long-term commitment is the key.. because it's definetely going to be a long struggle and not happen overnight, or even in a few years. I think we have a good start.. but some things start out fervent than fizzle out.. We can't let that happen, THIS Time. Anyway.. I'm sure many here would disagree and see no Revolution at all.

Haha! Yeah, Kamo.. I do sort of have a Trotsky stream of thought going on. But, I'm an anarchist thru and thru.

[apathy maybe]

*bump*

I edited the first post to have my new essay. Basicly I edited the old one and made it (I think) better.

[Rasta Sapian]

***************ATTENTION ALL AMERICANS*************************

Please do not re-elect g.w. Bush!

Stop the facism now, stop the war now!

You are all in a deep hole, and Bush is digging you in deeper and deeper!

The rest of the world ie. united nations and european union etc. are against the occupation of Iraq!

But we are not against you, we want to help you! We are your brothers and sisters! I live in Canada and love you all, I am visiting new hampshire for this long weekend!

So please I beg of you to elect Kerry, not for his morals and his party but simply because he is not Bush, and together we can make the world a better place.

may peace be with you all, God Bless

yours truley

Rasta Sapian

[Kez]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 13 2004, 09:34 PM
Lenin said that reforms would only perpetuate a false consciousness. He talked of a trade union consciousness where workers would not develop a revolutionary consciousness because trade unions would only ever gain concessions from the ruling class.
can you gimme sources to this Mao?

James:
"Does that mean supporting reforms that only have the intention of destroying capitalism?

Or reforms that simply contribute to it, in the long term? "

That means putting forward a transitional programme, and at the same time explaining that the workers gains will only be guaranteed when there is no capitalist class toreverse reforms,and only way to do this is thru revolution.

ie in a RMT strike i'd support the strikers, and at same time as supporting their demands, i'd explain why capitalist system with its contradictions cant support us.

[timbaly]

Here is something I posted a while back about why the system of electing the president is flawed. Think about how screwed up the system is then take in to account the fact that representatives don't really represent you, then you see how far from true democracy representative democracy actually is. If we must have a represntative government the rules applied to elections should be, one person equals one vote.

The number of electors a state gets is based partially on the population, those who can not vote are counted and influence how many electors a state gets even thought it's illegalm for them to vote.

Wyoming and Vermont have equal voice in the electoral college, 3 votes each. This is despite the fact that Vermont has a population of 608,827 and Wyoming only has a population of 493,782. (numbers gathered fromthe 2000 census)

Every state gets two electors that represent their senate seats, the others represent their house of reps representatives. The house of reps representatives are based on population to some extent and therefore are decent (but could be much better) as a way to judge how many electoral votes a state has. However the adding of 2 senators drastically changes things, it adds a 200% increase of electors to staes with 1 elector based on the house of reps representatives. However for those sates with more votes per elector the percent increase is smaller, since it's also going to get 2. Take New York as an example which will have 29 representatives if you add the two senators you get 31 electoral votes however the increase from 29 to 31 is only about 6.89% change while states like Vermont get a 200% increase from adding their senators. New Yorks population according to the 2000 census is 18,976,457 divide that by their 31 electors and you get about 612,144 citizens per elector now Take Vermont which has a population of 608,827 divide it by its 3 electoral votes and you get about 202,942 citizens per elector, this shows NY citizens votes are outweighed by that of Vermonts, their individual votes are worth less than those of Vermont and other lowly populated sates.Because of this Bush won the elction, he one most of the smaller states that got a radical percentage increase with the additon of the senators.

[James]

excellent points.
I'll remember those for my re-sit :D

[fuerzasocialista]

The Electoral College is the most anti-Democratic entity that was ever invented.

[apathy maybe]

But it is not just the College (and I disagree with it being the "most anti-Democratic entity that was ever invented", I think Monarchy can claim before it); the whole system is flawed.

But if you do live in the USA, you can make a difference (see various posts about standing for offices, requesting info from govt (under FOI) and publishing, protesting etc).

[James]

I like the electoral college.
I think it should still be state based - but maybe not on a "first-past-the-post" basis. Perhaps introducing a proportional system would be more democratic (so a states EVC's don't all just go to one candidate).

[Valkyrie]

interesting spew about the "murky pro-slavery origins" of the electoral college

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfink.htm

[Valkyrie]

Very interesting stuff here:

Electoral College: Source of Inequality and Social Injustice:

http://www.geocities.com/gparish2000/EC_1Myth9.html

[James]

It depends on your view of the states. I'm not an american, nor even been to america - but from what i've read and been told, the states still have a sense of individuality. The constitution is partly based upon "states rights" and the what not.
Also, the different states are just that - they are 'different'. Conditions are different in alaska and the deep south.

I like the electoral college - means you've got to have popular, yet widespread support.

The founding fathers didn't want a straight forward popular vote mainly because they thought state populations were most likely to vote for "home boys" - resulting in a hung election, with no candidate with a large lead (mandate).

[apathy maybe]

The electoral college does not mean you need to be popular or have wide spread support. Considering that presidents have quite recently been elected by only 20% (or even less) of the population, you don't even have a mandate.

[h&s]

Yeah, I don't know how a country where more people vote for the Pop Idol than the "President" can possibly be considered democratic.
Apathy has been deliberatly bread into the American people by successive governments and "news" broadcasters so that only right-wing candidates can get in.

[James]

The electoral college does not mean you need to be popular or have wide spread support.

You do need to be reasonably popular, otherwise you can't win the ECVs of any state - let alone several (as is required to win the presidency)

True, they may not have the majority support - but USUALLY no one does (i don't know of any candidate who lost with a majority support - obviously Gore had a greater popular vote than Bush, but he still did not have the majority behind him).

You do have to have wide ranging support, in that you can't just win one state, and win the presidency. You need the support of a number of states.

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 21 2004, 01:09 PM
***************ATTENTION ALL AMERICANS*************************

Please do not re-elect g.w. Bush!

Stop the facism now, stop the war now!

You are all in a deep hole, and Bush is digging you in deeper and deeper!

The rest of the world ie. united nations and european union etc. are against the occupation of Iraq!

But we are not against you, we want to help you! We are your brothers and sisters! I live in Canada and love you all, I am visiting new hampshire for this long weekend!

So please I beg of you to elect Kerry, not for his morals and his party but simply because he is not Bush, and together we can make the world a better place.

may peace be with you all, God Bless

yours truley

Rasta Sapian
You can&#39;t be this naive can you? Have you read any of Kerry&#39;s comments with regards to Iraq, Israel, Korea, Cuba? Kerry will bring nothing different to the table. Kerry is a Clintonite, and as such has learned well how to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Yes, we&#39;ll all vote for Kerry and then grab our ankles and wait for penetration. <_<

The EU is against Iraq eh? Isn&#39;t Italy and the UK part of the EU? The UN is against the occupation? Really? I must have missed Kofi Annan&#39;s denunciation of the occupation. Where the hell has the UN been with regards to the slaughter in Najaf, Karbala and the rest? Where&#39;s the condemnation for the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians?


Iraqis fail to regain control of oil revenue
By Ahmed Janabi
Monday 24 May 2004, 16:26 Makka Time, 13:26 GMT

The latest Iraqi attempts to recover control of the country&#39;s oil revenues from the United States appear to have hit a dead end with a special delegation being rebuffed in its bid secure UN help.

The delegation has been in New York in a bid to petition the UN to exert pressure on US occupation authorities, who currently preside over Iraq&#39;s oil output.

It includes Hamid al-Bayati, a deputy in the Iraqi interim foreign ministry and a spokesperson for the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

In New York since last week its members have so far failed to get an audience with UN officials.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9E2...CE8BEB830B1.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9E21D088-7317-45DF-BE62-7CE8BEB830B1.htm)

Yeah, the UN is doing a bang up job.....of being sock puppets for the U.S.



may peace be with you all, God Bless

What? No "Peace y&#39;all" ? Spare us all with this God Bless nonsense will you?
It offends those of us that can think for ourselves.

[DaCuBaN]

The EU is against Iraq eh? Isn&#39;t Italy and the UK part of the EU? The UN is against the occupation? Really? I must have missed Kofi Annan&#39;s denunciation of the occupation. Where the hell has the UN been with regards to the slaughter in Najaf, Karbala and the rest? Where&#39;s the condemnation for the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians?

The UN does not support the war in Iraq - but this is very different to outright opposition. That aside, Kofi Annan doesn&#39;t have the power to condemn the coalition regardless of his actions

the UN is, after all, a talk-shop. We all know that the evil bastards of this world simply do not play fair, so it was idealistic of us to set up the UN in the first place

Just like Israel, it&#39;s all our fucking fault.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 12:08 PM
The founding fathers didn&#39;t want a straight forward popular vote mainly because they thought state populations were most likely to vote for "home boys" - resulting in a hung election, with no candidate with a large lead (mandate).
When the founding fathers helped to create the United States, it wasn&#39;t very united. People felt loyalty to individual states before they felt loyalty towards the nation and things stayed like that until after the civil war. So what you say obviously true when talking about the late 1700&#39;s and early 1800&#39;s but at this point in time the system has become outdated. Not to mention that the state populations could still vote for the "homeboys" adn still caused a hung election, because the electoral vote would not have a clear winner.

One more thing undemocratic about the system is that the electors are not accountable to vote for the candidate that won the recieved the majority vote in the state they represent. In the last election one of the Washington DC electors decided not to vote at all as a protest toshow that DC doesn&#39;t have enough voice in the country.

[h&s]

Italy was for the war because it is pretty much a fascist state. Berlusconi (the leader) has many ties with the Mafia, he has scrapped a law that means the ruler can be prosecuted as he was going to be arrested, and he controls almost all of the media. No-one else stands a chance in an election there.

[Rasta Sapian]

Originally posted by Disgustapated+May 24 2004, 04:44 PM--> (Disgustapated @ May 24 2004, 04:44 PM)
Rasta [email protected] 21 2004, 01:09 PM
***************ATTENTION ALL AMERICANS*************************

Please do not re-elect g.w. Bush&#33;

Stop the facism now, stop the war now&#33;

You are all in a deep hole, and Bush is digging you in deeper and deeper&#33;

The rest of the world ie. united nations and european union etc. are against the occupation of Iraq&#33;

But we are not against you, we want to help you&#33; We are your brothers and sisters&#33; I live in Canada and love you all, I am visiting new hampshire for this long weekend&#33;

So please I beg of you to elect Kerry, not for his morals and his party but simply because he is not Bush, and together we can make the world a better place.

may peace be with you all, God Bless

yours truley

Rasta Sapian
You can&#39;t be this naive can you? Have you read any of Kerry&#39;s comments with regards to Iraq, Israel, Korea, Cuba? Kerry will bring nothing different to the table. Kerry is a Clintonite, and as such has learned well how to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Yes, we&#39;ll all vote for Kerry and then grab our ankles and wait for penetration. <_<

The EU is against Iraq eh? Isn&#39;t Italy and the UK part of the EU? The UN is against the occupation? Really? I must have missed Kofi Annan&#39;s denunciation of the occupation. Where the hell has the UN been with regards to the slaughter in Najaf, Karbala and the rest? Where&#39;s the condemnation for the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians?


Iraqis fail to regain control of oil revenue
By Ahmed Janabi
Monday 24 May 2004, 16:26 Makka Time, 13:26 GMT

The latest Iraqi attempts to recover control of the country&#39;s oil revenues from the United States appear to have hit a dead end with a special delegation being rebuffed in its bid secure UN help.

The delegation has been in New York in a bid to petition the UN to exert pressure on US occupation authorities, who currently preside over Iraq&#39;s oil output.

It includes Hamid al-Bayati, a deputy in the Iraqi interim foreign ministry and a spokesperson for the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

In New York since last week its members have so far failed to get an audience with UN officials.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9E2...CE8BEB830B1.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9E21D088-7317-45DF-BE62-7CE8BEB830B1.htm)

Yeah, the UN is doing a bang up job.....of being sock puppets for the U.S.



may peace be with you all, God Bless

What? No "Peace y&#39;all" ? Spare us all with this God Bless nonsense will you?
It offends those of us that can think for ourselves. [/b]
hey bro, I think that you may have your breifs on a bit too tight :lol:

My only point is that as Americans you only have two possible choices for a futur president, your choice, one is at least moderate the other is a right winged oil hungry fat cat.

[Sabocat]

hey bro, I think that you may have your breifs on a bit too tight

My only point is that as Americans you only have two possible choices for a futur president, your choice, one is at least moderate the other is a right winged oil hungry fat cat.

My point is that there is no real choice. One is a "right winged hungry fat cat", and the other is a New England blue blood fatcat married to an extremely wealthy heiress. The choice between these two assholes, is no choice at all. None. Zero. Nil, Zip.

The only difference between the two is technique. There is nothing moderate (as if that would be acceptable in some way) about John Kerry.


Oh...and another thing....don&#39;t call me bro, and I wear boxers. :lol:

[apathy maybe]

Why do people keep on insisting that there are only two options in the Prez election? I don&#39;t even live in the USA and I know that heaps of people stand. If you don&#39;t want to vote for Kerry or Bush or Nader (a THIRD person) you can vote for a socialist. And you could probably vote for an Anarchist if you wanted to (but me thinks not a Nihilist <http://www.nihilists.net/partypage.html>. (Anarchists and Nihilists get election to the EU parliament.)

[Rasta Sapian]

your right, you can vote for who ever you want, but in the end conservatism will be the point from which liberalism or modertism will will be progressive and that my friends is sen. John Kerry your neuveau president ;)

To vote more radically toward the left, might de-centralize the chance or a moderate getting elected, and enable the right wing an easy majority into power&#33;
ie. bush getting re-elected&#33;

The left has to unite and either vote in a progressive conservative liberal (Democrat) or have a revolution, a coup de taus mon amie

vive la revolution mon commrades

and peace to the rest a yall :D

[RNK]

What I suggested is "cheap and easy"...if your approval rating drops below 50%, out you go.

Take a look at the Cuban system. How it is on paper, not how people claim it is in reality. In their system, their members of government are all elected locally. There are no political parties; each candidate runs on the merit of his own personality and standing within his (or her) own community. There really needn&#39;t be any Prime Minister or President, except in a purely figurehead fashion (and to make sure those cappies and liberals aren&#39;t confused by it all&#33;). Each member of government is a representative of the will of his community, and if his community feels that he sucks, they can remove him and call for new local elections.

Government should also provide for citizen proposals of laws (such as Cuba has done), but at the same time provide for citizen counter-proposals (for instance, in 2002, 11,000 signatures were submitted to the Cuban government calling for political reform; in response, 8,100,000 signatures were collected calling for this reform proposal to be abolished). I really like this idea; I also like the idea that these proposals can be rejected by the people to ensure that the will of the majority is not being stomped on.


Their geographical location is, again, irrelevant.

I partially agree, but also partially disagree. It is important for members of government to be at their legislative or executive assemblies regularly to partake in assemblies and meetings and do their jobs, yes. But at the same time it is important for them to remain connected to their communities. I&#39;d propose that members of government spend most of their time working in their local municipal offices, using the wonderful technology of communication and the internet, while travelling to wherever the main assembly is atleast once per week, particular for important sessions and votes. Sometimes simply leaving it to voters isn&#39;t enough; I think it is important to push for responsible traditions as they can form the basis of government for centuries. To this day, most governments in the world operate in large part on tradition -- which is part of the reason why it is so damned difficult to change them. So I propose setting good traditions, so the next time some bastard capitalist tries to revert back to barbarism, he&#39;ll have it a little harder.