U.S. Elections...

[R_P_A_S]

I hear lots of talk here and there about how the U.S. elections are not that democratic after all.
I agree with this. BUT I would like to get some reasons and facts as to why the aren't..

thank you...

[apathy maybe]

Definition of democracy: Rule by the people.

Definition of democracy in "liberal democracies": Rule by some people, generally rich (or at least well off), generally from the predominant ethnic grouping, "elected" by the people every 2-6 years depending on the system.
Where first-past-the-post exists (such as in the USA and UK), you can receive a majority of seats in parliament, with a minority of votes (such as "New Labour" in the UK).

I wrote an essay on the Presidential election, which I posted somewhere. But searching for it doesn't bring it up. When I find it, I'll post the link.

[apathy maybe]

OK, here is the thread that I started (2004)
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24734

Again, I feel that redstar2000's point about this sentence, "Also once elected the President is not held to any promises made during the campaign." is very good. And I should really have talked about it more.
And this line, "However, the system currently in place was not meant to be democratic, only to provide a system of rule. " is also important.

This thread is on the electoral collage specifically, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...60&hl=president (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63260&hl=president)

[R_P_A_S]

an other thing i dont get either is how the popular vote doesn't really count. like on the Al Gore and G. Bush election in 2000. Gore had more popular votes. but BUSH having more electoral votes helped him win.. (besides the whole florida fuck up)

whats the deal with that?

[apathy maybe]

That sir, is the electoral college and the first-past-the-post system.

As I said, first past the post enables a person to receive less then the majority of votes, but still get a seat. The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system has lots of information.


Originally posted by from my essay+--> (from my essay)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)! [/b]

from my essay

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.

[Demogorgon]

Influence of big money and First Past The Post voting are two major reasons.

A good rule of thumb incidentally is whenever you see a two party system, you should know something has gone very wrong. There should be a lot more than that.

Even with that though, the influence of money renders the whole thing a joke.

[manic expression]

Unless you live in Florida or Ohio, YOUR VOTE DOES NOT COUNT. That is simply the way it works.

There are only two viable parties, and their interests are firmly that of the bourgeoisie. The two parties agree on most issues, and on broader economic and political questions they are in unanimous agreement. If ANYONE tells you a third party has a chance to do ANYTHING, they are simply wrong.

Corporate supporters of candidates get the ear of Washington first and foremost. Re-election depends on donations from the rich, and so an officeholder MUST cater to these interests in order to stay in power.

[chimx]

Ever since the 50s or 60s, mass media has come to dominate election campaigns. While poor nobody's like Abraham Lincoln were able to get elected 150 years ago, these days it requires millions of dollars in campaign funds to make elections really even possible. The result is that only rich folk run and only rich folk get elected. While some of these campaigners may potentially have the poor and dispossessed as their constituency, in the end they are still benefited by the economic stratification.

[Che Guevara 1415]

The elections in the U.S are all a sham , the results are already pre-determined . Plus , in rality , there is only one party in the U.S . The business party only takes care of the capitalist class while leaving the majority of its population indebted , and living paycheck to paycheck . If the Democrats gain 100% or the Republicans gain 100% , the situation will be the same .

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Not democratic because unless you have several million dollars you can't run.

[Fawkes]

The main reason why the electoral college was first set up in the early days of the USA was because most of the founding fathers did not feel that the average U.S. citizen was intelligent enough or educated enough to make a valid decision about running their own lives, so it was made so the people elected other "more intelligent" people to vote for them.

[Janus]

There's a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. The latter in a capitalist system, in which economic power always correlates with political power, has no chance of being a mass system or truly capable of representing the masses.