Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/02/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/

Note that USA has a low overall turnout of eligible voters, but one of the highest turnouts of registered voters. Lack of people registered in the first place makes the system more brittle because a demagogue needs to only appeal to a smaller subset of people.

[Neonivek]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/02/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/

Note that USA has a low overall turnout of eligible voters, but one of the highest turnouts of registered voters. Lack of people registered in the first place makes the system more brittle because a demagogue needs to only appeal to a smaller subset of people.

It is a good thing. You see it allows certain people to have more voting power to protect them from other people having higher number.

You know, the same defense people use for the EC.

[wierd]

I would argue that this is a false equivalence.

Unless you want to argue that I was actively prohibited from registering to vote.

When it became apparent that Trump and Clinton were the choices, my decision to not vote was cemented. I participated in the primaries, but did not register to vote in the main election.

To get better statistics, check out primary race participation values against those of the main election.

[Frumple]

Hey, that almost sounds like trying to get more people registered and whatnot is a good idea. Perhaps if the GOP curls up in a corner somewhere and dies the country can really ramp things up on that front. Oddly enough we keep seeing this strange resistance to efforts to get more people registered, particularly younger folks and minorities. Not the whole cause of it by any means, but every (not so) little bit...

[smjjames]

Hey, that almost sounds like trying to get more people registered and whatnot is a good idea. Perhaps if the GOP curls up in a corner somewhere and dies the country can really ramp things up on that front. Oddly enough we keep seeing this strange resistance to efforts to get more people registered, particularly younger folks and minorities. Not the whole cause of it by any means, but every (not so) little bit...

Yeah, instead of trying to appeal to the minorities and young people, the Republicans have decided to try and make it as hard as possible for them to vote. As it is, most would just flock to the Democrats.

I wonder if switching to popular vote via whatever means might change that. Could take an election or two for them to figure it out though.

[Sheb]

I've heard that their two-stage election system is well suited to block extremists from taking power by ultimately requiring them to win a majority of voters, so at least that's an advantage in our favor.

That depends on who's running and the overall situation in the country. If the people are really fed up with the establishment politicians, than it won't help. You'd need to go full authoritarian and ban the opposing political forces, as well as the media supporting them.

Their two stage system looks a lot like the US's own two stage system, the primaries and then the general. Probably the only real difference between France and the US is the Electoral College here in the US.

Also, in that election, which is tomorrow, apparently the French Left (or some of them) are planning on voting for Alain Juppé to block LePen and Sarkozy. http://www.politico.eu/article/french-lefts-complex-operation-to-stop-marine-le-pen-conservative-primary-france-sarkozy-juppe-fillon/ I know basically nothing about how their election system works, so, I don't really know what's going on over there. Sounds like it's to the effect of Democrats switching parties, voting someone not-Trump, and switching back.

I don't know much of anything about Alain Juppé either, other than that he did commit a Marie Antoniette-like gaffe.

They have a two-turn systems, but in addition this year both the Socialists and the center-right party are organizing primaries. Some lefties plans to vote for the relatively moderate Juppé in the center-right primary (You do'nt need to register or anything, just sign a paper saying you "agree with the values of the right and center" and pay a 2 euros fee).

[Shadowlord]

Is that fee for lying?

[Rolepgeek]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/02/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/

Note that USA has a low overall turnout of eligible voters, but one of the highest turnouts of registered voters. Lack of people registered in the first place makes the system more brittle because a demagogue needs to only appeal to a smaller subset of people.

It is a good thing. You see it allows certain people to have more voting power to protect them from other people having higher number.

You know, the same defense people use for the EC.

Weren't we talking not too long ago about Tyranny of the Majority?

[martinuzz]

Some African tribes would conquer one another and the victor would absorb their tribe including their gods.

African? That sounds more like christianity to me. Don't think that Santa Claus, Christmas or Easter were innate to original christianity, because they weren't. They were adapted from conquered / converted people. (Krampus, winter solstice, jewish Pesach)

[Reelya]

I wonder if switching to popular vote via whatever means might change that. Could take an election or two for them to figure it out though.

It doesn't need to be popular vote, because it's much more about the process rather than the dice-toss outcome. Proportional EC votes would achieve the same thing basically - meaning every state is a place that matters in the vote. That would fundamentally transform how campaigning works. The jump from proportional EC to popular vote would be very minor in comparison.

[smjjames]

I've heard that their two-stage election system is well suited to block extremists from taking power by ultimately requiring them to win a majority of voters, so at least that's an advantage in our favor.

That depends on who's running and the overall situation in the country. If the people are really fed up with the establishment politicians, than it won't help. You'd need to go full authoritarian and ban the opposing political forces, as well as the media supporting them.

Their two stage system looks a lot like the US's own two stage system, the primaries and then the general. Probably the only real difference between France and the US is the Electoral College here in the US.

Also, in that election, which is tomorrow, apparently the French Left (or some of them) are planning on voting for Alain Juppé to block LePen and Sarkozy. http://www.politico.eu/article/french-lefts-complex-operation-to-stop-marine-le-pen-conservative-primary-france-sarkozy-juppe-fillon/ I know basically nothing about how their election system works, so, I don't really know what's going on over there. Sounds like it's to the effect of Democrats switching parties, voting someone not-Trump, and switching back.

I don't know much of anything about Alain Juppé either, other than that he did commit a Marie Antoniette-like gaffe.

They have a two-turn systems, but in addition this year both the Socialists and the center-right party are organizing primaries. Some lefties plans to vote for the relatively moderate Juppé in the center-right primary (You do'nt need to register or anything, just sign a paper saying you "agree with the values of the right and center" and pay a 2 euros fee).

Hm, if you removed the electoral college, the US would also become something like a two round system because our primaries+general election method is pretty much the same.

It would drastically change how the primaries are done though...

I wonder if switching to popular vote via whatever means might change that. Could take an election or two for them to figure it out though.

It doesn't need to be popular vote, because it's much more about the process rather than the dice-toss outcome. Proportional EC votes would achieve the same thing basically - meaning every state is a place that matters in the vote. That would fundamentally transform how campaigning works. The jump from proportional EC to popular vote would be very minor in comparison.

Someone oughta do the math and see how it would have gone out if the EC was proportional rather than winner-take-all.

Going proportional EC after going popular vote seems like a natural thing to do.

[Reelya]

But we can't stop "doing the maths" when it looks like a certain system would favor Clinton and say it's "broken" when Trump was elected.

Clinton won "popular vote". But that's only "popular vote" according to "first past the post" "winner takes all" logic. Which can be shown to be a flawed system, because of the spoiler effect among other things.

Instant-runoff is widely held to be a better system than FPTP. And if you look at all candidates votes, and work out how that would have gone with Instant-runoff, then Trump would probably have won the popular vote. Clinton "beat" Trump by 797,724 votes, but Johnson picked up 4,164,589 and Stein picked up 1,255,968. Instant run-off factors out the losers and works out who would have been elected if they were running. I'd argue that Johnson's voters would mostly have gone for Trump while Stein's voters would mostly have gone for Clinton, meaning Trump would still have won if it came down to two candidates only.

Basically we can't backtrack on "what's a better system" based on whether we like who would be elected via that system.

[smjjames]

I'm just curious how it would have turned out if the EC was poportional, I'm not trying to decide on 'what's a better system' based on whether I like who would be elected via that system.

[martinuzz]

Maths are awesome to make no sense at all. One of our cities decided that, since 20% of our population seems to have objections against Black Pete being black, that the best solution for this year's Saint Niclas' parade would be to have 80% black black Petes, and 20% differently coloured black Petes.

[smjjames]

Also, we don't truly know whether instant runoff would have gone Clinton or Trump simply because we don't know what the Stein and Johnsons voters second, third, or fourth (or fifth if it comes to that) choices would have been.

edit: Btw, your math is outdated Reelya, Clinton has a 1 million plus pop vote lead on Trump.