posted
The electoral college increases the statistical value of the individual's vote.
I read (well, glanced at) an interesting book about the governments of Europe written during and, as I recall, published shortly after WWII. (With special: "Hey, we are not dead!" preface.) It had an interesting take on the role of the monarchy in then modern Britain.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
...and one of the most important functions of the monarchy is keeping a politician out of the top spot! I am not fond of politicians. At all. Mind you, we've got to have 'em, but we should at least keep them in one place! Not to mention the monarchy provides an element of dignity to the proceedings which is lacking in republics. And they don't cost that much really.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Not to mention the monarchy provides an element of dignity to the proceedings
That calls for a mighty big "Ermm..."
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
its alright to cheat and lie.. as long as you do it with DIGNITY!
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
/me prefers a king or queen chosen through birthright with no political power to an elected president with more power than is healthy for any human
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The Electoral college is easy... kinda. In principle, the general elections are basically all eligible citizens choosing a "representative" to vote for the President. The various representatives (meeting on a state-by-state basis) comprise the Electoral College. States are assigned a number of electoral votes based on the total number of seats they have in both houses of Congress. Since the House of Representatives is based on representation by population, and so that becomes the primary determining factor.
Yeah, it's way convoluted. But it was also thought up in the year 1789, back when the Framers hated the monarchy, but didn't want to hand over the Presidency directly to the people. They weren't what we'd consider left-wing democrats, after all...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by E. Cartman: /me prefers a king or queen chosen through birthright with no political power to an elected president with more power than is healthy for any human
Absolutely; politicians tend to get all macho when you give them titles like commander in chief anyway.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
"...and one of the most important functions of the monarchy is keeping a politician out of the top spot!"
What "top spot"? The monarch is powerless, so that isn't a "top spot". If you even have a "top spot", wouldn't it be the prime minister, who, at last check, was a politician?
The problem w/ the electoral college is that it opens the possibility that someone can win the presidency and have fewer popular votes than the runner-up. I can't think of any logical reason why this should ever be allowed to happen.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Head of state and head of government are not the same thing.
The "power" of the monarchy in the UK is not supposed to be political anymore. Of course, today it is arguable whether or not they have any of their more elusive symbolic power, or whether such is even necessary.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the US electoral college would work better if the votes from each state were divided between the amount of votes each party was given. This winner take all is not representative at all.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, Grokca, that's one of the things people argue. I read a book for a Poli-Sci class a couple of years ago about theories on proportional representation. Of all the theories I've read, the "winner take all" arrangement is one of the least logical, IMO.
One of the best ideas I've heard is for several representatives to be elected in each district (and have larger districts as a result). For example, if you're going to have elections for five seats in the House of Representatives, rather than split the section into five districts for each of the five seats, all five seats are up for grabs on an "at large" basis, and votes are cast for more than one candidate. The result is said (in theory) to be more representative because the majority of the votes will still go to the most popular candidate, but the minority will still get representation because there's more than one seat available.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
I thinik it's ingenious. The second chamber gets apportioned by proportional representation. There could still be problems, though, as the political parties would likely choose people fanatically loyal to the party, and unlikely to go against the party line.
posted
Well, much as I hate to prove you right, I really don't think I can take the time to make sense of this, because I don't know how the British government works. Which is because I'm still having enough trouble figuring out the US one.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
OK, simple: The country is divided up into about 630 parliamentary constituencies. During elections each of these votes for their Member of Parliament (MP), and whichever candidate from whichever party gets the most votes is the winner. The Government is then formed by the party which has the largest number of MPs. It doesn't have to be an overall majority (more than 50% of the House of Commons) in theory but in practise it's required otherwise the Government would never be able to win Commons votes.
Fine so far? Now, some people, the Liberal Democrat party in particular, have said for a long time that this system doesn't accurately represent the will of the people, because, try as the boundary commission might, there are still variances in the number of voters in each constituency. They want the House of Commons to be apportioned according to the percentage of the electoral votes each party received nationwide. This is proportional representation (PR), and no government in power would go for it because a) despite winning on number of seats, every recent goverment in PR terms has received less than 50% of the total votes and so would have no overall majority; b) the Lib Dems' fraction of parliament would rise enormously, making them the likely party to form a coalition government with if the party in power is to be able to govern at all - but at the cost of compromise over policy. Countries like Italy do use PR, and think how many coalition governments they've had.
Bragg is suggesting that the House of Lords, to be renamed the Second Chamber, be appointed using PR. OK?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
In principle, the general elections are basically all eligible citizens choosing a "representative" to vote for the President. The various representatives (meeting on a state-by-state basis) comprise the Electoral College. States are assigned a number of electoral votes based on the total number of seats they have in both houses of Congress. Since the House of Representatives is based on representation by population, and so that becomes the primary determining factor.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
