US election system. Is the US really a democracy, or a duocracy?

[Figment]

As a dutch citizen, the US 'democracy' always makes you wonder. Just two parties, no distribution of votes on a ratio basis, but a system that represents a majorities in a state as one party dictatorial systems.

Like in the UK, this means that only a few parties can actually try and achieve a dominant vote. In the UK for the first time in eons a coalition government had to be formed with the party of Nick Clegg (who ironically is half-dutch).

Where in the UK you used to have the Torries and Labour, you have the same thing in the US where only one of two parties typically rules. In effect, the US is a dictatorship of two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. So basically... it's a Duocracy. Elected into office, yes, but don't ask how the election goes.

Imagine if a poll on these forums would end with ALL votes on the poll turning towards the minor minority and represented as being YOUR vote as well. Imagine for a second this is a poll about pro- and anti-BFR and pro-BFR. Pro-BFR gets 47% votes, anti BFR gets 45% of the votes and neutral gets 8% of the votes. By the winner takes all rule, the forum dictates that 100% of the votes went to the pro-BFR.

Wouldn't you cry out in anger at the vote being rigged? Wouldn't you go out and demand the poll is labeled illegitimate?

Why isn't there a huge demand for actual representative elections where every vote counts equally? Why is it that it is possible for rigging of elections where in certain states votes from certain minorities do not count or voting booths have problems?

How is it even possible that the US calls this system a democracy? Elections are not enough surely? Because then most African nations have democracies. Two choices comes down to not having a choice. You then vote for the least worst thing that might win, even if you don't really support it. Is that democracy?

See, as a dutch person, we may have a monarchy, (which are more stable, neutral and cheaper than presidents thankfully), but we have a constitution that allows for a democracy in terms of populace representation. We have up to 17 different parties with all shades of the political spectrum participate in the elections and majorities are formed by coalitions. This means that it is more likely you can actually find a party that represents your views better than a "social rightwing" and "conservative rightwing" (which is what is the case in America, there isn't a left wing really out of fear of being labeled communist) and also means that not just one dictatorial view dominates the government. They keep each other in check.

Why is it the average American doesn't care? Just because it's always been that way? Just because they've been told it's not good for them by the parties in charge, apparently the Republicans in particular?



Imagine for instance if your campaigns would be split in four, or seven different political parties which could all make it to the senate. Imagine that one of these would be the tea party for religious nut jobs (20%), one would be liberals, one for socialists, one moderate conservatives, one more business oriented, one green party and one a bit in the middle of everything. Hell you can have more. Chances of a Tea Party fruitcake actually making it into office or getting control of the majority of votes would be extremely low and you could make coalitions that are less polarised. Those extremist thoughts would have to be tempered in coalitions to not lose out on a chance of governing. Wouldn't that be a lot more attractive?

In fact, all the political slander and lies, the kicking and mud slinging that you have in US elections would be much less, because they need each other after the elections. Btw, doesn't anyone care that candidates like Santorum blatantly lie about things just to keep extremists on board? (Basically all he said about the Netherlands save us being in Europe was an outright and verifiable lie - how can candidates that lie or don't even know their own political agenda even be considered an option?). Hell, they would have to know much more about subjects and get good arguments before decisions are being made on topics. Just because they have to debate with other people to get a majority vote.


So why no representative elections?

[NivexQ]

Originally Posted by Figment

As a dutch citizen, the US 'democracy' always makes you wonder. Just two parties, no distribution of votes on a ratio basis, but a system that represents a majorities in a state as one party dictatorial systems.

There are a lot more than 2 parties. It's just that there are 2 major parties.

Originally Posted by Figment

Imagine if a poll on these forums would end with ALL votes on the poll turning towards the minor minority and represented as being YOUR vote as well. Imagine for a second this is a poll about pro- and anti-BFR and pro-BFR. Pro-BFR gets 47% votes, anti BFR gets 45% of the votes and neutral gets 8% of the votes. By the winner takes all rule, the forum dictates that 100% of the votes went to the pro-BFR.

Wouldn't you cry out in anger at the vote being rigged? Wouldn't you go out and demand the poll is labeled illegitimate?

Not really. That seems fair to me. What would you do, p[ut half a BFR in the game?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NivexQ

There are a lot more than 2 parties. It's just that there are 2 major parties.

Being able to partake in the elections is pointless in the current system and voter attitude. They don't even get significant press time because of it. The end result is there are no parties represented in the Senate. So they are effectively not there.

Not really. That seems fair to me. What would you do, p[ut half a BFR in the game?

Just to see if I got this right, you think it's entirely reasonable that an extremely minor % difference is represented as a 100% victory?

If I saw a poll with a minor victory with regards to BFRs, I'd not risk losing half my playerbase by adding them. There'd be too little concensus.

If they were votes to be represented on a nation wide scale, I'd simply take the actual numbers, tally the lot and round them off to the nearest amount of seats. Each party would get a certain number of seats where you need a minimum number (amount of votes/amount of seats, rounded) to get a seat.

[NivexQ]

Originally Posted by Figment

If they were votes to be represented on a nation wide scale, I'd simply take the actual numbers, tally the lot and round them off to the nearest amount of seats. Each party would get a certain number of seats where you need a minimum number (amount of votes/amount of seats, rounded) to get a seat.

Congressional elections aren't nation wide, and rightfully so. They're supposed to be representing a specific area. When it comes to any election in the US, you're only voting for one seat.

Now, you could do that with the electoral college, but that only applies to the Presidency. And some states do that already.

[Kashis]

Originally Posted by NivexQ

Congressional elections aren't nation wide, and rightfully so.

They are nation wide... The votes stay in the state, but the money that funds campaigns and campaign ads comes from across the entire nation. To influence decisions in an unbalanced way. Many large corporations do this to lower taxes, lower environmental protection and resolving unions through the use of politicians. Both parties have their agendas and neither is in the right when it comes to not taking care of their constituents. I know this isn't a complete thought and possibly poorly written but I'm not a Literary major, I tried to explain best I could my opinion.

[Quovatis]

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. But the way the rules are set up, it's hard for a third party to really have any influence.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Most people in the USA do not know this.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Yeah, it is. It's a representative democracy. Its government functions as a constitutional republic, but as a whole it is of course a form of democracy.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by elfailo

If the U.S. isn't a democracy, then what's all the voting about?

If the US were a true democracy, the majority would always get their way, all laws passed would be voted on by the public, and there would be no need for representative government.

In a republic, the voting is for representation, not decision making. The vast majority of the time.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

If the US were a true democracy, the majority would always get their way, all laws passed would be voted on by the public, and there would be no need for representative government.

In a republic, the voting is for representation, not decision making. The vast majority of the time.

Uhm, the whole point of the thread is that there isn't a representative government in the US, only a small portion of the US populace is represented within the government, because the remainder is ignored and people have to vote on a party that at least partially agrees with them instead. Hence why there's only two parties, it doesn't pay to vote for others: your vote might as well not be cast.

It's a see-saw politics system, which - as has been demonstrated quite aptly over the past few years - is a rather self-destructive type of government. Infighting, polarisation and creating discourse, raising campaign funds and either bribing or deluding the electorate is more important than actualy working together on solutions. Particularly for the long term, because what happens in four years is more important than what happens in the next 20 years.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

Uhm, the whole point of the thread is that there isn't a representative government in the US, only a small portion of the US populace is represented within the government, because the remainder is ignored and people have to vote on a party that at least partially agrees with them instead. Hence why there's only two parties, it doesn't pay to vote for others: your vote might as well not be cast.

It's a see-saw politics system, which - as has been demonstrated quite aptly over the past few years - is a rather self-destructive type of government. Infighting, polarisation and creating discourse, raising campaign funds and either bribing or deluding the electorate is more important than actualy working together on solutions. Particularly for the long term, because what happens in four years is more important than what happens in the next 20 years.

I understand all that chief. I was explaining basic concepts for someone else.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by elfailo

If the U.S. isn't a democracy, then what's all the voting about?

To keep you distracted, while the real method...:

Originally Posted by Kriegson

I say we have things decided by gladiatorial death match in an angry badger pit.

is used behind closed doors.

Originally Posted by Warborn

Yeah, it is. It's a representative democracy. Its government functions as a constitutional republic, but as a whole it is of course a form of democracy.

And uh...No, it's not. It is a Republic. Democracy is a government by the people, by rule of the majority. Even if we removed the electoral college, and other such nonsense used by the pro-centralized power lovers and pundits, we would still have a nation whose laws are made primarily by (yes, elected) legislatures. This means rule of law, by individuals who are elected to represent the people -- literally the definition of Republic (res publica) -- NOT that the people themselves make the laws. Unless you've written up any of the 200,000+ pages of US Code, or the over 3.4 million words of the US Tax Code, I'm pretty sure what we have is called a Republic.






EDIT: Sorry I forgot to merge the posts.

[TheBladeRoden]

To sum it all up: yeah, we know, but what are ya gonna do?

[TheSHiFT]

The way the US system is set up (pretty much a first past the post system) voting for a 3rd party is actually voting against your own interest as it strengthens the party you are most opposed to.

Gerrymandering has caused some major problems in regional rep voting. Take my home state of Kansas for example. It has 4 House seats. In the 2010 ~70% of all house votes state-wide went to Republicans, while ~30% went to Democrats. IF we had ratio representation, 3 seats would go to Republicans, and 1 to Democrats. However, all seats are filled with Republicans.

This is largely due to gerrymandering before the last cycle, the 2 counties most filled with democrats (Douglas and Wyandotte) were essentially cut in half and given to other districts, diluting the D vote there, allowing all seats to be won by R by majority/plurality. There are many more examples of this, some much worse.

The electoral college is completely obsolete and should be scrapped.

[NivexQ]

So you would rather representatives be based on states than districts?