PoStorm - Democracy category

The Second [Amendment] Protects the Rest

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:39:00 GMT

I saw the slogan “The Second Protects the Rest” attached to a forum comment and I have been trying to figure out what it means. I think I have it. The writer means:

“I will get my way by logical, reasoned argument based on a civil processes taking account of the interests of all people, whom I recognize as equals with their own rights and opinions. But If that doesn't work, I'll shoot them.”

PO: No Representation without Taxation

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:18:00 GMT

I find the arguments on the Electoral College amusing. Everyone seems to know:

Why they should have a disproportionate vote in the choice of President.
That someone who was president was a better president than someone who never was (but would have been had the system they are objecting to been in place).
That democracy is bad.

To those who feel is is right that they should have a disproportionate vote, then we should at least consider that correspondingly disproportionate taxation should be in order. Those who think it should be a federal system, with each state having equal say, should expect each state to bear and equal share of the burden of government. Alaskans – who have 50 times more representation, per person, in the Senate than Californians, should expect to bear 50 times more taxation per person. If the Federal government instigates conscription, Alaskans should expect to be 50 times more likely to be conscripted than Californians.

If you feel that your choice of President is better than the misguided decision of the people, why don't we skip pretending to give people a vote and go straight to the oracle. You should choose the President – and you will no doubt choose yourself – just as every dictator chooses himself as the rightful ruler.

The electoral college, as it operates today, takes the choice of the people, according to the popular vote, and adjusts it according to a factor determined by the randomness of the distribution of the votes across states. Those who feel that this randomness served them in delivering their choice of president instead of the choice of the majority of the people argue that this randomness is good. But if choosing the President by a process that is effectively random is good, let's just go with the toss of a coin. It's a lot cheaper and just as fair and democratic.

There are those that argue that a close vote would require and long drawn out recount. If we don't think the decision is important enough to be worth actually counting the votes, and prefer a system where is easier to count them, let's skip giving millions of people the pretense of a vote. How about just 9? Let the Supreme Court choose the president. Wait, we tried that in 2000, and they gave us Bush. But it's such a nice cozy arrangement where the president appoints the judges and the judges appoints the president. Just think, in a couple of generations everybody in government could be named Bush.

There's just one sensible point I have seen in recent debates: We don't want a system where the president can be determine by, say, 30% of the vote. Personally, I don't see why we should tolerate any circumstance where the president is someone that more than 50% of the people don't want to be their president. That should certainly apply on Election day, but also every day thereafter.

But we already have a system where the president can elected by 30% of the vote ... the Electoral College, particularly when combined with the two party system. The only reason why any president gets more than 50% of the votes (electoral or people's votes) is that the two party system forced the choice down to two. When there's a third party candidate who gets more than a handful of votes, the result of the election is truly random. The process for narrowing down the choice to two isn't designed by reason nor specified by the constitution; it is largely at the whim of the parties and determined mainly by the desire for the president to come from their party.

Even with just two candidates, the winner-take-all system for allocating state's electoral votes means that a candidate needs only 51% of the vote in a state to get 100% of their electoral votes. A president can win a majority in the Electoral College with 51% of the votes in 51% of the states and zero votes in 49% of the State. Therefore he can win with just 25% of the popular vote, if the randomness of voter distribution breaks his way. The more candidates there are, the lower the percentage of the votes required to win.

The same person who argues against electing a president on 30% of the votes, also argues the 100% of State's electoral votes should go the candidate with the most votes in his state – even if that's only 30% of the votes.

Are those who think it right that 51% of the people in their state should determine 100% of their state's contribution to the presidential decision, willing to put their money behind their mouth. How about if the 51% who get nearly two votes pay nearly twice the taxation, and the 49% who get zero votes pay none? “Oh no,” I'm sure they would say, “that would be unfair”.

Moreover all the arguments that say “look the electoral college got it right; the popular vote got it wrong” (because I know who was the right choice), overlook the fact that we don't know who won the real popular vote. How many people didn't vote at all because they already knew that their vote would make no difference because the result for their state was already certain. 3 million people in California voted for Obama but their vote had no effect because he already had a majority. How many millions just stay at home and achieved exactly the same zero effect. How many Californian Republicans didn't bother to vote for McCain because they knew that their voted wouldn't count. How many people would have voted for Nader in Florida 2000 if they thought he had a chance, but instead voted for Gore in the vain hope of preventing a worse evil stealing the election? No one will ever know.

The arguments about the Electoral College seem to me to represent the worst things about this country. The preference for self-serving arguments (no matter how stupid) that lead to the inability to get the simplest thing right.

Electing a president whose actions are likely to effect everyone equally should be done by a process in which everyone gets an equal say. Not because I think that's going to give the best answer (ie my choice) but because the alternative is worse. In the end we humans have found only two ways to resolve disagreements: the exertion of force or a majority decision. I don't believe the majority will make the right decision, but I don't believe I have the right to force my decision on them. I'm happy with a rule that says no one can be president when the majority are again him being president. If that means “No President” until someone can rally more than 50% of the people in their support, that's fine with me. (See Nobody would have been a better President than George W Bush) It cannot be any worse than many of the decisions taken either by the majority or the random selection process using the Electoral College ... and if it does turn out to be worse the incentive to rally 50%+ support for one individual will be so much greater. There's a thought, “The people” might actually have to learn how to govern themselves .. we could call it “Government of the People, for the People, by the People.”

An Historic day: for the first time in my life my vote might count

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:34:00 GMT

Today is an historic day in many ways. For many it's the first time they were eligible to vote in a general election, and for some it's the first time they actually voted, and, thankfully, many more are voting the first time they become eligible. (And apparently there's also something special about the candidates, but whatever).

For me, it's not the first time I was eligible to vote, nor the first time I voted. I've lived through 10 general elections since I became eligible to vote. But this is the first time in my life that my vote has had the even the slightest chance of counting.

Secure E-voting

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:10:00 GMT

I can spend all my money, buy or sale stocks, buy books, insurance, socks and drugs, all from the convenience of my house, using my PC and an Internet Connection. Why can't I vote that way?

Early Voters Change Their Mind?

Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:06:00 GMT

In the 2008 Election, vastly more people voted early than in any prior election. What happens if they change their mind after they have voted?

Vote for Checks and Balances

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:35:00 GMT

A few days ago, McCain's Strategy-du-jour was to argue that an unchecked control of government by Democrats was a danger that Americans should avoid. Having all three branches of government under the control of one party endangers our system of checks and balances. It is a recipe for disaster. After all, look what happened when Republicans had that dominance, but McCain forgot to point that out.

McCain has a point.

“Nobody would have been a better President than George W Bush”

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:38:00 GMT

You probably haven't heard many people say “Nobody would have been a better President than George W Bush”. But unless you are one of the 20% that think he's done a fine job, you are not parsing the sentence correctly. Today's po is “Having nobody as President would have been better than Bush.”

A Presidential Unelection

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:21:00 GMT

As we approach the 2008 Presidential Election, many people will be relieved to see George W Bush's reign end.

Bush's approval rating is about 20%. A huge majority of the country think he is doing a lousy job. That's not the same as saying that he should be fired, but it is pretty close to it. No opinion poll that I have seen has asked the question “If you had the chance, would you vote Bush out of office?” but it seems that there is a good chance that many, possibly a majority, would. It is fortuitous, perhaps, that he is about to be replaced, but that is an accident of the system, not part of the system.

What if Bush still had another 3 and a half years before the next election? Today's po is “Shouldn't we be able unelect the president?”

If a majority of the people in a democracy wants the person who is President not to be their President any more, why should he remain President?

I'm sure many would answer “because that's what the Constitution says”, but I'm asking whether we need a better constitution – a better democratic process.

There have been times when a President-Elect did not have the support of the majority of the voters even on the day he won the election. Bush did not in 2000, because of the random anachronism of the Electoral College – which suggests a pretty obvious need for reform of the democratic process if we are to be serious about being a democracy. But even in Florida, Bush did not have a majority of the votes. Had the votes cast for any one of the five candidates coming third or worse gone to Gore, then Gore would have won (not only Florida, but the Presidency).

But why should someone be President of a democracy, when a majority of the people – even on day one – don't want him to be? Why should not a minimum job requirement of the President of a democracy be that a majority to the people want him or her to be their president – each and every day that he or she holds the office?

Because nobody would ever get a majority? That's clearly not true. Candidates have got a majority; Gore appeared to in 2000, and Bush appeared to in 2004. (I say “appeared to” because the electoral system doesn't produce a conclusive result for the popular vote. We never know how many people didn't bother to vote in states were the result was a forgone conclusion for their state).

But it would certainly be harder if the election wasn't over until one candidate had a majority. It would require a more sophisticated voting mechanism; one in which voters were able to change their votes, but that's not impossible. If we wanted, it's quite possible to have a voting system in which voters could change their votes – where voters could vote for who they wanted, when they wanted, and for just as long as they wanted.

I wonder what such an election would be like? Many of the conventions of the current system would have to remain. At some point, Hillary would have to concede that she can't win and withdraw – an attempt to concede specifically to Obama, passing her support to him. She might have to do it even though she held 20% of the “real votes” to Obama's 22%. But, unllike primaries, they would be real votes – not the votes of minority of voters in a minority of states, not pledges of super-delegates, but real votes placed by real voters anywhere in the US. She would do it to give a democrat (albeit her second choice) a chance of winning against a republican who might already have 42% of the real vote, and to give that democrat the chance to win over the 18% of voters who have not voted or voted for someone else.

In the system I envisage, Hillary would be able to “pass over” the votes she held to the candidate she chooses, so Obama might immediately jump to 42%, in this example. But the voters don't have to agree with her. Any voter whose vote Hillary passed to Obama could change that vote to any other candidate. (This action shows the need need for a “cooling off period” - enough time for voters to assess a situation and act, by changing their vote, if they choose to.)

What if the voters choose “none of the above”? What if they obstinately refuse to give anyone a majority. Is this an expression by the people that “Nobody” is better than anybody; that not having a president for a while might be a good idea? Some candidate may not agree and those are the candidates that might see the wisdom in stepping aside, in passing the support to another candidate, so that he might obtain an overall majority. Some voters might not agree either, and those voters would change their vote from their preferred, but hopeless, candidate to their preference from those who have a chance. Their preferred candidates obstinacy to surrender his ambition in the face of the voter's perceived need to agree on a president may be the stimulus to change the vote. And if enough of the people feel that the “least worst candidate” is better than “Nobody” then he or she will get a majority and the job.

What if voters changed their minds after the election? Let's assume that the election ends, not just when one candidate's votes momentarily exceed 50%, but when the candidate has maintained that position for a reasonable cooling off period. Perhaps 30 days; long enough for the Press to inform the voters, and the opposition to have their chance to dissuade the people. Long enough to provide convincing evidence that “the people have decided”. But what happens if “the people change their mind”. In the same spirit of providing convincing evidence of an informed, deliberate, and deliberated decision, suppose that a majority of voters not only think the current President is doing a poor job, not only do not support the incumbent as President, but also activity wish him fired, and that position has been maintained for 30 days, shouldn't he be fired?

Should we have a right – and a mechanism – to Unelect A President?