Hard cases make bad law. Close elections take more time under any system.
How long after closing were CA and NY called?
Remember, there’s a difference between calling an election and finishing the count.
Van Jones made that point on Thursday night, when someone commented that it was taking the swing states so long to finish the count. He reminded them that all fo the states were still counting, even California and Texas. It’s just that the results in those states were so clear that the media wasn’t sending crews to the counting areas in California or Texas, or New York, or Florida, and so on.
It’s not like the non-swing states are marvellously more efficient at counting votes, and Nevada and Arizona and Pennsylvania and Georgia are terribly slow. All of the states are still finishing up the counting process.
CA and NY weren’t called quickly becuase their ballots were simpler, or they had better counting systems. They were called quickly because based on current polling and past election practices, the networks felt comfortable calling them right away.
Getting back to the OP:
The Cub was watching some of the results with us, and he suddenly said: “Why are there only two people running?”
I said: “That’s the way it is in the US; there’s really only two parties.”
He replied: “That’s weird.”
(Then CNN went to a commercial break and he said, “This is an American channel.” I said “Yes, how can you tell?” He replied: “They’re advertising for health insurance. Canadians don’t need to buy health insurance; we get it free.”)
I’ve lived in places where they called them election districts. Imagine an overlapping map of all your districted offices, federal House of Reps, state assemblies, city council. Every area where all the districts are the same is your election district - and you get your own ballot.
I used to live in a REALLY small election district, an area of only a couple of blocks where a couple of almost overlapping districts didn’t overlap. I went to the same large neighborhood polling place as everyone else (which handled several election districts) but we had our own voting machine off in the corner ( this was when the old style machines with the big levers were still in use).
It was always empty, I never had to wait, not even two minutes. That election district was really small. A few years later, the districts realigned during a routine redraw and I didn’t get my own voting machine.
I’ve never had to wait either - indeed there often seems to be nobody in there at all, except the election staff. Last time, I don’t think there were even tellers for the various parties outside the polling station.
Given that the electoral college votes are distributed disproportionately in favor of low-population states in the first place, I don’t think that at this point switching from winner-take-all to proportionate awarding of the electoral votes on a state-by-state basis would actually make things better.
For example, in years that Republican candidates win a majority of House of Representatives seats, the Republicans overall routinely receive fewer popular votes than Democrats, and that’s because of (1) massive gerrymandering, and (2) disproportionate representation of lower-population states. Thus, awarding electoral votes by congressional district—like Maine and Nebraska do—would still give structural advantages to Republicans.
You need to both walk and chew gum.
Fix the disproportion of the EC and switch to proportional allocation of state EC votes.
I think an in-built bias that favours the smaller states in the EC is a good idea.
I also think the current bias is way too big.
Of course, there weren’t really only two people running, but there were only two who were getting enough votes to matter. We have had U.S. Presidential elections with significant third party candidates. But with more than two candidates, you run the risk of electing someone the majority of voters wants least.
I think it’s a fucking terrible idea. I think no one should be favored, and “states” should have zero presence in the national government. The voice of democracy should belong solely to the people, not to states.
As a citizen of the smallest state by population (Wyoming), I agree.
In fact, congressional representation is fucked up right now, too. Because our ONE congressperson is meant to represent our entire state, but the wants and needs of somebody living in Gillette are VASTLY different from somebody living in Jackson Hole, 400 miles away and separated by multiple mountain ranges. Wyoming isn’t “unified” enough to warrant the state (as an entity) having a say.
But then we’d have to change our name, from the USA to the UPA.
Problem is, the US was formed as a federal government. The states are sovereign, and give power to the federal government, not the other way around. States with smaller populations have no reason to give up their extra power. That’s why a compromise had to be reached in the first place.
Making states apportion their votes proportionally is viable under that system we established. But saying that states should have no power really isn’t. Any change has to be approved by either the state governments or Congress, which includes the Senators who have equal power from each state.
So, conceptually you can’t remove the states having power and remain consistent with the federal system established. And, practically, the states with more power have little reason to give that up. Making things at least proportionate at the state level seems much more viable, and would fix at least some of the problems.
This presents a real problem. But, that wasn’t the subject of my statement
This does not. If we amend the Constitution to remove consideration of states from allocation of representatives and senators, then this supposed “conceptual” problem is irrelevant.
Additionally:
(1) The name issue is irrelevant. The name of a country can be whatever. A communist dictatorship can call itself a democratic people’s republic.
(2) The concept of a union of states isn’t actually violated by changing the makeup of the central government. It’s still a union of states. It’s just that the power is given directly to the people in those states.
(3) The sovereignty of states is also not violated. Sovereignty issues are issues that pit the federal government against a state government. The makeup of the federal government has no constitutional or legal consequence.
Your hypothetical, 3 candidates and the one elected is the one the majority of voters wants least, is only realistic under FPTP voting systems with wildly mixed electorates. It’s an argument against FPTP voting in diverse electorates, not an argument against multiple candidates in diverse electorates.
And “2 or less” doesn’t remove the problem: Under the American system, you still run the risk of electing someone the majority of Americans wants least.
So the tyranny of the majority has no currency with your goodself?
There are racist Canadians too.
In fact in some provinces, putting up a bilingual sign was a invitation to have to shot full of holes. In fact, my Canadian cousins enjoyed doing that.
Sure yeah, support for trump is low,but 10% wouldnt be far off my mark in my WAG.
Oh no, there is Brazil and Israel.
There were two notable holdouts among the world leaders who rushed to congratulate Joe Biden on his victory in the U.S. elections: the leaders of Latin America’s two largest countries, both of whom have been seen as friendly to President Donald Trump.
President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, sometimes dubbed “the Trump of the Tropics” for his populist, off-the-cuff style, has kept silent on Trump’s loss.
But yeah, Boris is 'trump-lite".
Here?
(1) Giving states representation has fuck-all to do with the tyranny of the majority.
(2) The tyranny of the minority should be just as feared as the tyranny of the majority. That’s what we are living under now.
(3) To the extent that any majority should be limited, it should be by explicit protections of minority rights and limitation on government power, not by giving some people more votes than others. “One person, one vote” must be paramount and inviolate. Otherwise, you are creating first-class and second-class citizens as an original sin. In any matter decided by vote, one person, one vote.
Brazil, if I remember correctly…
(And I probably don’t)