So...

[Superluminal]

Also, people who don't vote can influence the outcome of an election. If we have Rudy vs Hilary. A lot of conservatives who can't stomach Rudy may stay home. Staying home would be an indirect vote for Hilary.

[Dragon Star]

But do we not at the same time lock ourselves into this "Only Republican" "Only Democrat" choice? Yea, there is usually the independent, but often times he's so damn off the wall I wouldn't vote for him either.

I'm just always so dissatisfied that I don't get the best of both worlds.

[Heid the Ba]

If I'm a politician, it seems to me there are two kinds of people who can't influence my policies - the people who will never vote for me, and the people who will always vote for me. The people I have to worry about are those who might vote for me :P

Or New Labour as we know it here. "Old" Labour voters will vote Labour regardless, so you woo those in the middle and ignore those who will never vote for you.

I always go along, if I agree with someone I'll vote for them, otherwise I'll spoil my ballot paper. Doesn't do any good but at least I have voiced my disatisfaction.

[Мастер]

But do we not at the same time lock ourselves into this "Only Republican" "Only Democrat" choice? Yea, there is usually the independent, but often times he's so damn off the wall I wouldn't vote for him either.

I'm just always so dissatisfied that I don't get the best of both worlds.

But with the US system, which is winner-take-all, it's pretty hard for a third party to get a foothold. If you get 20% of the vote, evenly spread across the country, then you get precisely zero representation in congress.

From Halcyon Dayz's comments, it sounds to me like the Netherlands has a proportional representation system, where smaller parties still get representation even if they didn't win a majority in any district. If no party has a clear majority, then even small parties can have great influence, and might even determine which of the larger parties is the leader in the coalition government.

[Heid the Ba]

Nederlands has PR, as does Scotland, but not the UK.

For Westminster elections Scottish constituencies are first past the post with four parties having seats; from memory Labour, SNP, LibDem and Tory in that order.

For the Scottish Parliament we have a minority SNP government though they are the largest party; I can't be bothered checking but I think it is SNP, Labour, LibDem, Tory, Green and Independent in that order. The smaller parties support or oppose the SNP on a bill by bill basis. Tommy the Tan, a Scottish Socialist was not re-elected which is a shame since he was always funny.

As KOS says, this means the lone independent or the two Greens can decide if legislation is passed.

It appalls me that I can't think what type of PR we have, my guess would be a partial list sytem with a partial single transferable vote. Don't ask me to explain this on a Friday afternoon.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

But with the US system, which is winner-take-all, it's pretty hard for a third party to get a foothold. If you get 20% of the vote, evenly spread across the country, then you get precisely zero representation in congress.

It is theoretically possible to get a majority in Congress with only slightly more then 25% of the vote.
By winning with 50%+1 vote in 50%+1 districts with no votes in any other districts.
It is also possible to win every seat in the House without a popular majority. (If the opposition is split.)
That's why a winner-take-all system will almost always stabilise into a two-party system.

From Halcyon Dayz's comments, it sounds to me like the Netherlands has a proportional representation system, where smaller parties still get representation even if they didn't win a majority in any district.

It has the most pure form of PR.
No districts. Just 150 parliamentary seats to be divide among ca 12 million voters.
The historical reason for this is the vertical stratification of society based on world-views (Pillarisation), rather then regionality or class. (Although those play a role.)

If no party has a clear majority, then even small parties can have great influence, and might even determine which of the larger parties is the leader in the coalition government.

Quite right.
As I said, every system has it's drawbacks.

Minority governments are usually only used as a stopgap solution.
The normal procedure is that a set of parties which have a majority in parliament negotiate a formal deal, and then form the government.
This can be a lengthy procedure.
The Belgian general election were last June, and negotiations have gone nowhere.
And indeed, junior partners tend to have out-of-proportion influence because they are needed to get a majority.
Coalition government are also considerably more vulnerable to internal conflict then single party governments.

In German, 1982, the junior partner (FDP, with ca 11% of the Bundestag seats) in the coalition with Helmut Schmitd's SDP (44%) flip-flopped (over the issue of of monetary policy).
They left the government, and negotiated a deal with the CDU/CSU (45%).
A new government, led by Helmut Kohl, came to power without there having been any elections.
(The Year of the Two Helmuts)

[Мастер]

It is theoretically possible to get a majority in Congress with only slightly more then 25% of the vote.
By winning with 50%+1 vote in 50%+1 districts with no votes in any other districts.
It is also possible to win every seat in the House without a popular majority. (If the opposition is split.)
That's why a winner-take-all system will almost always stabilise into a two-party system.

Well, in the US, it is a theoretical possibility to win a majority in congress with only 218 votes, provided only one person votes in 218 districts. I don't think it very likely though :P

[Enzo]

I think California is talking about going to proportional with its huge block of electoral votes.

[Мастер]

I think California is talking about going to proportional with its huge block of electoral votes.

This seems to be Republican-driven. If it is safe Democratic, then they'll get something instead of nothing in 2008.

Of course, if they do get it, things having a tendency to change over time, it might come back to bite them in future elections...

[Enzo]

Oh I think you are right, why would the dems be ionterested under the curent conditions. Still, they are talking about it and trying to sell it to the public.

Here in Michigan some years back, the republicans convinced everyone to vote in term limits. For quite some time the democrats ran rough shod over the place. Naturally things change and so as the majority party for the last couiple decades, they are finding it is biting them in their own asses. And yes, now we are hearing about how term limits are bad and we should extend them or get rid of them.

[Мастер]

Oh I think you are right, why would the dems be ionterested under the curent conditions. Still, they are talking about it and trying to sell it to the public.

I did some checking at this site:

http://www.presidentelect.org

This site, although very nice, does not have all the information I would have liked for this analysis. But, if some kind of proportional representation were used for California in presidential elections, then since California became a state, there are only two possible elections where the outcome could have been affected:

a) 1876 - if Tilden got even one electoral vote from California, then he would have become president instead of Hayes. The change, if applied retroactively, would have been favorable to Democrats, and unfavorable to Republicans.

b) 1916 - Hughes needed 12 additional electoral votes to beat Woodrow Wilson, and California voted for Wilson that year. If California had at least 24 electoral votes at the time, and if Hughes won at least 12 of them, then he would have defeated Woodrow Wilson. The change, if applied retroactively, might have been favorable to Republicans, and unfavorable to Democrats.

I'm not sure that either of these has much relevance for the current situation :P Also, note that the person who runs the site isn't consistent across elections about which party is red and which is blue.

There could also be additional effects, if California had this system, the candidates would know it, and might have campaigned differently. That might also have affected the outcome.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Why are federal elections run and regulated by the states anyway?

[Мастер]

Why are federal elections run and regulated by the states anyway?

In the early days, the United States was viewed more as a federation of states. The president and vice-president were elected by the states, not the people, and senators were also elected by the states. The only federal position filled by popular election was the congress. Subsequent constitutional amendment makes senators popularly elected, but unto this day, the president and vice-president are elected by majority of electoral votes cast by the states (and, if nobody receives a majority of the electoral votes, the congress).

It is up to each state (and the District of Columbia, which receives electoral votes by constitutional amendment) to decide how to cast their votes. There is no requirement of a popular election, although all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) have chosen to do it in this way. In the early days of the republic, not all states had popular election; the state legislature could choose their electors, or they could choose some other method. In the extended Florida 2000 election, one proposed resolution to the impasse was to have the state legislature declare the election null and void, and vote themselves on Florida's electors (which would also have led to a Bush presidency), although this would likely have run afoul of a federal law which states that the rules of the election cannot be changed retroactively.

So I guess the short answer is, the states determine the rules of their presidential elections, because the federal constitution gives them the power to decide how their electors are chosen. It just so happens that all 51 jurisdictions have chosen popular election, mostly with winner-take-all, but some states with a hybrid winner-take-all/proportional system.

[Мастер]

Here's a link to the clause in the US constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

The relevant part is in the second paragraph of Section 1.

So it is a two-stage process: the states choose the electors, by a method determined by the states (and it just so happens that today they choose them through popular election, but there is no federal requirement that they do it in this way), then the electors elect the president (by the manner specified in the constitution).

[Enzo]

Just my impression, nothing to back it up, but I'd also think sopme of hte appeal in California would be the northern half of the state not wanting to be seen as just an extension of Hollywood/SanFrancisco.

Not maybe unlike here in Michigan where there is always bubbling around the idea of making our Upper Peninsula a separate state so they won't just be part of greater Detroit. They'd want to call it "Superior."