Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Right, I'm still a little bit confused about the USA's electoral system.

I think I know how some bits work, but am completely in the dark about other bits. First of all though, I would like to point out this thread, as ever, has no ulterior motive or hidden agenda. I like understanding how Democracy works in different countries.

So, the bit I think I have a handle on, the election of a President.

First of all, the various parties have various candidates campaigning for their nomination. The relevant party then votes for the relevant candidates, and I think there is a first past the post system here, with the successful candidate becoming the official nominee once they have garnered a certain number (or possibly percentage) of the vote.

At this point, Candidate becomes Nominee, names their running Partner (Who if all goes well, becomes Vice President).

So, all involved Parties now have their Presidential Candidates and running mates, and it goes to public vote after a period of intense campaigning.

The various states hold a number of College votes, which I understand to be a kind of proportional representation, assigned via first past the post (i.e. if I win say, California by a single vote, I clam all of Californias College Votes). Please note, I am not overly concerned with discussing merits and flaws in the given system. All I want to do is learn more about the system

Whoever gets the most College Votes then becomes President, who then assembles his Cabinet (well, it's called The Cabinet in the UK at least, not sure about the USA!

So, hopefully the above is an accurate enough understanding. If not, please correct me politely, and if possible mention where you think I might have got confused.

Now then. Congress and the Senate. How do these chaps get elected? What is the relation between a State Governor, a City Mayor, a Congressman and a Senator?

Help me to understand the structure please!

Generally thats the case. Just think of the electoral college is a smaller version of democracy. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes (think megavotes), based on its population and in equal amount to Congress IIRC. Those votes go towards whoever won the state's election.

Some states split electoral votes. I'm not sure which ones, but a few do.

Like Fraz said, you've more or less got the gist of the American electoral system.

It's intended as a system to compromise between equal(ish) state representation and population representation. At a state-by-state level, electoral points are awarded by popular vote - so whoever gets the most raw votes wins that state. At a technical level, the representatives/senators of that given state (who give the electoral votes) are supposed to award points based on how their constituents voted, but traditionally, they have gone for the 'All or nothing' approach. Some states, as BloodofOrks mentioned, split the electoral votes roughly based off of popular vote percentages.

Whoever gets the majority of the Electoral Votes wins the nomination, and gets to nominate his own Cabinet members - though I believe that Congress needs to approve (they usually do barring some glaring issues with a candidate) the nomination.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Now then. Congress and the Senate. How do these chaps get elected? What is the relation between a State Governor, a City Mayor, a Congressman and a Senator?

Help me to understand the structure please!

Representatives and Senators are elected by popular vote in their individual districts/states.

In terms of the relationship between various levels of governing, they're all fairly autonomous though obviously for certain issues, they're likely to work together or butt heads to try to serve the interests of their direct constituents.

Its important to remember, the electoral system derives from an old system prior to current conditions. It would have been impossible to have a popular vote election by raw numbers in the days of horse and buggy, and also contravened the supremacy of the states. Voting for Congress also evolved and originally the Senate was elected by the state's Congress (IIRC).

Remember back in the day the Fed regulated the mail, weights, interstate commerce, navigable waters,the military, and hung you for treason, that was about it. Everything else was at the state level. Didn't have any massive deficits and taxation back then either...

The Electoral college is now used as a means of preventing the emergence of new parties.

If you wonder why I say that then look up who gets to be electoral representatives and how.

Basically, the voting public votes for a candidate. Then, all the electoral representatives accept bribes and such from various companies to put someone into power that will favor said companies.

That's how it works.

[^sarcasm]

However, electoral reps generally have to vote the way they are instructed. Its only when there is a tie that they get released (again IIRC).

Actually, ya'll are wrong.

The electoral represetatives are usually nominated and approved in the primaries. That means that only registered republicans or democrats get to select members to the electoral college.

This could change if there was a third national party big enough to warrant getting an electoral representatives but look at what would have to happen for that to occur. Then look at what would be needed to get a meaningful percentage, especially with the winner takes all BS.

focusedfire wrote:Actually, ya'll are wrong.

The electoral represetatives are usually nominated and approved in the primaries. That means that only registered republicans or democrats get to select members to the electoral college.

This could change if there was a third national party big enough to warrant getting an electoral representatives but look at what would have to happen for that to occur. Then look at what would be needed to get a meaningful percentage, especially with the winner takes all BS.

Again so what? They don't get a free vote the first time around.

IMO, the electoral college is no longer needed in todays computer age. Popular vote should be the deciding factor now.

The so what is that there is an effective lock on the party system. This lock prevents the natural political life cycle of said parties, thus allowing them to continue on even after they have become corrupt and the people are no longer satisfied with them.

It also gives the existing parties a veto on the popular vote should there ever be a popular third party candidate that makes it past the debate corporation and the corporate press.

This lock also helps to produce political stagnation as opposed to the natural political evolution that should be occuring.


Edited for sentence structure

How? If electral person (forget name) Bob is a Rupblican, but Joey Stalin wins the state, Bob has to vote for Joey Stalin, regardless of whether he is a republican, democrat, or communist.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Now then. Congress and the Senate. How do these chaps get elected? What is the relation between a State Governor, a City Mayor, a Congressman and a Senator?

There is no Congress and Senate. Congress refers to both legislative bodies: House of Representatives and the Senate. It is simpler then saying both every time one refers to the legislative branch.

House of Reps is based on population and each State is broken down into districts and each district elects its representatives every two years. The Senate is made up of two members from each state and are voted on every six years. Every state can be different in the details but generally all are popular votes. God help you if you want any of them out of office as the incumbency rate hangs around 95%+. It's like the mafia, once you are in you are in.

Relationship between state government and federal government is mostly political. Federal politicians can weigh in on local politics but they have no more authority (legally) than any other citizen. Now they can have a lot of political weight as State politicians often want to become Federal ones or they might want money from the federal government, ect ect. They may not have to go through these federal politicians but it often helps. Of course the federal politicians may want to rezone their district (gerrymandering) or get federal projects off the ground and then they will need the local politicians. This is obliviously very simplified and not very nuanced but I think you get the idea.

Frazzled wrote:How? If electral person (forget name) Bob is a Rupblican, but Joey Stalin wins the state, Bob has to vote for Joey Stalin, regardless of whether he is a republican, democrat, or communist.

Actually, no they do not, at least not all of them. It's about evenly split, but only some states have made voting for the popular vote a requirment as it actually is not by the Federal law governing the Electoral college. Roughly half the states could give their electoral votes to whomever they wanted regardless of the vote.

I looked up the list and it is fairly humorous. In Oklahoma the big punishment for voting against the popular vote is a fine "up to $1000".

1. Mia culpa! I was wrong and thanks for the illumination

2. Sounds like I need to be an Elector (whatever its called)

3. That vote is up for sale baby!!!

Frazzled wrote:How? If electral person (forget name) Bob is a Rupblican, but Joey Stalin wins the state, Bob has to vote for Joey Stalin, regardless of whether he is a republican, democrat, or communist.

First) Not all states are winner take all. That mixed system of some states are and some not can end up being the most insidious form of gerrymandering. This is becuase the winner takes all is decided between the parties on a state to state level for (I beleive, I'll check on this one) each major election. Think about that for a moment and see how that could be abused. You couple that with the electoral rep. not being locked to vote anyway but with a natural leaning toward their respective parties and you get the Idea.

Second) It requires that an outsider win not just one state but the electoral majority before any real change can be made. What would it take to bring up a viable third party? What would it take to build to such a point?

Third) This goes back to the Debate Corp. and one or two Media outlets having a system that effectively locks out third parties from recieving national coverage.


Someday, Someday though, I'll get my Registered American Moderates(RAM) party off of the ground. The Party symbol is the Rocky Mountain big horn sheep.
The platform is a responsiblist platform where people and especially corporations are expected to honor their agreements and pay their debts. There will be penalties for frivolous lawsuits and a major crackdown on white collar criminals. A party that will push for election reform.
Where more things are sorted out on a state to state level. A party that will tear down border fences as opposed to building them up(Fences are really designed to keep things in more than keep things out.) A party that will focus on the real issues as opposed to playing slieght of hand with hot button topics.
A party about giving more choices for healthcare as opposed to narrowing them down. A small socialized system where doctors and nurses work off their college loans part-time in government funded free clinics but when there obligation is done they still have the right to go into private practice. If they want to still participate in the government programs after finishing their commitment then they either recieve a tax break or the government offers cheap malpractice insurance.
A party that encourages small businesses instead of strangling them with red tape. A party that will try to award contracts to local state vendors. That the job of rebuilding war torn and disaster areas is the Peace Corps job to head up.
A party that BLAH,BLAH,BLAH........

Sorry about that

I think you were in process of posting that when I posted my "woops didn't know that' line. Again I stand by the rest. Come on political parties, Daddy need a new pair of EVERYTHINGGGG!!!

, Thanks for the smile Frazz. When my party starts to get off of the ground I'll keep you in mind. Only problem is that once elected, if I follow party platform I'd have to prosecute you!?? Hummph, Maybe we can think of a way around this

Vote for me.

Remember a vote for Il Duce Frazzled insures that you never have to vote again.

Frazzled, the early years


Frazzled talking


Frazzled and Barney the Dinosaur. See Barney knows who to vote for!

That really looks like you crucified Barney there you know !

I salute you.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The various states hold a number of College votes, which I understand to be a kind of proportional representation, assigned via first past the post (i.e. if I win say, California by a single vote, I clam all of Californias College Votes). Please note, I am not overly concerned with discussing merits and flaws in the given system. All I want to do is learn more about the system

The votes are allocated based on members of congress. That is, there are 538 electoral votes up for grabs because there are 438 members in the House of Representatives and 100 in the Senate. For every person your state elects to the either House, you get an electoral vote.

This is important because of the effect it has on promoting the interests of smaller states. You see, every state gets a number of seats in the House of Representatives based purely on population, but regardless of size every state gets two Senators.

Roughly seven people and one donkey live in Wyoming. If the vote was based purely on proportional representation, no presidential candidate would care at all about Wyoming and the votes of those seven people. I don’t think they’d care about the donkey at all. But because Wyoming gets two extra votes for its senators, it becomes relatively more important.

This is the big thing people miss when they talk about moving to a popular election. Effectively it would become all about New York, Texas and California, and the smaller states would miss out completely.

sebster wrote:This is the big thing people miss when they talk about moving to a popular election. Effectively it would become all about New York, Texas and California, and the smaller states would miss out completely.

Don't forget Pennsylvania.

I believe the parties would find ways to make those small states seem very important like the Republicans did with the southern strategy.

I still believe that any downsides to moving to a popular election would be more than off-set by the benefits of the return of democratic evolution and actual fresh ideas blowing through those musty halls on Capitol Hill.

@ Doc, sorry if I've pushed in a direction not intended.

Frazzled wrote:
Remember back in the day the Fed regulated the mail, weights, interstate commerce, navigable waters,the military, and hung you for treason, that was about it. Everything else was at the state level. Didn't have any massive deficits and taxation back then either...

Well, admittedly taxes were lower, although even then taxes were lower on the wealthy than on the working and middle class:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

But the federal deficit was $75,463,476.52 in 1791 on a total GNP of ~$190,000,000, or 39.4% of the GNP. Today's debt is $10,942,165,294,650.89, or 36.8% of the current GNP. By the most common measure, the public debt is actually less now than when the country was new. Admittedly, that was primarily due to the Federal Government assuming state debt from the war, but the Continental Congress couldn't borrow money, so had no debt of it's own.


http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States#New_nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

The shadow government decides who they want in the white house, then they manipulate the media and you vote for their golden boy.

warpcrafter wrote:The shadow government decides who they want in the white house, then they manipulate the media and you vote for their golden boy.

Is the Shadow Government the Jews or the Lizardmen of Kazgar IV?

maybe its the molemen

You never see them, but they are watching you all the time. They're more diligent than Santa.

Don't worry Focusefire, this is Dakka. Meandering threads are par for the course, and it's kind of disappointing if they don't veer off topic.

So, thanks so far for the help. Still a bit confused by the Senate and Congress and that.

Sebster mentioned the 538 College Votes represent 438 Congressmen, and 100 Senators, with every state having 2 Senators.

Now, I kind of get this. The College Votes are instructing the 538 incumbents who to give their nod to at President time.

So, what is the difference between a Congressman and a Senator? Is it purely a cosmetic difference in the names, or do they have varying degrees of power?

You see, in Britain, we have two debating chambers in Parliament. The House of Commons is entirely voted for. Every 4 years, there is a General Election where all the seats are up for grabs. The would be MPs campaign in their contituency, with first past the post. Should one of them be booted out the party (Following sleaze or a criminal conviction) or die on the job, this triggers a local election where the seat is voted for again.

The House of Commons pretty much holds all the power. It is here where a Bill of Parliament is thrashed out and then either rejected or approved. But it is not an Act of Parliament yet.

First, it has to go to the House of Lords, a non-elected body. This might seem non-democratic, but I feel it is essential to have this second chamber. The Lords power is fairly limited. They can postpone a Bill becoming an Act by voting against it, but they cannot ultimately stop it.

This second chamber prevents a landslide Government (likes Blairs in '97, where they controlled so much of Parliament, they could push through whatever they wanted) abandoing it's manifesto (essentially a list of promises to the electorate about their plan for the next 4 years. This is what we vote for, rather than personality. Well, thats how it's meant to go).

I think it's three times the Lords can block a Bill, before it bypasses them completely. Each time the Bill is passed back to Parliament, the Lords have to reccomend changes, which are then debated over and a new version is the submitted back to the Lords.

So how does Congress and The Senate compare to this, if at all? I fully expect there to be quite a lot of difference. After all, we are a monarchy. The Queen is our head of state, yet wields little to no power beyond purely ceremonial ones (a Bill, to become an Act, ultimately has to be ratified by the Queen and signed, but she is NOT allowed to refuse. And she owns the Armed Forces. Parliament has to ask her permission to pick a fight. Again, she is not actually allowed to refuse. So, yeah. Odd huh?) Whereas you guys have The President, who is your Head Of State and has considerable power.

So...yeah. Congress and Senate. Who Are? What do?