[newmikey]

I am hoping for some frank and open discussion (allowing for cynicism as well as sarcasm - love both!). I understand the system whereby all of the electoral votes of any one state goes to whoever wins the popular vote in that state. I also understand that eventually, it is not the absolute majority in votes that counts but the number of Electoral Votes that go to either candidate.

When there are such huge differences between the parties, why is a system that promotes a virtual stalemate still supported? Is a 2-party system really thàt much different than a one-party system like in China?

I would assume that, with the election results as close as they are, one would call both candidates winners only one ended up winning a tiny bit more than the other. The numbers I've read seem to support that - the popular vote resulting in 61,170,405 against 58,163,977 (50.5% vs. 48.0%) which is really a shockingly small difference in such a large country. It would take only about a million and a half voters to entirely flip the picture.

Yet, despite a minimal 3% difference in votes, the difference in electoral votes is such that it does not reflect the true democratic vote. 332 vs. 206 is more like a 20%+ difference (about 60/40).

With 2 parties so close in popular vote, most democratic countries would probably conclude the two have to form a coalition government as that seems to be what the people have expressed they want. This results in either party giving up a few crown-jewels in their political agenda to meet the other in the middle. The resulting government can then succeed in answering 80% of the expectations of a whole population.

Has this ever been an option in the US? If this goes on a few more years, will that 3% difference even go on shrinking? Will it then come down to pure luck, like flipping a coin and if so, why not do just that: elect the congress and senate but flip a coin on the president?

[kswier]

The popular vote is close because each party spends a billion dollars on advertisements to get half the country to believe in their agenda,

I would argue that we do have a coalition government. We have the presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives. For a bill to get pass, it has to go through all three bodies of government (thus the reason why nothing got done the past two years).

[Checking...jono]

Maybe viable 3rd, 4th, 5th parties would force a coalition in order to accomplish anything. It would take a major cultural change, however, which would be a long slow process if it's at all possible.

[Rondec]

The biggest problem in the US is not the general election, it is the primaries where the candidates Are chosen. These tend to have a small number of polarized voters voting in them meaning that some very polarized figures come out of them.

[wildman]

Mike,
I think your understanding of our electoral system, with respect to the executive, is essentially correct.

But there is nothing "wrong" with it from the view point of our constitution. In fact the system is working pretty much exactly as intended by our constitution.
It was and is intentionally a winner take all system.

It seems to me your real question is what is wrong, if anything, with our 225 year old constitution based on 18th century enlightenment principles?

[GeneV]

I would also add that compared to other countries, the actual differences in policies which determine how our parties govern are not all very large, and the government used to function cooperatively because our politicians got that.

Contrary to the rhetoric, we don't have as a major party a fascist party or National Front, and we don't have a Socialist Party or Communist Party which is a player. We have, in practice, a center left party and a center right party which struggle to keep their outliers in line.

We now have too many players with interests in blowing up the differences. Our elections have turned workable differences into team sports, regional disputes and contests between good and evil. Still, if you look from 30,000 feet at how the country was governed from Nixon through Obama, (my politically aware life) the policy differences put into practice by Republicans and Democrats are not earthshaking.

[GeneV]

The biggest problem in the US is not the general election, it is the primaries where the candidates Are chosen. These tend to have a small number of polarized voters voting in them meaning that some very polarized figures come out of them.

I would say more polarized rhetoric than anything else. How different were the records of Romney and Obama as government executives, really? Reagan talked eloquently about the evils of government taxes and spending but signed 11 tax increases and proposed budgets which would have spent more than what his congress passed. Clinton governed as one of the best Republican presidents we've had.

[newmikey]

Mike,
It seems to me your real question is what is wrong, if anything, with our 225 year old constitution based on 18th century enlightenment principles?

I wouldn't go that far, to be honest. At least I didn't really think of it in that light but your statement does make me reconsider my thinking. This constitution seems to have been developed in a time where other countries were also struggling and experimenting with all kinds of models of representation to move away from post-medieval oligarchies so it probably started out as an experiment with merit.

It's also not that I'd be a promoter of absolute, direct democracy where every single issue is decided upon by referendum - that does not guarantee that sound choices are made either, merely that the temper of the masses is blindly adopted.

Stalemates can occur in parliamentary democracies as well although they are usually short-lived (not exceeding one term of government) so this is not unique to the US system in- and by- itself. What's unique is that the stalemate seems to hold for so long and even intensify. There was a science fiction movie years ago where the fate of the world government was decided by one voter, selected at random by a giant computer. I laughed at it then but it seems that the US is rapidly moving towards that situation (minus the giant computer that is of course).

Other countries around the world have faded in- and out- of democracy or are flawed democracies at most so the US does have one of the longest runs. I believe only a few countries in Europe could match that such as France (1789), Netherlands (1815) and Switserland (??) to name but a few.

It's more the 2012-measured effectiveness I'm questioning and the obvious stalemate that a 2 party system seems to eventually always find itself in.

[Blue]

The biggest problem in the US is not the general election, it is the primaries where the candidates Are chosen. These tend to have a small number of polarized voters voting in them meaning that some very polarized figures come out of them.

This is definitely a big part of the biggest problem. In addition, in many cases, the primaries are over before some states even weigh in. On top of that, some small or lower population states can have a big influence on the primaries such as Iowa and NH.

[Blue]

If there is a problem with the electoral college, it is within a state. States with a few heavy population center skews the states electoral votes in a certain direction. You can see these effects in states like Ohio, Florida and Va. I don't think this was originally expected. Perhaps states should be using a similar system internally based on counties.

[wildman]

Still, if you look from 30,000 feet at how the country was governed from Nixon through Obama, (my politically aware life) the policy differences put into practice by Republicans and Democrats are not earthshaking.

I go back to Kennedy and pretty much agree. In the main actual policy differences were pretty sane and moderate.

I think, in my memory, when this started to noticeably break down was when the first Bush (the "read my lips" Bush) went back on his pledge to not raise taxes and there was a firestorm from his base. It seemed to me, at the time, to be something new that I had never seen before. A certain "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" intransigence that I had never seen before.

[causey]

... why is a system that promotes a virtual stalemate still supported?

A partial answer to your question, here:
Slave states vs. free states, 2012 - Salon.com

[jeffkrol]

I wouldn't go that far, to be honest. At least I didn't really think of it in that light but your statement does make me reconsider my thinking. This constitution seems to have been developed in a time where other countries were also struggling and experimenting with all kinds of models of representation to move away from post-medieval oligarchies so it probably started out as an experiment with merit.

It's also not that I'd be a promoter of absolute, direct democracy where every single issue is decided upon by referendum - that does not guarantee that sound choices are made either, merely that the temper of the masses is blindly adopted.

Stalemates can occur in parliamentary democracies as well although they are usually short-lived (not exceeding one term of government) so this is not unique to the US system in- and by- itself. What's unique is that the stalemate seems to hold for so long and even intensify. There was a science fiction movie years ago where the faith of the world government was decided by one voter, selected at random by a giant computer. I laughed at it then but it seems that the US is rapidly moving towards that situation (minus the giant computer that is of course).

Other countries around the world have faded in- and out- of democracy or are flawed democracies at most so the US does have one of the longest runs. I believe only a few countries in Europe could match that such as France (1789), Netherlands (1815) and Switserland (??) to name but a few.

It's more the 2012-measured effectiveness I'm questioning and the obvious stalemate that a 2 party system seems to eventually always find itself in.

Thoughts on the electoral process:

The Electorial Congress was originally set up to avoid the "tyranny of the masses" as in some popular though completely anti-Constution (or some other "deviant" metric) from being
elected. That premise was determined to be too unweildy and not quite practical enough. Thus the watered down power of the EC as currently used.
It is probably not thrown out because it could still be used as a "doomsday" check and balance.

As to the 2 party system.. one of my pet thoughts is that even above and beyond a parliamentary system) Congress (more specifically the "house") be chosen by state lottery. I stand by the assumption that this would have people serve who are no worse that the current "popularly elected" candidates... i.e. Michelle Bachmann ..

Senate and Pres still chosen by popular election.. while retaining the Elec. College.as a safety valve (hopefully never to be used)

The orig. set up ..w/ it's checks and balances is/was a brilliant attempt at playing the fine line between the tyranny of the majority vs tyranny of the minority...

A one party system is by definition tyranny of the majority....

US is in a "phase change" currently as to racial composition of the country.. which is only a reflection of its natural "evolutionary path" (though it is quite frightening to some but is no big deal AS LONG as the meat of the Constitution stands)..

Biggest problem on EARTH is groups that don't EVER "heal" sometimes millennial old grudges (one time I wish human and social conscience memory was short).. US is not immune from this but it is graetly watered down by "democracy" and a shared "vision" (differences, as pointed out, are less than they see in spirit.. for the most part)......

[GeneV]

I go back to Kennedy and pretty much agree. In the main actual policy differences were pretty sane and moderate.

I think, in my memory, when this started to noticeably break down was when the first Bush (the "read my lips" Bush) went back on his pledge to not raise taxes and there was a firestorm from his base. It seemed to me, at the time, to be something new that I had never seen before. A certain "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" intransigence that I had never seen before.

That was an indication. Somewhere in the '90s, people started to treat Reagan's well-crafted rhetoric as literal gospel. He never governed that way, nor did any other Republican President.

[boriscleto]

That was an indication. Somewhere in the '90s, people started to treat Reagan's well-crafted rhetoric as literal gospel. He never governed that way, nor did any other Republican President.

We even have a supposedly communist/fascist & certainly anti-colonial President who is more conservative than Ronald Reagan.