How does the American voting system work?

[large_ghostman]

Ok a non political, political thread!! Be warned NO talk of politics as such I want to know something specific.

How does the American voting system work? I have been trying to follow it as its pretty fascinating, I like the debates better than the way we have introduced debates. But I dont understand the primaries etc. So how does the actual work?? I am not interested in things like the guy with the most money wins, or X person is better than Y. I can make my own mind up on that ****, so purely a structural question about the system and how the voting works.

At first glance it looks similar to ours where you have regions and the party who gets X number of votes past a certain point wins (proved very unfair last time). As we dont have a president our system is different and the 'other' players (MP's) play a bigger part (so it seems).

One last time..PLEASE NO POLITICAL POINT SCORING!

 

[Pommie]

The American system is really messed up. If you can, download "Adam ruins everything" episode seven. Or. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Mike.

 

[jpanhalt]

Our system is not that different from what exists in many countries. There are some details, such as our Electorial College for selection of the President and VP to deal with, but in general our elections are driven by the popular vote.

Starting with election of members of our House of Representatives. Every state is divided into districts with one Representative for each district. That election is based on the popular vote. That is, the person with the most votes in the district wins. Many -- maybe all -- states require a majority of the votes cast in order to win. Thus, when there are several candidates, that election can lead to run-off elections. Representatives are elected for a term of 2 years. There is no limit on the number of terms a member can serve. Thus, the US has a national election every 2 years.

Election to our Senate ("Upper House") is similar, except each state only has 2 Senate districts. Early on, Senators were appointed by the state governors, but that changed after our Civil War (17th Amendment) to allow for the popular election of Senators. Senators serve a term of 6 years, and approximately 1/3 of the Senators face re-election every 2 years during the national election.

The President and VP are technically elected by the Electorial College. Here is a detailed discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college There are a variety of reasons for the electorial college. One was to accommodate the facts of slow transportation and communication when the US was founded. Another was to allow states themselves to have a say in the process -- remember Senators were appointed by governors. Another was to allow less populous states to have a disproportionate influence in the outcome. Our Founders were concerned that a simple popular vote could lead to tyranny by the majority who resided in a few populous states. Finally, it provides a tie-breaking mechanism to avoid repeated national elections. Our President and VP candidates run as a team. Most often, the persons elected to President/VP also win the popular vote. But, there are notable exceptions to that. Presidents serve 4-year terms and historically never served more than two terms (a custom established by our first President, George Washington). Franklin Roosevelt was the first President to run for a third term and was elected to 4 terms in total. He died early in his fourth term and just before the end of WWII. President Truman succeeded him and was elected to a full additional term in 1948. The 22nd Constitutional amendment was passed to put a statutory limit of 2 elected terms for the President. A President who serves a portion of a preceding President's term may still run for election twice. See the amendment for details. That remains the only term limit at the national level in the US.

As for opinions about our "messed up" system, those clearly run contrary to the OP's desire to keep politics out of this thread. For the record, I think our system is pretty good.

Discussion of primary elections and caucuses is more complicated.
John

 

[JoeJester]

There are reasons for the government makeup and voting in the united States.

The house or representatives is apportioned by the population. The Senate is two per state. The electoral college is one vote per member of Congress.

Direct elections would allow a politician to campaign in just the urban areas to get the popular vote, disenfranshing the rural voters.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

How does the American voting system work?

I thought it was pretty well that the one who spends the most money wins?

 

[large_ghostman]

Thanks that is really informative and interesting, from a small country perspective I didnt really understand why you have the system you do, now it makes sense. Do you think the upper house was a throw off from the UK having two houses (parliament and the lords?).
For the record until extremely recently I always saw the house of lords as a dysfunctional throw back to the past, to me it was more ceremonial that effective. However recently I saw a different side to the other house and would prefer we keep it at all cost.For me and I am sure others in a small place like the UK, we dont really understand the impact a country with such a large land mas and large population, dictates what was done in previous times. Put into historical context it makes more sense to me now.

I think its something you would need to be brought up with to fully understand how it works, but considering the size of the States it does make sense. The one big thing I like is the way the debates are held, over here they were really messed up last time and in my opinion abused. I also dont like how one party can get the second highest proportion of votes overall, and yet only get one person out of 630 seats. Not that I support any of the current parties, but I do see unfairness in the system here. Other countries political systems rather than there politics interest me alot.

if the Mods like it can be closed I got some good answers and enough info to go find more out.

 

[jpanhalt]

Thanks that is really informative and interesting, from a small country perspective I didnt really understand why you have the system you do, now it makes sense. Do you think the upper house was a throw off from the UK having two houses (parliament and the lords?).

NO! Our Constitution owes to the "Continental Congress." Very simply, the choice was between a loosely connected federation of independent nation-states and independent nations. There was no desire to duplicate the UK parliament. (President) Jefferson was a genius; (President) Madison was more an independent states/nations person. Jefferson argued that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. That is, the Federal government was sufficiently limited by the Constitution to prevent Federal tyranny. Madison argued the opposite. Madison is seen as the father of our Bill of Rights. Today, many Americans regret that the Bill of Rights didn't go farther and are grateful it even exists. In looking at the current American government, you must understand that original tension between our two greatest founders.

I think its something you would need to be brought up with to fully understand how it works, but considering the size of the States it does make sense. The one big thing I like is the way the debates are held, over here they were really messed up last time and in my opinion abused.

As I mentioned, our primary/caucus system is complex. It may look to an outsider as a national event. In reality, the system is run by the individual political parties and varies in detail state by state. In reality, one doesn't even need to run in or win a single primary or caucus to run in the national election for President.

John

 

[large_ghostman]

We had a kind of constitution (Magna Carter) but it has been almost completely eroded away by things called statutory instruments, which are not ACTS of parliament but seem to do alot of harm to the system overall.

The legal system in Scotland is different from that in England, I am not a fan of the Scottish legal system.

Even in the UK few understand the big difference between legal and lawful, only 4 things are unlawful in the UK and these stem from common law at the time of Mgna Carter, the rest is illegal and comes from statutory instruments. Whatever the rights and wrongs of a constitution I think its important that the people decide if something remains a part of that constitution or not, I really dislike politicians using the excuse of having an elected mandate to change things they were never spoke about before being elected. As above we are in a situation where only 38% of the population got what they wanted, worse still clever twisting of words means a politician can do almost anything and say it was in there manifesto. We have become lazy regarding politics and allow the people at the top of the system to get away with overly broad manifesto's at election time.

Its a shame more people dont understand how important it is to understand the structure of government in the country you live in, here even at local level its surprising how important local elections are. I have had to take Modern Studies as a course because of the way my timetable fell, I have actually enjoyed the political and legal sections we have been taught. I wouldnt fancy politics as a career and I am not suitable to be a politician (or diplomat!). But they are interesting topics that affect everyday life and yet most of us find them boring.

While certainly not perfect I do like the American concept of constitution above all else (I mean from a political/legal perspective), I can see many times especially lately where a constitution can and has stopped decisions being made on one persons view point. I wont go into the details of what I am talking about as there is no need, my question was about structure and that has been answered, thanks alot for the information.

 

[jpanhalt]

On my first trip to England, my goal (besides the business purpose of the trip) was to see the Magna Carta. I saw the copy in Salisbury. It was worth the trip and poor food () to me.

In the US, we have many agencies that can make rules that are effectively laws and have serious monetary penalties or even prison attached to them. They may be the equivalent of your "statutory instruments." We also have "executive orders" which the President can issue. Both erode the power of our Congress.

John

 

[ronv]

Ok a non political, political thread!! Be warned NO talk of politics as such I want to know something specific.

How does the American voting system work? I have been trying to follow it as its pretty fascinating, I like the debates better than the way we have introduced debates. But I dont understand the primaries etc. So how does the actual work?? I am not interested in things like the guy with the most money wins, or X person is better than Y. I can make my own mind up on that ****, so purely a structural question about the system and how the voting works.

At first glance it looks similar to ours where you have regions and the party who gets X number of votes past a certain point wins (proved very unfair last time). As we dont have a president our system is different and the 'other' players (MP's) play a bigger part (so it seems).

One last time..PLEASE NO POLITICAL POINT SCORING!

The system is a little funny.
There have been 4 presidents that didn't actually win the popular vote, but won the election.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/
The house of representatives is also an interesting study. The districts, as they are called, are determined by the states based on population. The shape of these districts are often manipulated to the advantage of one party or the other or sometimes even to try and keep the same people in power on both sides. Here is a map of one of the worst ones.

Most places the voters select their representatives, but sometimes the representatives select their voters.

 

[large_ghostman]

The system is a little funny.
There have been 4 presidents that didn't actually win the popular vote, but won the election.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/
The house of representatives is also an interesting study. The districts, as they are called, are determined by the states based on population. The shape of these districts are often manipulated to the advantage of one party or the other or sometimes even to try and keep the same people in power on both sides. Here is a map of one of the worst ones.

Most places the voters select their representatives, but sometimes the representatives select their voters.

We have parish boundaries etc which is really similar to your boundaries. These have often been tweaked to give one side or other an advantage. Because of the system and first past the post principle, the boundaries can make a big difference with the smallest of changes. The other current trick at the moment is one party are trying to alter how the other party is funded, this would be devastating to the opposition party.

I dont like much about any of the main parties, but one in particular seems very like it was a long time ago. I have a general uncomfortable feeling that we are heading down dangerous paths and yet no one seems bothered about it, so maybe its just paranoia. I dont particularly dislike those in power at the moment, but I certainly dont trust them or the opposition to have peoples best interest at heart.

But having said all that I look at other systems around the world and I am thankful that at least for now we have a say who is in charge. Anyway I didnt want to get political and its headed that way!!

We had a vote recently on changing the voting system, it was a bit of a mess to be honest. The options were poor the way they were worded and presented. I think in the end although the current system is inherently unfair, it was better than what was offered. the other problem is looking back and with slightly more knowledge, I think the alternative vote system was poorly explained and most people opted for the devil they knew. It didnt really hit home how unfair the system is until the last election, I think because the runner up (proportion of votes wise) was not one of the 'normal' parties. It really highlighted the system when as I said they got the second highest number of votes overall and yet out of 630 seats only got one seat!! The party that came third got many many more seats and yet overall came third, in that context the current system is unfair.

The local system of council elections seem to be considered of know real value, many people dont vote and yet it directly affects local services. I dont have any answers but alot of questions!!

 

[JoeJester]

There has been one president who didn't win a presidential election nor a single vote by the people for the office of vice President.

 

[jpanhalt]

He (Gerald Ford) was a damn good president. He kept the nation together during a very tough time. The press simply would not acccept that he was an exceptionally good student at U. Michigan, a gentleman, a football player, and not at all clumsy. He was just big and tall. By happenstance, he once sat in the seat in front of me on a commercial airliner (after he left office) from Denver. After we landed and people started to open the overhead baggage compartments, a bag that had shifted in flight started to fall on him. I lurched out of reflex to grab it. You should have seen the SS response. Maybe the fact I was in a suit saved my life. Like it was no secret in the cabin who he was.

John

 

[JoeJester]

John,

The media likes to equate grades and leadership. The reality is, and is summed up with this phrase ... Looks good on paper.

 

[shortbus=]

Since the "citizens united" decision it has gone more to the one with the most money backing wins. not always but mostly. As far as the voting boundaries 'gerrymandering' has also gotten much worse. The party in power during the census get to set the boundaries.

 

[JoeJester]

The origins of "gerrymandering" in the state of Massachusetts.

Printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the newly drawn state senate election district of South Essex created by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists.

from wikipedia

 

[JimB]

First glance at your map JJ I thought that it was supposed to represent part of the UK, looking at those place names.

JimB

 

[Pommie]

Sorry about the messed up comment. I just meant that, contrary to what happens in the UK, the US people don't actually vote for their leader. I find that rather strange but have learnt a lot from the above posts.

Mike.

 

[JoeJester]

Hey, the Brits settled that part of the country ... Maybe some were homesick.

The northeastern states were called New England states. The football team is the New England Patriots.

 

[shortbus=]

Hey, the Brits settled that part of the country

Not all of it, New York city was Dutch in the beginning. Was called, New Amsterdam.