4 ms·

The 25% is a consequence of the Electoral College system. And before someone says "well, we should just go by popular vote" - if the election was determined by

The 25% is a consequence of the Electoral College system. And before someone says "well, we should just go by popular vote" - if the election was determined by popular vote, the campaigns would have completely different strategies, with different participation and outcomes.

vacri 10y ago
Given that the vote was basically 50-50, and that most of the votes are cast outside the swing states that got the attention, then no, the 'mandate' result would not have been different from 25%. Different tactics wouldn't shift that general number much.
jrs235 10y ago
The 25% is not a consequence of the Electoral College system. The 25% is a consequence of only 50% of eligible voters voting, half of which voted for the winner.
- lambertsimnel 10y ago
  True, but the electoral college contributes to the problem. In winner-takes-all states that are heavily for one party or the other, there is not much incentive to vote. Turnout would almost certainly be higher under a national popular vote.
woliveirajr 10y ago
Then people could complain or discuss about voluntary versus obligatory voting, then about having just two real candidates versus more (powerful) parties, then about limited vs unlimited funding, then private vs company vs public funding, then about quotas for any category you name, then ... There are so many combinations and possibilities that it's hard to say which one is the best. And all them can be gamed.
- eru 10y ago
  > [...] then about having just two real candidates versus more (powerful) parties [...] You can have more than two candidates without more powerful parties. Proportional representation leads to parties, something like range voting can keep the primacy of candidates, but lets us escape from the two party system. http://rangevoting.org/ http://rangevoting.org/
  - lambertsimnel 10y ago
    Proportional representation in the electoral college is equivalent to a national popular vote, and is no more or less conducive to party power than the status quo. Proportional representation in the House of Representatives is possible without increasing party power (or even without parties at all) by using Single Transferable Vote. Instant Runoff Voting (the single-winner variant of Single Transferable Vote) for presidential (and gubernatorial) elections would help to protect against excessive party power by allowing third party and non-party candidates a fair chance.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - eru 10y ago
      Instant Runoff Voting (and the Single Transferable Vote) wouldn't really help: Australia has those, and if anything, there electoral system is even worse than Britain and the US---eg they don't have a single non-white MP.
      - lambertsimnel 10y ago
        Electoral systems can do little for democracy other than promote majority rule. STV and related systems do this well and also provide proportional representation on non-party matters. Civil society also has a role to play in keeping democracy healthy. Instant Runoff Voting is really only suitable for single winner elections like presidential, gubernatorial and mayoral elections, and not for the multi-winner legislative elections it is used for in Australia. There are better forms of STV than that used for the Australian Senate, but I'd take any form of STV over FPTP.

vacri 10y ago

Given that the vote was basically 50-50, and that most of the votes are cast outside the swing states that got the attention, then no, the 'mandate' result would not have been different from 25%. Different tactics wouldn't shift that general number much.

jrs235 10y ago

The 25% is not a consequence of the Electoral College system. The 25% is a consequence of only 50% of eligible voters voting, half of which voted for the winner.

lambertsimnel 10y ago
True, but the electoral college contributes to the problem. In winner-takes-all states that are heavily for one party or the other, there is not much incentive to vote. Turnout would almost certainly be higher under a national popular vote.

woliveirajr 10y ago

Then people could complain or discuss about voluntary versus obligatory voting, then about having just two real candidates versus more (powerful) parties, then about limited vs unlimited funding, then private vs company vs public funding, then about quotas for any category you name, then ... There are so many combinations and possibilities that it's hard to say which one is the best. And all them can be gamed.

eru 10y ago
> [...] then about having just two real candidates versus more (powerful) parties [...] You can have more than two candidates without more powerful parties. Proportional representation leads to parties, something like range voting can keep the primacy of candidates, but lets us escape from the two party system. http://rangevoting.org/ http://rangevoting.org/
- lambertsimnel 10y ago
  Proportional representation in the electoral college is equivalent to a national popular vote, and is no more or less conducive to party power than the status quo. Proportional representation in the House of Representatives is possible without increasing party power (or even without parties at all) by using Single Transferable Vote. Instant Runoff Voting (the single-winner variant of Single Transferable Vote) for presidential (and gubernatorial) elections would help to protect against excessive party power by allowing third party and non-party candidates a fair chance.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - eru 10y ago
    Instant Runoff Voting (and the Single Transferable Vote) wouldn't really help: Australia has those, and if anything, there electoral system is even worse than Britain and the US---eg they don't have a single non-white MP.
    - lambertsimnel 10y ago
      Electoral systems can do little for democracy other than promote majority rule. STV and related systems do this well and also provide proportional representation on non-party matters. Civil society also has a role to play in keeping democracy healthy. Instant Runoff Voting is really only suitable for single winner elections like presidential, gubernatorial and mayoral elections, and not for the multi-winner legislative elections it is used for in Australia. There are better forms of STV than that used for the Australian Senate, but I'd take any form of STV over FPTP.