Electoral Systems

How do you feel about your country's electoral system? What electoral system do you prefer and why?

Honestly i don't know much about the USA's system of Voting, i always thought it was whoever gets the higher votes won but i guess not (2000 is a good example.)

You're right Romulus. Basically the U.S. has a first past the post system (FPTP). Whoever gets the most votes wins. This is how it works in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and India.

Personally, I like the D'Hondt method of party list proportional representation (PR). I think it best allocates the percentage of representatives by party or group in a legislature by way of their voting numbers. I like a threshold of 3-5% in order to enter a legislature, so the body would not become clogged with bickering, small parties that could limit government formation. However, you usually need to have a state where political parties already have strong powers in order for this system to succeed, and also normally some form of a parliamentary system. I don't think it would work everywhere (you will see it in the U.S. when pigs fly) but it seems to do fine in Poland, Finland, Spain, Austria, Chile, Luxembourg, Japan, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
There's the US system.

Canada uses FPTP. I don't mind it too much.

Then how did Bush win in 2000? something about electoral Votes?

We use a kinda similar method in the Netherlands, but a party only needs about 0.67% of the total amount of votes to win one parliamentary seat.

Yeah, that's the Electoral College. Whoever has the most votes in a state wins all their electoral votes (except for Nebraska and Maine, which divide their electoral votes by congressional district...candidate A has a majority in 3 districts, and candidate B has a majority in 1 district, so the electoral votes will be split 3 to 1). You can still win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college vote. You can receive more popular votes overall by receiving higher numbers in some states, but still lose when the other candidate collects more popular majorities in other states, and therefor get more electoral votes. This has happened only a few times in history, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and yes, 2000, with Bush vs. Gore. Not to forget, some electors in the college have changed their vote later on, regardless of how their state voted. These are "faithless electors."

As for all congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative elections, they're all FPTP. In American cities, the system varies. New York City is FPTP. Chicago and Los Angeles have a run-off system, where if no candidate gets more than 50%, a second election must be called. Other cities like San Francisco, Burlington, Minneapolis-St. Paul (both of them), and Oakland have an instant runoff voting system, where voters chose the candidates by preference (1, 2, 3...). However, each system varies because the power of the mayor and city council changes from place to place.

That made more sense then me then it should have, thank you.

No problem It's a rough explanation, but yeah...

I like them, although America don't vote enough and we need more parties. But all in there pretty good.

Dare to dream.

The Romulus party of America.

Electoral College = gaybullshit

And now you know the American system.

THats how we should teach it to students.

We should teach them the wonderful land of North Korea.

We really need PR in the UK. Our FPTP electoral system effectively makes the UK a two party state. The amount of votes required to get just one seat is monumentally higher for a 3rd party. We also need campaign finance reform, making it publicly funded.

Completely agree. I'm all for PR.

I see the electoral college as a filter on the voting system. It lets most of the good things through and leaves all of the crap behind, but it leaves behind some of the good things in the filter. I don't mind FPTP, as long as my vote counts, that is all that matters.

Also, I agree that the USA needs more parties. The Democrats and the Republicans suck ass, we need a liberitarian party and a Constitutionalist party.

Not, really. The electoral college is as politically biased as anything. The founders intention (an elitist one, to be honest) for the college to be a protection against a misguided election never really panned out. I almost see the college as unnecessary, but I still like the idea of different states being worth more and less.

It's not really that simple. While the major parties dominate US politics, they are much less 'powerful' than their European counterparts. Example: the majority party elects the executive in the UK democracy, among other things. However, US politics tend to be more broad stroked, making parties that deal with specific policies, like the Green Party, impotent. Because of this nature of American politics, it is unlikely that there would ever be a sustainable third party as a major player. The closest we ever got was with the Bull Moose Party, and that was more of Theodore Roosevelt's popularity than anything.

Finally, a simple guide to the American Presidential elections:

1. Everyone votes (not really, but you know...).
2. Votes are tallied
3. The majority winner wins the state, and electors of his party are sent to the National Convention, where they cast ballots according to the decision of the state.
4. The one with the most electoral votes wins.

Here's a site with all of the elections, and a cool map: http://www.270towin.com/
Check out 1872, that's a doozie.