Kerry wins EV but loses popular vote?

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #1
wouldn't that be rough justice?

Kerry is nearly 2million votes behind, but could conceivably win sufficient Electoral votes to win the presidency, with some partial electoral votes going to the democrats despite losing the state.

I would think that would not be good for democracy generally speaking, but would be a return favour to bush who lost the popular vote in 2000, but won the Electoral college votes.

:D

go kerry!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DaveW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Posts
16,285
Likes
65
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
QPR
#2
My suspiscion is that states like California, whilst included in the electoral vote, may not yet be included in the popular vote.

I'd be surprised if Kerry won the election without winning the popular vote. I tend to think the electoral college favours the Republicans.
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #3
DaveW said:
My suspiscion is that states like California, whilst included in the electoral vote, may not yet be included in the popular vote.

I'd be surprised if Kerry won the election without winning the popular vote. I tend to think the electoral college favours the Republicans.
not really

I think the system is moderately fair, I think what the US needs is a federal organisation like the AEC to oversee everything instead of individual states.

Similar sort of thing happens here. THe coalition won the popular vote in TPP twice during the hawke/keating era, but didn't take government off the labor party.

THe labor party won the popular vote I think in 97 but didn't win enough seats for power (51.2 to 48.8 or something like that).

Its a flaw, but I think it works well enough of the time to overlook this minor impediment. (still as an anti GST person, I would have liked to see labor win in 97, but you have to accept the democracy as it is), and anyway liberals have won with increasing margins in 2001 and 2004 so there you are!
 

DaveW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Posts
16,285
Likes
65
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
QPR
#4
dan warna said:
not really

I think the system is moderately fair, I think what the US needs is a federal organisation like the AEC to oversee everything instead of individual states.
Oh, no doubt there are too many partisan operatives in what should be independent positions. But that's not what I was talking about.

I wasn't alleging that the electoral college was corrupt or rigged. Simply that it naturally favours Republicans. Small states are overrepresented in electoral votes per population terms. Most of the small states vote Republican.

Similar sort of thing happens here. THe coalition won the popular vote in TPP twice during the hawke/keating era, but didn't take government off the labor party.

THe labor party won the popular vote I think in 97 but didn't win enough seats for power (51.2 to 48.8 or something like that).
Yep. Hawke (1990) and Howard (1998) both won elections without winning the overall two party preferred vote.

Its a flaw, but I think it works well enough of the time to overlook this minor impediment. (still as an anti GST person, I would have liked to see labor win in 97, but you have to accept the democracy as it is), and anyway liberals have won with increasing margins in 2001 and 2004 so there you are!
The reason for our system is obvious. We like having single member constituencies so everyone gets a local member.

The electoral college makes less sense. Everyone is voting for the same candidates, so there's really no need to divide the vote into 51 parts. It's just a federalist anachronism.
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #5
I'll accept that, but my understanding is that democraps and revolticans have their own electoral college officers.

so you vote for democrat or repubs EV officers, so you vote for the person to vote for the president.

its a bit like voting for your local MP, and after that they have no further use in the democratic process ( a bit like some MPs in aus :D )

speaking of which florida and ohio look to be slipping further to the repubs and the popular vote is 2m in favour of Bush :(
 

fearlessone77

Club Legend
Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Posts
2,587
Likes
5
Location
Planet Zorg
Other Teams
Carlton
#6
If I am not mistaken the way the American system works you could conceivably have a split presidential office with a X candidate as president but a Y candidate as vice-president. Aldo I am under the understanding it is possiblr to have a tied presidency. Am I wrong????? One of you more learned guys might be able to help on this one???
 

DaveW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Posts
16,285
Likes
65
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
QPR
#7
fearlessone77 said:
If I am not mistaken the way the American system works you could conceivably have a split presidential office with a X candidate as president but a Y candidate as vice-president. Aldo I am under the understanding it is possiblr to have a tied presidency. Am I wrong????? One of you more learned guys might be able to help on this one???
If the electoral vote is tied 269-269.

The House of Reps votes on the president and the Senate votes on the vice-president.

So obviously if the two Congressional chambers are in the hands of opposing parties...
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #9
democraps are now about 3m votes behind, but have marginal leads in minor states.

it seems ohio is needed by kerry to have a chance, but bush can win without ohio if he mops up enough of the minor EVs.

hawaii early votes strong democrap
 

MillerCHF

Team Captain
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Posts
518
Likes
1
Other Teams
Melbourne
#10
I must admit that although the USA is more of a democracy than most nations, there are fundamental flaws in their electoral system.

The fact that each state has so much power over FEDERAL elections is a big problem, and it's incredible they haven't fixed it since the Florida debacle of 2000.

For all the possible shortcomings of our voting sytem, I'd have to say we're closer to having the perfect democratic system in Australia than our friends over in the USA can claim to have.

Some of the voting methods they have over in the USA make them seem more like a developing nation that has only just been introduced to democracy rather than the 'greatest democracy on Earth'.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #12
MillerCHF said:
I must admit that although the USA is more of a democracy than most nations, there are fundamental flaws in their electoral system.

The fact that each state has so much power over FEDERAL elections is a big problem, and it's incredible they haven't fixed it since the Florida debacle of 2000.

For all the possible shortcomings of our voting sytem, I'd have to say we're closer to having the perfect democratic system in Australia than our friends over in the USA can claim to have.

Some of the voting methods they have over in the USA make them seem more like a developing nation that has only just been introduced to democracy rather than the 'greatest democracy on Earth'.
True

I believe that we have a superior system.

There maybe some issues with the senate system. I think it could be better, but by and large it is superior to the British system where the parliament is sovereign and the house of lords has a delaying role only.

I reckon once we get rid of the governor we will have about the most stable democracy in the world.

I think the FIRST thing the US needs is a federal AEC.

I think the AEC is about the most remarkable thing about our democracy. If that ever gets corrupted, then so will our democracy.
 

Ray Nolan

Blue & White Army!
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Posts
11,088
Likes
975
Location
Magill
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide United FC, Rangers FC
#14
DaveW said:
Looks like I was wrong... CNN is now talking as if Bush has won the popular vote quite handily.
CNN's current count has Bush around 3,000,000 ahead on popular vote.
 

MillerCHF

Team Captain
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Posts
518
Likes
1
Other Teams
Melbourne
#15
dan warna said:
True

I believe that we have a superior system.

There maybe some issues with the senate system. I think it could be better, but by and large it is superior to the British system where the parliament is sovereign and the house of lords has a delaying role only.

I reckon once we get rid of the governor we will have about the most stable democracy in the world.

I think the FIRST thing the US needs is a federal AEC.

I think the AEC is about the most remarkable thing about our democracy. If that ever gets corrupted, then so will our democracy.
For once we're agreeing with each other Dan Warna. Get rid of the governor-general and become a republic, and we'll be the most stable democracy in the world (if we're not already).

And yes, the AEC-style system is what I was getting at with the USA. One of the problems with the USA going back to the 18th century is how much power the states got. It's ridiculous when you think about it - if they want to consider themselves as one nation, they need to act like it. And being one nation means having one electoral system. This whole farce with Colorado looking to split the EC votes (and two states already doing it) will make any result that is close seem even more flawed.

The USA must create a uniform federal electoral system for 2008, or it will continue to lose credibility in its claims to being a great democracy.
 

Minka Beaver

All Australian
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Posts
930
Likes
1,346
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Everton
#16
MillerCHF said:
For once we're agreeing with each other Dan Warna. Get rid of the governor-general and become a republic, and we'll be the most stable democracy in the world (if we're not already).

And yes, the AEC-style system is what I was getting at with the USA. One of the problems with the USA going back to the 18th century is how much power the states got. It's ridiculous when you think about it - if they want to consider themselves as one nation, they need to act like it. And being one nation means having one electoral system. This whole farce with Colorado looking to split the EC votes (and two states already doing it) will make any result that is close seem even more flawed.

The USA must create a uniform federal electoral system for 2008, or it will continue to lose credibility in its claims to being a great democracy.
Unlikely to happen unfortunately with the predicted Republican control of the Senate.
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #17
MillerCHF said:
For once we're agreeing with each other Dan Warna. Get rid of the governor-general and become a republic, and we'll be the most stable democracy in the world (if we're not already).

And yes, the AEC-style system is what I was getting at with the USA. One of the problems with the USA going back to the 18th century is how much power the states got. It's ridiculous when you think about it - if they want to consider themselves as one nation, they need to act like it. And being one nation means having one electoral system. This whole farce with Colorado looking to split the EC votes (and two states already doing it) will make any result that is close seem even more flawed.

The USA must create a uniform federal electoral system for 2008, or it will continue to lose credibility in its claims to being a great democracy.
perhaps, because it is rooted in the constitution, and the division of powers, much like aus, although we lose a bit with corruption within a state (see Qld in the late 70s to early 90s) the totality of the USA, like the totality of Aus becomes stable.

Now one PM can grasp total power.

THere are opposing powers within Aus.

similarly, china, unlike the soviet union, has no central command for the military or security, rather the military forces are divided amongst various ministers, with various roles to perform, self defence, border, etc, thus, despite obvious inefficiencies, no one super minister or supersoldier can take total control. Opposing forces results in stability?

similarly in the US, you have a congress, a senate, a president as well as individual states, which even if they have one or two houses still have an executive governor?

perhaps the instability and countering forces results in a de facto stability that a de jure legislated system could never deliver?
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,536
Likes
1,674
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#18
dan warna said:
dude bush is 3.5M ahead in the popular vote!
And will also win the electoral college. He's leading in Iowa with 97% counted and New Mexico (94%) - another 12 votes.

An enthralling campaign. The Dems did about the best they could and saved a wipeout.

Kerry is not going to concede tonight but who would expect him to? I'm sure W will be quite happy to let it drag on just to savour the victory ...chuffed at winning the popular vote so substantially this time and creaming the Dems in Florida. Dude, where are your chads now? Chuffed they matched the Dems in the new registrations and the turnouts.

There are pluses and minuses to the electoral college system. Isn't it similiar to the "weightings" that are given to our electorates to iron out population differences?
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #19
GuruJane said:
And will also win the electoral college. He's leading in Iowa with 97% counted and New Mexico (94%) - another 12 votes.

An enthralling campaign. The Dems did about the best they could and saved a wipeout.

Kerry is not going to concede tonight but who would expect him to? I'm sure W will be quite happy to let it drag on just to savour the victory ...chuffed at winning the popular vote so substantially this time and creaming the Dems in Florida. Dude, where are your chads now? Chuffed they matched the Dems in the new registrations and the turnouts.

There are pluses and minuses to the electoral college system. Isn't it similiar to the "weightings" that are given to our electorates to iron out population differences?
yes and no.

you get 2.5 m votes to 2.4 m votes and you win the whole state. Management of the vote is restricted to the state governor to return.

there are no preferences, buy and large, each block of population gets one MP, which limits the effects of disenfranchisement.

Colorado voted on making the system fairer, but it was defeated by a huge margin.

I would take the aussie system as is, as the most superior democracy leading to stability.

NZ democracy is 'fairer' than australia as is possibly SL with its proportional representation mechanism, but it leads to unstable government.

by convention as opposed to law, the senate is usually compliant on most issues.

a hostile senate could make governing impossible.

There are some dangers is a controlled senate, however the real vulnerability of our democracy is if the AEC gets 'captured'. the AEC i believe is the fundamental backbone in keeping our democracy honest.

labour or liberal haven't complained about the AEC in my memory.

bitch all you want about ch9 abc, 3aw etc, I don't usually buy into it, as long as the AEC is sacrosant, then our democracy is strong.

cheers Dan.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#20
I have no probs with the EC system.

Sure you can get 20 votes from a state with a 50.1% to 49.9% victory, but over here you get the full Member of Parliament by just winning 50.1% to 49.9% in a seat as well.

But unlike here all the seats are not the same-ish size, so you just get a population factor - ie one seat is worth 3 ecvotes, and another is 20.
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,536
Likes
1,674
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#21
dan warna said:
yes and no.

you get 2.5 m votes to 2.4 m votes and you win the whole state. Management of the vote is restricted to the state governor to return.

there are no preferences, buy and large, each block of population gets one MP, which limits the effects of disenfranchisement.

Colorado voted on making the system fairer, but it was defeated by a huge margin.

I would take the aussie system as is, as the most superior democracy leading to stability.

NZ democracy is 'fairer' than australia as is possibly SL with its proportional representation mechanism, but it leads to unstable government.

by convention as opposed to law, the senate is usually compliant on most issues.

a hostile senate could make governing impossible.

There are some dangers is a controlled senate, however the real vulnerability of our democracy is if the AEC gets 'captured'. the AEC i believe is the fundamental backbone in keeping our democracy honest.

labour or liberal haven't complained about the AEC in my memory.

bitch all you want about ch9 abc, 3aw etc, I don't usually buy into it, as long as the AEC is sacrosant, then our democracy is strong.

cheers Dan.
Agree with your comments about AEC.

However ... preferential and compulsory voting are systems virtually unique to Australia.

imo compulsory voting is what makes Australia so conservative.

Because of foxtel and internet and time on my hands, was able to satisfy a long held wish of following a US election campaign in detail.

Was hugely impressed with the level of sophistication of the debate and of the means both parties used to communicate with the voters. The wit and excellence of both parties ads. The extraordinary range of intelligent punditry (as opposed to sloganeering) from both sides. The informed level of commentary. The vitality of the input from the bloggers and the web.

I'm sure none of this would have been so good if it hadn't been for the reality that the parties have to work to get the vote out for them.

Compulsory voting renders the Aust electorate irritable, cynical and impervious to informed debate imo.

As for preferential: in my ALP days it was anathema to the true believers. I have always disliked it on the grounds that some people in effect get "two votes".

If it was truly fair, then I believe ALL preferences should be counted before the result is declared.

btw Dan, this is a huge win for Bush - as significant in the long term as Little Johnny's recent win. Not only has he won over 50 per cent of popular vote for the first time since '88, the Republicans have increased their representation in both the Senate and the House.

Given the huge increase in turnout, the excellent Dem campaign and the clear divide on the issues, especially Iraq, this is as severe and significant a defeat for the Dems as Labor here has just suffered.

I notice you are gnashing sour grapes on another thread, but honestly if the Left doesn't rework itself on the lines Blair,Brown and Mandelson put together with New Labour it risks becoming entirely irrelevant. Is that what you'd want to see?
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #22
I prefer to look at it as it is your civic responsibility to vote. Compulsory voting is a good thing, sure it may backfire on labour, but it ensures the fundamental responsibility of the citizen to decide government.

preferential voting is a bit more suspect.

I think in the senate you should be able to number above the line, rather than spending 25 minutes listing below the line.

I think a lot of voters were suprised that their vote ended up with family first.

I think 1 to 20 or whatever above the line rather than 1 to 80 below line or just 1 above the line is better.

I think we should have the choice of preferential voting or first past the line.

ie if you just select 1, then your vote stops there rather than flowing, or you can preferentially vote if you choose.

I think these minor changes will improve our democracy, but not fussed either way.

we whip the brits and americans on stable government and democratic governmetn.
 
Top Bottom