Is the USA a direct democracy? (split from Prop8)

Politics International Politics
1

In fact, it does. In a pure democracy, 51% of the people can vote to shit in breakfasts of the other 49% of the people.

This is precisely the reason that I do not believe that the issue of gay marriage should be put to a vote by “the people”.[/quote]

No, it isn’t. By “pure democracy” I mean a “direct democracy”. In a direct democracy, the majority of those eligible to vote make the rules.

I’m not arguing that blacks, gays, women, men or any other group should be oppressed because a majority decides to do so. I am very happy that the US system of democracy, a republican democracy, allows majority rule with protection of the minority.

But your idea of what is “proper” is an opinion. The fact is, in a pure (direct) democracy the majority rules. Whether that is “proper” or not often depends on the size and nature (homogenous vs. heterogenous) of the voting population. Jefferson very much liked direct democracies, but he understood that they usually work well, or “properly” only when the voting population is relatively small and relatively homogenous. Because the US was even in 1789 relatively large and the voting population was relatively heterogenous, the founding fathers agreed to form our government as a republican democracy, in order to prevent mob rule as warned by Madison.[/quote]

I agree, but the US has turned into more of a direct democracy over the years.

For example, the Founding Fathers intended that the President should be indirectly elected, but now the election is decided by popular vote. The electors in the electoral college are now expected to vote according to the popular vote in their state.
At state level, the US has a plethora of ballot initiatives every election time which are again a very obvious example of direct democracy.

Actually democracy in the UK is far less “pure” than in the US, referenda are exceedingly rare and the Prime Minister is not directly elected, but is simply the leader of which ever party controls the most seats in the House of Commons.

2

I would disagree with you on this point. While the topic of the thread is a proposition, and is therefore one of the tools of a direct democracy (referendum), you can’t extend that any further. Not every state has this in place, in fact less than 50% do. It doesn’t exist at the federal level, and most the states that allow for direct democracy have had it for some time. It isn’t a new feature in American politics. As such, I wouldn’t say that the US has turned into a direct democracy. I would say that western states, who tend to have more direct democracy options available, are more populist than other areas.
http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm

The first sentence is incorrect, the second sentence is more correct. The President of the US has never been decided by popular vote. There have been three instances where the winner didn’t have the majority of the popular vote; 2000, 1888 and 1876. It usually coincides that the winner has the majority of the popular vote, but not necessarily. That’s why there is an electoral college.

You don’t actually vote for the President and Vice President directly, your vote actually goes towards the statewide total. If one party has a majority in the state, then they win the electoral votes of that state. That works in all states and D.C. except for Nebraska and Maine. They have their own way of doing things.

Now, the electors are supposed to vote for the candidate that won their state’s popular vote. They don’t have to. As the following URL shows, about half of the states allow their electors to vote for someone else other than who won their states electoral vote.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/EC-Appointed.phtml

3

[quote=“lbksig”]

I would disagree with you on this point. While the topic of the thread is a proposition, and is therefore one of the tools of a direct democracy (referendum), you can’t extend that any further. Not every state has this in place, in fact less than 50% do. It doesn’t exist at the federal level, and most the states that allow for direct democracy have had it for some time. It isn’t a new feature in American politics. As such, I wouldn’t say that the US has turned into a direct democracy. I would say that western states, who tend to have more direct democracy options available, are more populist than other areas.
http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm[/quote]

I would say that the US has far more direct democracy that the UK. We have only ever had referenda on future political status, and once for the whole UK on joining the EEC (although other times in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales). A referendum on whether gay people should be allowed to marry would be an anathema in the UK.

Anyway my point was that over US history more and more features of direct democracy have appeared, including referenda in many states and the direct election of the President by popular vote (see below).

[quote]
The first sentence is incorrect, the second sentence is more correct. The President of the US has never been decided by popular vote. There have been three instances where the winner didn’t have the majority of the popular vote; 2000, 1888 and 1876. It usually coincides that the winner has the majority of the popular vote, but not necessarily. That’s why there is an electoral college.

You don’t actually vote for the President and Vice President directly, your vote actually goes towards the statewide total. If one party has a majority in the state, then they win the electoral votes of that state. That works in all states and D.C. except for Nebraska and Maine. They have their own way of doing things.

Now, the electors are supposed to vote for the candidate that won their state’s popular vote. They don’t have to. As the following URL shows, about half of the states allow their electors to vote for someone else other than who won their states electoral vote.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/EC-Appointed.phtml[/quote]

Sorry I did not express myself clearly, I meant a popular vote in each of the states, not a national popular vote. In the 18th and 19th century many states did not select their electoral college representatives by popular vote, a clear example of indirect democracy.
I am aware of the ‘faithless electors’, however both the political parties select electors for their loyalty, so now this is a very rare phenomenon, most recently it is only happened by mistake or as a protest (when it was known it would not effect the election outcome). The chance of ‘faithless electors’ changing the course of an election is practically zero, and if it did happen it would no doubt participate a major constitutional crisis.
So while the election of President may still legally be indirect (as intended in the Constitution), it is now to all practical purposes direct.

4

No. We still use an indirect form of democracy when electing the POTUS. If we elected the POTUS by popular vote, McCain would be campaigning in NY, CA, and any other large state where Obama leads for as many votes as he could get.

5

No. We still use an indirect form of democracy when electing the POTUS. If we elected the POTUS by popular vote, McCain would be campaigning in NY, CA, and any other large state where Obama leads for as many votes as he could get.[/quote]
This way he can concentrate on the patriotic parts of the US.

6

Palin and McCain don’t seem to see eye-to-eye on the issue.

7

No. We still use an indirect form of democracy when electing the POTUS. If we elected the POTUS by popular vote, McCain would be campaigning in NY, CA, and any other large state where Obama leads for as many votes as he could get.[/quote]

The US election is technically indirect-the electors elect the electoral college who then elect the President. However it is in effect direct since the electors are (effectively) bound to follow the popular vote. The fact that it is done on a state-by-state basis does not make the election indirect.

The Senate is another good example of how the US has moved increasingly towards direct elections. Because of the fear of ‘mob rule’ it was previously selected by state legislatures, until the seventeenth amendment provided for direct popular vote.

8

I have mixed feelings on the political tradition of referenda initiatives in California. These voter-initiated referendums help make the state progressive by putting power in the hands of the people. On the other hand, being able to overturn a court ruling through a voter initiative can undermine the rule of law that are the courts’ responsibility.

If the people can easily overturn a Supreme Court ruling through the ballot booth, then one has to ask why these courts are needed in the first place.

9

[quote=“reztrop”]I have mixed feelings on the political tradition of referenda initiatives in California. These voter-initiated referendums help make the state progressive by putting power in the hands of the people. On the other hand, being able to overturn a court ruling through a voter initiative can undermine the rule of law that are the courts’ responsibility.

If the people can easily overturn a Supreme Court ruling through the ballot booth, then one has to ask why these courts are needed in the first place.[/quote]

I doubt that the people can overrule a state or federal Supreme Court ruling that some law is unconstitutional. Their only power would most likely be to amend some statute to make it constitutional after the original version was found unconstitutional. In a government that’s supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people it seems only appropriate that they should be the last word in resolving any issue, including amending the Constitution if they so choose.

If not the people then who should be the last word – the final arbiter – in a democratic society? Five unelected citizens?

The people aren’t part of the balance of power equation between the three federal branches of government anyway so comparing them with the judicial – or legislative or executive – branches of government is an apples and oranges comparison.

10

No.

A candidate can win the POTUS election while losing the popular vote. That could NOT happen in a direct election.

11

No.

A candidate can win the POTUS election while losing the popular vote. That could NOT happen in a direct election.[/quote]

My point was that the President is effectively directly elected by the people, we already know who won the election before the electoral college convenes. In the US system, the popular vote is calculated on a state by state basis, and not in terms of the national popular vote.
If the electoral college did not exist, and the electoral result simply confirmed by entering each state’s results into a computer, the effect would be the same. The electors in the electoral college play no actual role in selecting the president, beyond casting their votes in line with the popular vote.

A proper indirect election is like the old senate elections. The people in each state elect the state legislatures who then elect the senators from that state.

12

[quote=“Tigerman”]No.

A candidate can win the POTUS election while losing the popular vote. That could NOT happen in a direct election.[/quote]

There can be many types of “indirect” elections. But, there is only one type of “direct” election. An election is either “direct” or it is some type of “indirect” election. If it is “effectively” “direct” then it really is just one of the many types of “indirect” elections.

Irrelevant.

Thus, the POTUS is elected via an “indirect” election rather than by a “direct” election.

Not necessarily. There have been times where the POTUS was elected with less than a majority of the total national popular vote. That’s what an “indirect” method of voting can do.

The popular votes of the states, only. Not of the nation.

I think we are mixing “direct” and “popular” here.

In any event, the POTUS is not elected by a popular national vote. He/She is elected “indirectly” by the electoral college.

13

[quote=“Tigerman”]

There can be many types of “indirect” elections. But, there is only one type of “direct” election. An election is either “direct” or it is some type of “indirect” election. If it is “effectively” “direct” then it really is just one of the many types of “indirect” elections.[/quote]

It seems we agree then. My only point was that the election is “effectively” direct, not that it is legally so. The election essentially reflects the popular vote, divided according to state with each state given a certain weighting. The indirect element (i.e. the electors) only play a formal role (voting in strict accordance with the popular vote in their state)-which is why they could be replaced by computer.

14

[quote=“Mawvellous”]
It seems we agree then. My only point was that the election is “effectively” direct, not that it is legally so. The election essentially reflects the popular vote, divided according to state with each state given a certain weighting. The indirect element (i.e. the electors) only play a formal role (voting in strict accordance with the popular vote in their state)-which is why they could be replaced by computer.[/quote]

Legal or not, the term direct democracy evokes specific ideas about how the procedure is conducted and what the result is. Look at town hall style meetings in the a state like Maine. Everyone meets, everyone gets 1 vote, whatever issue has 50% + 1 vote wins.

You can’t say that something is “effectively” direct democracy when it isn’t. The situation has changed from when legislators cast ballots for the presidency, however it is still not an “effective” directly democratic voting procedure.

For example, California has about 36 million people and 22 million eligible to vote. If the US election was truly a direct democracy, then it would be far more important to get more voters in the more populated states. Currently, it doesn’t matter if you get 51% of the total votes in CA or 95%, you still get the same number of electoral college delegates.

If the actual percentage of total votes mattered, then getting 51% of CA’s total votes wouldn’t be as important as getting 60% or 70%. As it stands, we don’t proportionally award electoral college delegates accordingly to the voter turnout. 51% gets you all the electoral delegates, not 51% of the electoral delegates.

That’s where the very difference lies. If the POTUS election was direct, then the larger states with higher population densities would be more important than smaller “swing” states. If the margin is 10k votes in a swing state, and its a “winner take all” situation, then a few voters matter. If it isn’t a “winner take all” situation, those 10k voters aren’t as important as getting a few hundred thousand in more populated states.

I think that is where your hangup is. The procedures for the POTUS election is “winner take all” for the states. For it to be a direct democracy, you would have to have a proportional representation according to the vote total for each candidate in the election. Each state is given a certain number of electoral college delegates based on their number of representatives plus senators. The number of representatives is based on the population in that state.

Since your vote is for the candidate, but actually goes towards selecting a delegate, how is that different than when it was the legislature voting? As you stated earlier, the change was from electing a legislature who voted for electors to the current process of voting for electors to select the president. This has only removed one step (the legislature). Either way, you are still voting for someone else to cast their vote. That still makes it indirect so long as you accept that the previous process was indirect. If the legislature you vote for selects the electors, and then the electors vote for the POTUS, that is indirect. If you vote for candidate, and that chooses an elector, who votes for the POTUS, that is still indirect.

I don’t think you read the links I provided, or gave them much credence. Currently, in about half the states an elector doesn’t have to vote the way the popular vote went. They don’t have a formal role of casting their vote in accordance with the popular vote. In many places they can cast a vote for whoever the hell they want. Once again, they could only be replaced by a computer if we had direct, proportional elections for the POTUS. Since we have “winner take all”, indirect elections, you can’t replace the electorate with computers.

15

What’s the point of endlessly arguing the definition of direct? Most of us here seem to understand the electoral college and the substance of what goes on. At any rate, regardless of whether it’s direct, there hasn’t been a lot of movement towards making it a more “direct” democracy since at least the early part of last century, so I don’t see the California situation as particularly controversial, at least not beyond the issue at hand in the referendum.

Now I suppose it could be interesting to debate the relative merits of U.S. vs U.K style democracy, but that topic has been around for quite a while now so I don’t see the urgency.

16

[quote=“lbksig”]
I don’t think you read the links I provided, or gave them much credence. Currently, in about half the states an elector doesn’t have to vote the way the popular vote went. They don’t have a formal role of casting their vote in accordance with the popular vote. In many places they can cast a vote for whoever the hell they want. Once again, they could only be replaced by a computer if we had direct, proportional elections for the POTUS. Since we have “winner take all”, indirect elections, you can’t replace the electorate with computers.[/quote]

No they can’t, the electors have no role in choosing the President except for casting their vote strictly in line with the popular vote in their state. Sure, “faithless electors” exist (often as a form of protest or a simple mistake) but they have never once changed the outcome of the election-if they did it would precipitate a major crisis in US democracy. If the electors are not legally bound, then they are bound by precedent.
Rather like our Queen has the theoretical power to veto any legislation, so the electors have the theoretical power to change the outcome of the election. But this theoretical power is merely symbolic, a relic from a different age. It has no political significance.
So the electoral college could be replaced by a computer, in fact it already is-the results are calculated long before the electoral college meets to formalise them.

Otherwise, I am aware of the mechanics of the Presidential election and can understand the argument why for it is not a direct election, since the President is not elected according to national popular vote. My argument is simply that the President is still (effectively) directly elected by the people (no other constituency or organ determines the election result), even given the fact that the voting is done on a state by state basis. I guess it depends how you define your terms.

17

umm yea, as the other people said, the presidency isn’t decided by the popular vote, you can win the popular vote and lose the presidency by not winning the electoral vote. (Therefore indirect, because the more populous states gets more votes or say in the presidency, currently California has the most, Texas, New York and Florida)

However, things like states laws, such as propersition 8 or prop 2 in my state (MD- allowing slot machines to be built) which both passed, are in a sense direct democracy. Because every state is different, and the people and values in each states are different, you would find different state laws throughout the 50 states in the US.

I think the system works IMO

18

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this.

Looks to me like the US has turned into more of a dictatorship over the years. The latest example being the Bailout Bill in which public opinion was running about 100 to 1 in opposition to the bill. It passed anyway, but to add insult to injury, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson has been ignoring the law and congress and has been dishing out the money to his friends. There are sufficient grounds to have him arrested, but this won’t happen, and if it does, he can count on a presidential pardon.

The people who really run the USA are the K Street lobbyists. They write the legislation, they tell the attorney general which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. K Street is the real congress and president. The congress/president that we actually vote for just bends over and spreads for lobbyists. It has been this way for awhile - the situation didn’t start with President Bush, though he has been more pliable than any of his predecessors.

Americans only think that they live in a democracy.

19

Not true either, the electors are not bound to a bunch of idiots known as the public. “Faithless electors” is what we referred to these enlighten individuals. One Faithless elector voted for “John Ewards” in 2004.

Mary Kiffmeyer, faithless zealot, I salute you.

20

Enlightened or not, depending on who they decide to vote for…