How democratic is your voting system?

Electoral count
@Asylum (47893)
Manchester, England
November 7, 2016 2:09pm CST
With all the current media attention that the US Presidential elections are receiving, I cannot help but wonder how many people realise how their vote is counted. One thing is certain, receiving the most votes does not guarantee success. The UK and USA have similar systems, with Britain being divided into 650 constituencies and America into 538 electors. The most constituencies or electors will decide the overall result. For the sake of demonstration let us consider 3 seats of 20,000 people each, voting to choose between A and B. Elector 1: 9000 vote A and 11000 vote B. Elector 2: 9000 vote A and 11000 vote B. Elector 3:20000 vote A. Result: 38000 vote A and 22000 vote B. Therefore B leads with 2 seats to 1. Is this a realistic and democratic way to count the votes? Why can we not have a simple numerical count? I am not claiming that a candidate who receives fewer votes will win, but the potential is certainly there.
16 people like this
20 responses
@moffittjc (121581)
• Gainesville, Florida
8 Nov 16
I absolutely loathe our current voting system. It should be a simple numerical count, and whoever gets the most votes wins. Most Americans are too ignorant to even know that we use an electoral system, they think its based on their individual votes. Boy, are the people sure fooled.
2 people like this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Nov 16
It is basically the same scenario here, but with areas known as constituencies. I have never seen any reason why a direct count cannot be used.
1 person likes this
@moffittjc (121581)
• Gainesville, Florida
8 Nov 16
@Asylum Maybe our governments are too afraid to put that much power directly into the hands of the people. You have to remember, most people are complete idiots, and should not even be allowed to vote to begin with! haha
2 people like this
@moffittjc (121581)
• Gainesville, Florida
9 Nov 16
@Asylum So what happens when the House of Lords blocks legislation proposed by the government? Then what happens?
1 person likes this
@LadyDuck (471497)
• Switzerland
13 Nov 16
Your new avatar.gif is a lovely tribute for the Remembrance Day.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
13 Nov 16
Thank you Anna. It is a day that I commemorate every year, despite our authorities trying hard to abolish it.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
13 Nov 16
@LadyDuck There have been a lot of protests about selling poppies because they may offend other nationalities living here. As far as I am concerned this is England and I will always wear a poppy.
1 person likes this
@LadyDuck (471497)
• Switzerland
13 Nov 16
@Asylum Why should they abolish this day? I think that we have to remember and to be grateful. It's a shame to abolish this celebration.
1 person likes this
@pgntwo (22408)
• Derry, Northern Ireland
7 Nov 16
You raise a valid point - but you'd also need a way to ensure everyone of voting age actually votes. And that's before any complexities such as Proportional Representation are employed...
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Nov 16
There would be no reason to insist that all eligible people vote, just count them fairly.
1 person likes this
@pgntwo (22408)
• Derry, Northern Ireland
7 Nov 16
@Asylum A vote means a Yes, a No, or an Abstain. With every vote counting, every ballot paper needs to be marked...
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Nov 16
@pgntwo I disagree because not voting is the same as abstaining. The Brexit referendum was conducted on a pure numerical basis, which was the only democratic vote during my lifetime.
2 people like this
• United States
8 Nov 16
It happened with Bush v. Gore. But there was also some funny business in Florida (where Bush's brother was the Governor) to boot. Sigh.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Nov 16
Any voting system should make it impossible for someone with fewer votes to win, yet many countries still have this flaw in their electoral process.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
9 Nov 16
@ElizabethWallace Donald Trump has been declared the next US President because he already has sufficient electors, but all results are not yet in. According to the current count, Hilary Clinton received more votes.
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Nov 16
@Asylum Anything created by people is inherently flawed.
1 person likes this
@Mike197602 (15505)
• United Kingdom
7 Nov 16
I don't think the US and UK have similar systems at all. We have leaders of parties so in an election you'll know for a while who the pm will be....the US doesn't have that. In the US you vote for the president...in the UK you vote for an mp. We don't have the electoral college which the US does. We don't have the billions spent on elections. In my opinion our system is way way superior to that of the US.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Nov 16
The same scenario still exists with the votes. If some of the population moves to another area and everyone votes as they did previously, you would get a different result. In the example I gave, if 3000 from seat 3 move to seat 1 and a further 3000 move to seat 2, A would lead by 3 to nil.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Nov 16
@Mike197602 I was never suggesting that our voting systems are the same, just that we both have the same approach to counting seats rather than votes.
1 person likes this
@Mike197602 (15505)
• United Kingdom
7 Nov 16
@Asylum to be honest you've lost me I was just saying the UK and US systems are not similar at all. " States may or may not require their electors to vote with the popular majority, and they may or may not give all of their electors to the winner of the statewide popular vote." We don't have the potential mess that is the electoral college. We have first past the post. I know there was a vote on PR a few years ago and I didn't vote as I was not in the right mind...but now I'd give serious consideration to PR as I think it'd give a more representative system. Like in the last GE 4 million or so voted ukip which in total transferred to one seat I believe...so in a way a few million feel disencfranchised.
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Nov 16
It has happened, but I do think it's set up to be the most fair way overall.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Nov 16
How can it be fairer than counting all votes together to ensure that the party with most votes wins?
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
10 Nov 16
@Jeanniemaries I understand that, but if it was a total national count then locality would become irrelevant. It makes no sense that someone who acquired less votes can be elected.
• United States
10 Nov 16
@Asylum It's set up so the states with the larger populations don't rule the country.
1 person likes this
@egdcltd (12059)
7 Nov 16
One difference between us and the US is that, when they vote for an elector, the elector can then vote for the candidate they themselves choose. They aren't actually legally required to vote for the candidate they say they will.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Nov 16
That is quite true, although extremely unlikely.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Nov 16
@egdcltd It is also extremely immoral because these people are taking the votes of the public and giving them to the opposing party. I find it hard to credit that such action is even legal.
1 person likes this
@egdcltd (12059)
8 Nov 16
@Asylum Unfortunately immoral and illegal are often not the same thing (moral and legal may not be either for that matter). It does strike me as a huge flaw that should be rectified.
1 person likes this
@marguicha (222974)
• Chile
7 Nov 16
WE have a kind of voting system that each of us votes for our candidate. There are no electors. My vote is worth as much as any other. I donĀ“t know if in a country so big as the US this could be done even though with computers that surelly can be achieved.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Nov 16
@marguicha I looked up the electoral system for Chile, but it seems rather complex.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Nov 16
Does that mean that all of the country's votes are pooled, or counted for local candidates?
1 person likes this
@marguicha (222974)
• Chile
7 Nov 16
@Asylum They are counted one by one.
1 person likes this
@Bluedoll (16773)
• Canada
8 Nov 16
On the fictional island of Eutopia there are 600 designated seats. Government is offically party-less. Each seat has an agenda. For example one seat is responsible for bathroom tissue paper installations. Each citizen votes for only one representative. It could be leader A that promotes round rolls or leader B that promote individual square packets or leader C that wants to use recycled brown paper. Pick your one person to represent your top one concern for the country at election time.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Nov 16
In that case I vote for a round toilet roll, which would at least be more useful than Donald Trump.
@Bluedoll (16773)
• Canada
8 Nov 16
@Asylum The island of Eutopia has banned Donald Duck so no fear there.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Nov 16
@Bluedoll I would have expected every island and nation on the planet to have banned Donald Trump.
1 person likes this
• Preston, England
7 Nov 16
it is a strange system and whatever is used it can't please everyone
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
11 Nov 16
@arthurchappell I agree with that, but the current system in the UK and USA allows the 49% to have the say instead.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Nov 16
I agree, but at least counting all votes together will ensure that the party with most votes will win, which will please more people.
1 person likes this
• Preston, England
11 Nov 16
@Asylum As the Quakers say democrasy lets 51% tell 49% how to live - it is ultimately still unfair but it is the best we can do
1 person likes this
@BelleStarr (61102)
• United States
13 Nov 16
Here a few large cities would determine who is president and they would not have the same interests as the people who are not city dwellers. I believe that is how the electoral college came into existence.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
13 Nov 16
@BelleStarr The Founding Fathers lived in a totally different society.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
13 Nov 16
That is no doubt true, but there must be a way to improve on this.
1 person likes this
@BelleStarr (61102)
• United States
13 Nov 16
@Asylum I am sure that there is and it certainly should be looked into.Though, the founding father's had a vision that was not as clouded by personal interest as those today in my opinion.
1 person likes this
@LadyDuck (471497)
• Switzerland
8 Nov 16
I know that here it's a simple numerical count, but for the European Parliament it's the same as US and UK election. In my opinion this is not Democracy. A small country like Denmark has exactly the same rights as Germany.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Nov 16
A direct numerical count is the only realistic way to conduct an election.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Nov 16
@LadyDuck The sad thing is that many people still believe the old saying that every vote counts.
1 person likes this
@LadyDuck (471497)
• Switzerland
8 Nov 16
@Asylum I agree and this should be the only way to go.
1 person likes this
@Inlemay (17713)
• South Africa
8 Nov 16
Lets not go into any Voting system in SA - that would be a re-write of the fraud voting system
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Nov 16
I am not even aware of what voting system South Africa has. However I find the British and American systems to be absurd. When we have a system in which more people can vote Left than vote Right, but Right is elected then the whole concept of voting becomes a mockery.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
9 Nov 16
@Inlemay A better example would be the 2000 US election. Al Gore got more votes than Bush, yet George W Bush was elected President.
1 person likes this
@Inlemay (17713)
• South Africa
9 Nov 16
@Asylum Absurd especially as I watch TRUMP walk into the white house after the Americans voted today - WHAT THE HELL????
1 person likes this
@blitzfrick (2890)
• United States
23 Nov 16
The electoral college was set up so that elections wouldn't be unduly influenced by urban populations alone. Seems to be working, not that I like it. In my opinion we'd be much better off, and more democratic, to get rid of super-delegates who, this year at least, determined who the nominee would be for the Democratic party. I'm not sure whether the Republican National Committee has super-delegates woven into their selection system. I didn't vote for either of the presidential candidates. But I did vote on the down-ticket candidates and issues. I'm looking forward to the 2018 mid-term elections.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
23 Nov 16
Those elections will prove interesting, especially since nobody really knows how Donald Trump is likely to act in the meantime.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
23 Nov 16
@blitzfrick Let us hope that they do not get any more interesting.
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Nov 16
@Asylum Interesting, yes, like the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times."
1 person likes this
@zebra2222 (5268)
• United States
12 Nov 16
America needs to go back to a paper ballot.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
12 Nov 16
I think it is irrelevant whether the vote is taken on paper, electronically or any other method, as long as the minority of votes do not decide the outcome.
@connierebel (1557)
• United States
7 Nov 16
I agree that we need a system that is fair, so that each of our votes actually will count.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Nov 16
It is surprising that they current system still exists.
@iamshane487 (1139)
• Manila, Philippines
13 Nov 16
Now I know the voting system in both countries. Informative!
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
13 Nov 16
There must be a vast amount of different systems applied across the globe.
@amadeo (111938)
• United States
7 Nov 16
We have a very good system here.they are going to be watched. If anything goes wrong.you will hear about it
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
7 Nov 16
How can a system in which the party with least votes can win qualify as good?
@amadeo (111938)
• United States
7 Nov 16
@Asylum good question there.Not sure.
1 person likes this
@JudyEv (339930)
• Rockingham, Australia
7 Nov 16
I'm not interested enough to know the ins and outs of how it works (which is pretty poor I know but that's the way I am) but we have first and second preferences here too which can change the result.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
8 Nov 16
The sad fact remains that Hillary Clinton can get more votes than Donald Trump and he will be elected, or the other way around as well. The only realistic method would be count votes and the candidate with most votes wins.
1 person likes this
@fishtiger58 (29820)
• Momence, Illinois
16 Nov 16
A numerical count certainly makes the most sense. But truly when was the last time the government made any sense.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
16 Nov 16
That is certainly a valid point.
1 person likes this