How democratic is your voting system?
By Koalemos
@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 (121540)
• 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
@moffittjc (121540)
• 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 (121540)
• 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
@ElizabethWallace (12074)
• 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
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
@ElizabethWallace (12074)
• 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.
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
@Jeanniemaries (8237)
• 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
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.
@Jeanniemaries (8237)
• 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
@marguicha (222703)
• 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 don´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
@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
@arthurchappell (44998)
• 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
@arthurchappell (44998)
• 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
@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
@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
@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
@blitzfrick Let us hope that they do not get any more interesting.
1 person likes this
@blitzfrick (2890)
• 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
@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
@iamshane487 (1139)
• Manila, Philippines
13 Nov 16
Now I know the voting system in both countries. Informative!
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
