• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

UK voting system

Status
Not open for further replies.

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
There is also nothing to stop a state from awarding its electors to the winner of the national popular vote or dividing them proportionally or allocating them to reflect the makeup of the state legislature or to split them up by congressional district as Nebraska and Maine do (and formerly in other states as well).
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact represents a step towards changing the system. Basically, if it is passed then states agree to award their electoral college votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote, rather than their state vote. If this makes the system more or less democratic is left as an exercise for the reader.
The recount was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment because it was not being conducted on a consistent, fair basis across the state.
Then pretty much all recounts are unconstitutional as it is very rare for them to be conducted state-wide.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact represents a step towards changing the system. Basically, if it is passed then states agree to award their electoral college votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote, rather than their state vote. If this makes the system more or less democratic is left as an exercise for the reader.
This compact is itself potentially unlawful!
Then pretty much all recounts are unconstitutional as it is very rare for them to be conducted state-wide.
To be clear, the Florida recount stayed by the US Supreme Court was state-wide, but was not being carried out consistently across the state. Hence the equal protection violation.
 

Inversnecky

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2021
Messages
581
Location
Scotland
The recount was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment because it was not being conducted on a consistent, fair basis across the state.

The US system is a topic unto itself!

Jimmy Carter, when asked if his foundation would act as observers in a previous general election, said they couldn’t as the US system doesn’t even meet their basic international criteria for free and fair elections.

Use of the notion of ‘fair basis across the state’ to stop a recount beggars belief, when you take note of the fact that some states, including the one at issue here, use(d) different types of voting machine in different areas (typically older and less reliable machines - and in fewer locations - for black voters compared to white).

Then there’s the lack of an auditable paper trail: coupled with the fact that electronic machines have been provided by private companies awarded contracts by Republican states, who then refused to divulge how they work under the guise of contractual ‘confidentiality’.

Security and computing academics have repeatedly warned at how easy it is to interfere with electronic voting machines is, but it has always fallen on deaf ears. (Not to say that this is a major issue, but the possibility exists.)

Among others, Michael Moore’s book after the infamous 2000 election discussed in detail the myriad issues with mechanics of the US system which would make your hair stand on end. And I haven’t even mentioned gerrymandering yet!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
This compact is itself potentially unlawful!
As I understand it, the emphasis is correctly placed on "potentially". Article 2 of the Constitution makes it clear that it's up to the States to select their Electors on whatever basis they choose:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
So the choosing of Electors based on the national vote isn't, in itself, unconstitutional. The issue is if the compact violates Article 1 Clause 3 of the constitution:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
From this it is clear that, if Congress gives consent, that the NPVIC would be completely legal and constitutional. And its highly likely that if enough States would sign on to the compact there would be enough votes to get it passed through Congress. Failing that, there is the more important question of if we ignore the name, does it actually form a compact that would be covered by Art 1. Cl 3? After all, no State would be exercising any power or gaining any benefit that they would not already have - the compact would be nothing more than an agreement to direct powers that they already had in the same direction.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
As I understand it, the emphasis is correctly placed on "potentially". Article 2 of the Constitution makes it clear that it's up to the States to select their Electors on whatever basis they choose:

So the choosing of Electors based on the national vote isn't, in itself, unconstitutional. The issue is if the compact violates Article 1 Clause 3 of the constitution:

From this it is clear that, if Congress gives consent, that the NPVIC would be completely legal and constitutional. And its highly likely that if enough States would sign on to the compact there would be enough votes to get it passed through Congress. Failing that, there is the more important question of if we ignore the name, does it actually form a compact that would be covered by Art 1. Cl 3? After all, no State would be exercising any power or gaining any benefit that they would not already have - the compact would be nothing more than an agreement to direct powers that they already had in the same direction.
The compact is potentially unlawful as a matter of substance, not just form, even if congressional approval was obtained and of course the states do not have absolute discretion as to the method of selection of their electors in any event e.g. they would not be able to auction them off

The litigation (especially given that this is America!) should this compact come into theoretical effect would be a sight to behold, I am sure.

I think the key point to bear in mind here is that electoral systems do not have to be designed or to operate so as to secure a ‘democratic’ outcome (whatever that might mean) and some are specifically intended to avoid it.

As such, before we consider whether the UK electoral system(s) are desirable or good we must also understand what they are intended to do.

In the case of the current electoral system for the House of Commons, for all its arguable flaws it is simple, cheap and provides a clearly identifiable ‘local’ representative.

And I say this as someone who favours electoral reform!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
... and of course the states do not have absolute discretion as to the method of selection of their electors in any event e.g. they would not be able to auction them off.
I disagree. The Constitution says "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" - which does give them absolute power to choose their electors in any manner that they choose. The problem is that trying to do things like auctioning off the Electors would almost certainly violate the state constitution, and if they did try it the State Court would strike it down before it had a chance to have any effect.
 

Inversnecky

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2021
Messages
581
Location
Scotland
Although it’s now a little dated, James Michener’s book ‘Presidential Lottery’ (written for the 1968 election, where George Wallace was expected to throw a spanner, sorry, wrench in the works), is an eye opening overview of the myriad arrangements different states had and have for selection of electors, and overview over how they actually vote (many states being able to punish an elector for infidelity, but not able to change their vote).
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
I disagree. The Constitution says "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" - which does give them absolute power to choose their electors in any manner that they choose. The problem is that trying to do things like auctioning off the Electors would almost certainly violate the state constitution, and if they did try it the State Court would strike it down before it had a chance to have any effect.
I am afraid that it does not. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment would constrain state discretion on the point.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The electoral college was created to serve a specific purpose reflective of the status of the system of government of the United States as a federal representative republic, not a ‘democracy’.

It ensures to a large degree that a president has broad support across the states and is cognisant of the differing interests of different communities across the country.

You may wish to argue that such objectives are undesirable, but it does not mean that the electoral college is in itself problematical.

There is also nothing to stop a state from awarding its electors to the winner of the national popular vote or dividing them proportionally or allocating them to reflect the makeup of the state legislature or to split them up by congressional district as Nebraska and Maine do (and formerly in other states as well).

It should also be noted that, if each state’s electors had been allocated proportionally based on the popular vote in that state in 2016, neither Trump nor Clinton would have secured an absolute majority in the electoral college, although Trump would have been ahead. In those circumstances, Trump would still almost certainly have won the presidency with 32 votes out of 50.
That may have been all well and good in 1776, but these days it introduces a systematic bias toward the Republicans. The popular votes per electoral college member are far greater in large and populous (and typically Democrat) states than in small and less populated (and typically Republican) states. The Senate is even more biased because each state has two members regardless of its population. Along with the filibuster, it effectively makes it impossible for any administration to pass very much unless they have bipartisan support, which is virtually impossible with the current amount of polarisation.
The recount was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment because it was not being conducted on a consistent, fair basis across the state.
I can't comment on that, but as the count was never finished (for whatever reason) it's unknown who would have won in 2000 if the votes in question had been re-counted, which was my point. If that had happened, then re-counting the votes for the whole state would probably not have changed the result.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
I am afraid that it does not. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment would constrain state discretion on the point.
Fair enough, but that was a hyperbolic example anyway. I still agree with those who argue that both Article 2 and Article 10 allow the NPVIC.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Labour and the Lib Dems appear to have agreed to a non-aggression pact in the next election, with Labour not focusing on the Lib Dems 30 target seats, and the Lib Dems not campaigning in key Labour target seats. Labour will stand candidates in all seats, so won't be a formal pact, which I think is the right thing to do as standing down candidates doesn't always lead to the desired results:


Labour will fight only a minimal campaign in most of the Liberal Democrat party’s top 30 target seats at the UK’s next general election, in an informal Lib-Lab plan...
Anyone who doesn't like this will be equally disliking the FPTP voting system that means that such pacts are deemed necessary for now. If and when we get a PR voting system, then pacts like this become obsolete. Remembering politics isn't about winning and losing, it's about representation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top