Are Political Debates Useful?

[Broken_Erika]

People making pragmatic voting-choices based on specific campaign promises is "tribalism"?

The parties, not the voters, forgot to crop the quote. um Look! Distraction! *runs away*

 

[Valka D'Ur]

People making pragmatic voting-choices based on specific campaign promises is "tribalism"?

In many cases in Canada, it takes a lot to get people to switch their vote from one party to another. As mentioned, a lot about the 2015 election here was based on the real need to get rid of Harper, and some people who would normally never have voted Liberal did so because they promised electoral reform. The campaign promise was "2015 is the last election we will ever have using FPTP."

Well, they struck a committee - and had to change it, because it was originally stacked in favor of the Liberals. And after that, it was still a mess. The end result was no change. If the committee and the general public had supported ranked ballots, we'd have had change, since that's what Trudeau preferred. Since the Reformacons kept bleating about having a referendum (would have been an expensive and wasteful procedure) and the other non-Liberals want proportional representation, the Liberals made a show of throwing up their hands and saying, "there's no real demand for electoral reform, so we're not going to do it."

 

[Mouthwash]

The American presidency is essentially an elective monarchy constructed in accordance with the ideals of the eighteenth century Country Party, as an impartial and patriotic figure who rose above factional and sectional divisions. (Hence Washington's simultaneous support for the presidency and hostility to party-politics.) Americans today may be less idealistic (in fact, their scarcely outlasted Washington's second term), but there's still a deeply-held sense that the president is supposed to be something more than a mere politician. It follows from this that there should be some discomfort over a system in which prospective presidents are selected based on how good they are at practicing politics, rather than how good they seem to be at leading a country.

Why do they have to be good at it? As far as I can see, democracy is better designed to mitigate the damage of an idiot being in charge rather than making sure no idiots are in charge (which is really impossible).

 

[Traitorfish]

Why do they have to be good at it? As far as I can see, democracy is better designed to mitigate the damage of an idiot being in charge rather than making sure no idiots are in charge (which is really impossible).

In principal, you could have an impartial and patriotic buffoon, but they tried that with President Grant and it didn't go very well, so Americans since have tended to assume that effective impartiality means a degree of decisiveness and effectiveness on the part of the chief executive.

The question isn't really what Americans should expect of their system, but what they expect and why. My post was intended as an explanation as to why Americans except a degree of non-partisanship and disinterestedness from their president that surprises those used to Westminster systems; whether or not this expectation is justified or even reasonable is another discussion altogether.

 

[Lexicus]

Trump, of course, was not chosen by a democratic system.

My post was intended as an explanation as to why Americans except a degree of non-partisanship and disinterestedness from their president that surprises those used to Westminster systems; whether or not this expectation is justified or even reasonable is another discussion altogether.

This American doesn't.

 

[AdrienIer]

Well the Le Pen-Macron debate was crap quality but presidential debates are usually very interesting. The 2012 one between Hollande and Sarkozy was excellent, detailed, and entertaining all at once.

 

[Commodore]

Trump, of course, was not chosen by a democratic system.

You know how I know you are wrong in saying this? You wouldn't be calling our system undemocratic if Hillary won. How do I know that? Because you didn't call our system undemocratic when Obama won twice.

In light of that, I can only conclude that you saying our system is undemocratic is the result of you still sulking over the fact that Hillary lost. To which I can only say: Dude, it's May. The election was in November of last year. It's time to move on with your life, man.

 

[AdrienIer]

You know how I know you are wrong in saying this? You wouldn't be calling our system undemocratic if Hillary won. How do I know that? Because you didn't call our system undemocratic when Obama won twice.

In light of that, I can only conclude that you saying our system is undemocratic is the result of you still sulking over the fact that Hillary lost. To which I can only say: Dude, it's May. The election was in November of last year. It's time to move on with your life, man.

A system where some people's votes are worth more than others, where some votes don't matter at all, and where the person with the most votes doesn't win the most electoral votes is not super high on the not democratic/very democratic scale.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There's the textbook/dictionary definition of democratic, and there's the real-life definition. Did you know that there were a lot of Canadians in favor of the UN sending observers to watch over our federal election in 2015? That's how much we didn't trust the Harper variety of Conservatives to run an election that was free of cheating and other dirty tricks. Ordinarily, Elections Canada is fair and impartial, but the CPC severely limited its ability to do its job properly. Add that to the absolutely disgraceful "training" the EC workers received, and this election was the worst-run I've ever seen.

Turns out, we were right to be concerned.

 

[Commodore]

A system where some people's votes are worth more than others, where some votes don't matter at all, and where the person with the most votes doesn't win the most electoral votes is not super high on the not democratic/very democratic scale.

Nah, it's actually very democratic. Our system ensures that no single region or demographic can establish complete dominance over the government. Each state is given a big enough voice in government that they can fight for their interests without being easily marginalized.

Democracy, as it is now understood, is not simply majority rules. That's not democracy, that's mob rule. A democratic system ensures as few people are marginalized as possible, and that's exactly what our system does. If we had a simple popular vote system in the US, the populations of 37 states would have had their voice completely ignored. How does have the majority of states having their voice ignored sound democratic to you?

Plus, Hillary's margin of victory in the popular vote can be almost entirely attributed to the population of California. Which means if we went by a popular vote system, one state would have imposed its will on the rest of the country. How does that sound democratic to you?

 

[AdrienIer]

Unlike you I don't think that land should have electoral power. The population of 37 states wouldn't have their voice completely ignored, it would have their voice be valued exactly as it should : 1 person 1 vote.

 

[Commodore]

Unlike you I don't think that land should have electoral power.

You know, I'm trying to be civil with you and explain how our system works and why it works that way. If you are going to take this kind of tone with me though, I'm not even going to bother any further because it shows you aren't even willing to attempt to understand my position.

The population of 37 states wouldn't have their voice completely ignored, it would have their voice be valued exactly as it should : 1 person 1 vote.

One person, one vote only works in nations that are generally culturally and economically homogeneous though, which is certainly not the case in the US. People on the west coast have very different problems, interests, and issues from those in the midwest, deep south, or north east. Under a one person, one vote system only the dominant region in terms of population would ever have their concerns addressed because it would be the politicians they want that would continually get elected. Right now that would be the northeastern US as that region has the highest population density of any other region in the country. So if you got your way, the northeast would get everything they want and the country would be run how they want to run it, while everyone else gets screwed. And they would get screwed because even if they tried to address the issues and concerns of other areas of the US, they simply don't understand them enough to be able to address them properly. That's why each state has to have a big enough voice to be able to draw attention to their concerns. Without that, the whole system falls apart.

The above is also a big reason why we give a lot more power to our legislative branch than we do our executive branch. Congress can do a much better job of giving each state the voice they deserve than the president ever could. Which I think is another reason non-Americans have trouble understanding our system. Most other nations out there, including European democracies, tend toward a strong executive branch, whereas the US tends toward a weak executive branch. What does that mean in relation to this discussion? It means non-Americans tend to put too much focus on our presidential election because your own presidential elections are very important so there is kinda this assumption that ours are as important as yours. They aren't though. What's really important are the congressional elections. And those are done on a popular vote basis, with the number of representatives being population based and the number of senators being a flat 2 per state. Again, that was done to ensure no state gets marginalized.

I know I've said this before, but the office of the president in the US wields surprisingly little power compared to its equivalent offices in other nations. I'm no expert on French political institutions, but I would bet that once Macron takes office, he will have more power over the French government and, by extension, the French people than Trump has over the American government and people.

 

[AdrienIer]

You know, I'm trying to be civil with you and explain how our system works and why it works that way. If you are going to take this kind of tone with me though, I'm not even going to bother any further because it shows you aren't even willing to attempt to understand my position.

Ok maybe it came out wrong, sorry. Still, when electing a single person it's terrible that one person living in Indiana has no power to change the outcome of the election while his neighbor across the border in Michigan can, just because this random state frontier is between their houses.

One person, one vote only works in nations that are generally culturally and economically homogeneous though, which is certainly not the case in the US. People on the west coast have very different problems, interests, and issues from those in the midwest, deep south, or north east. Under a one person, one vote system only the dominant region in terms of population would ever have their concerns addressed because it would be the politicians they want that would continually get elected. Right now that would be the northeastern US as that region has the highest population density of any other region in the country. So if you got your way, the northeast would get everything they want and the country would be run how they want to run it, while everyone else gets screwed. And they would get screwed because even if they tried to address the issues and concerns of other areas of the US, they simply don't understand them enough to be able to address them properly. That's why each state has to have a big enough voice to be able to draw attention to their concerns. Without that, the whole system falls apart.

The above is also a big reason why we give a lot more power to our legislative branch than we do our executive branch. Congress can do a much better job of giving each state the voice they deserve than the president ever could. Which I think is another reason non-Americans have trouble understanding our system. Most other nations out there, including European democracies, tend toward a strong executive branch, whereas the US tends toward a weak executive branch. What does that mean in relation to this discussion? It means non-Americans tend to put too much focus on our presidential election because your own presidential elections are very important so there is kinda this assumption that ours are as important as yours. They aren't though. What's really important are the congressional elections. And those are done on a popular vote basis, with the number of representatives being population based and the number of senators being a flat 2 per state. Again, that was done to ensure no state gets marginalized.

I know I've said this before, but the office of the president in the US wields surprisingly little power compared to its equivalent offices in other nations. I'm no expert on French political institutions, but I would bet that once Macron takes office, he will have more power over the French government and, by extension, the French people than Trump has over the American government and people.

For the election of a parliament a system with local elections is more acceptable (as long as there's no gerrymandering). But for electing 1 person it makes no sense.
The northeast wouldn't get everything it wants, it would get its fair share of the vote. The rest of the country could very easily outvote them.

If the president has so little power, why do you care so much about him being elected one way or another ?

More seriously I agree that Macron will have more power over France than Trump has over the US. But that's only if the parliament is with him. If not then his powers are severely limited, like Chirac between 97 and 02.

 

[Lexicus]

You know how I know you are wrong in saying this? You wouldn't be calling our system undemocratic if Hillary won. How do I know that? Because you didn't call our system undemocratic when Obama won twice.

In light of that, I can only conclude that you saying our system is undemocratic is the result of you still sulking over the fact that Hillary lost. To which I can only say: Dude, it's May. The election was in November of last year. It's time to move on with your life, man.

Obama won twice with more votes than the guys who lost. Clinton, had she won, presumably would have won more votes than the guy who lost.
That's democratic. The guy who got fewer votes winning is undemocratic.

You know, I'm trying to be civil with you and explain how our system works and why it works that way. If you are going to take this kind of tone with me though, I'm not even going to bother any further because it shows you aren't even willing to attempt to understand my position.

We all understand your position, it's quite simple: you support minority rule.

And it's supremely ironic that this comes directly after you condescendingly misunderstand my position in your previous post.

 

[Mouthwash]

Democracy is not defined as direct majority voting.

 

[Lexicus]

Democracy is not defined as direct majority voting.

Democracy isn't defined as any particular institutional set-up or mechanic of government. It's an abstract concept that manifests to varying degrees in real-world political system. In my view a system of majority rule is, all other things equal, always more democratic than one of minority rule.

 

[Mouthwash]

But that doesn't make systems which fall short of that undemocratic.

 

[Lexicus]

But that doesn't make systems which fall short of that undemocratic.

Yes it does. And as I have already explained a number of times the electoral college was literally an aspect of the Slave Power designed to give slave states a way to count their slaves for Presidential elections without actually letting them vote.

 

[Mouthwash]

Can you link to these explanations?

 

[Lexicus]

Instead I'll just link to my source, James Madison:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_719.asp

The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.