Off Topic: Elections here & there....

[Hoda]

Why does it take us up to two years & BILLIONS of dollars to hold national elections, and the British can do it, in less than a month?

[Pete E]

... in response to Off Topic: Elections here & there......, posted by Hoda on Apr 6, 2005

Howard,
Brazilophile gives the technical reason below.I disagree there is a huge effort to keep undesirables from voting although that was sure the case in the past.
Even with all its flaws I prefer our system.You can see the election coming and people decide years in advance if they will run.
I would like to get rid of the electorial college but since it would take a constitutional ammendment the few states that benefit from it can thwart the majority of the states that do not.It just pisses me off when "key states" get so much more attention.And if you are of asentiment different than themajority of people in your state your vote basically does not count.
As far as money,ect that can be reformed.
Tony Blair is one of my heros.He took a position out of principal that hurt his political standing in England.He knew it and he did it anyway,solely because  he thought it the right thing to do.Having guts and doing the right thing is not always popular.Just the opposite of a political whore who will take a position based on popularity he knows is wrong.I guess Tony will win but
he did hurt himself out of principal.

Pete

[Brazilophile]

... in response to Off Topic: Elections here & there......, posted by Hoda on Apr 6, 2005

In parliamentary government systems, such as GB, Canada, Australia, Barbados, India, there is no set date for holding elections.  The prime minister can declare, at any time, that an election be held.  The opposition can call, at any time, for "no confidence" votes which if successful cause the governemnt to fall and trigger an election.

To accomodate "at any time" elections, the society develops an election infrastructure which can be very quickly rolled out for an upcoming election.  

In addition, the campaigning is much different because it is not a "national" election.  Each party has a candidate running in each electoral district, like in the US.  The difference is that the voters don't vote for the prime minister, they only vote for the candidate of the party they support to be their repsresentative in parliament.  The party with the most members of parliament wins the election.  Then the winning party chooses among themselves which member of parliament will be the prime minister.  Each candidate campaigns in only their district. Only the party leaders campaigns nationally, and then not as much as here.  If they ignore their own districts, they run the risk of not getting elected to parliament, and then they can't be prime minister.  Since there less need for anyone to crisscross a large country campaigning, as is needed here in the US, the  campaign and election can proceed much faster.

Thirdly, there is the funding issue.  Campaigns are funded very differently in Canada and GB than in the US.  Parties rely much more on federal funds than privately raised funds.  If a party can gather a minimum number of signatures and members it can apply for federal election funds.  There is much less need to spend years raising election campaign warchests.  

The media is not permitted to (or have voluntarily agreed not to, I forget) charge for political ads up to a certain amount of ad time or space.  The media is obliged to grant equal time to all candidates running for office.  Combined with campaigning being very local, candidates generally do not flood the media with ads the way it is done here.  There are very many local signs, posters, and town meeting type gatherings.  The candidates who have already been chosen as leaders of their parties, and so will become prime minister if their party wins, often have nationally televised debates and put out some national ads.

Lastly, Howard, the Commonwealth countries, unlike the US, didn't design their political and electoral system to PREVENT people from participating in democracy.  There were rarely any poll taxes, literacy tests, felony exclusions, segregated polling stations, etc.  I believe a HUGE part of the cost of elections here is making sure "undesirables" aren't voting.

Another thing just occured to me.  The US doesn't increase the number of representatives in Congress as the population grows.  It has been fixed at 435 since Hawaii became a state in the 1950's.  (I think Hawaii was the last state to enter the union.)  Canada and GB, etc. increase the number of electoral districts as the population increases.  As a result the average number of voters in a district has been fairly constant.  In other words as population increases, the election infrastructure also increases to match the growth of voters.  In the US, each district gets more and more crowded with voters and the election infrastructure gets overloaded.  It requires more and more lead time for election officals to deal with this and prepare for elections.

I won't get into the competence of election officials like Miriam Oliphant in Broward County, Florida.

[Malandro]

... in response to Re: Off Topic: Elections here & ther..., posted by Brazilophile on Apr 6, 2005

rather they are state run elections that are held on the same day.  your example of the felon list, which only about 6 states have, is an example that the states run the election show.  

the felon list is a tiny fraction of election expenditures and is not even paid for by the candidates.  the advertising, campaign stops, staff, rallies, and coventions are the significant expenditures that are exponentially increasing.  the actual voting done in local districts is tax payer funded and in fact the duty of the states to hold elections.  they have no choice unless they change their state constitutions.  furthermore, the candidate federal matching funds are in fact routinely rejected by candidates because they can raise much more money through donations.  

so while there are anomalies in the US system like the electoral college, the US voters usually choose their president as opposed to the party selecting the prime minister in the UK.  so while many are bitter about Bush versus Gore and the popular vote, remember a swing of only 70,000 in Ohio would have given Kerry the presidency in the 2004 election although Bush would still have had more than 3 million votes.  

finally, elections were not originally designed to prevent people from voting.  poll taxes and literacy tests were implemented by some states haven't been used in 40 years if you haven't heard.  also, Constitutional amendments allowing women to vote, outlawing voter discrimination based on race, and lowering the voting age to 18 were not exactly enacted to exclude voters.  

[Heat]

... in response to Re: Off Topic: Elections here & ther..., posted by Brazilophile on Apr 6, 2005

I believe a HUGE part of the cost of elections here is making sure "undesirables" aren't voting.""

Wow, I sure would like to see the evidence of this.

Got any?

[Brazilophile]

... in response to Got evidence?, posted by Heat on Apr 6, 2005

In the 2004 election, Florida created a list of released felons who were not permitted to vote.  The law that disfranchises felons costs money.  It requires that this list be created and maintained.  It requires that this list be periodically compared to the list of registered voters.  Then it requires that notices of disfranchisement be mailed to the felons.  In 2004, that was over 50,000 notices.

Then when that is done, the clean-up comes.  All the non-felons who are disfranchised because they are relatives or ahve similar names to real felons, or becausse of typo errors by the government staff, complain about being disfranchised and petition for their voting rights.  The Florida goverment then must go through the ENTIRE list AGAIN with a finer toothed comb to verify that everyone on the felons list merits being there.  They must then send notices out to the voters who have their rights restored.  

In 2004, the affair was so chaotic that the elections officials scrapped the list in its entirely.  No one could verify the felony status of the all people on the list with sufficient certainty in sufficient time for the election at a sufficent LOW cost for the verification to warrant actually doing it.

After the clean-up comes the lawsuits.  Voters who are deprived of their voting and other rghts due to government error have the right to sue for damages.  Such lawsuits have not been publicized in the media very much but they are a real cost of the election infrastructure.

That was just in Florida.  Multiply it by all the states which have similar laws and you get a picture of why elections in the US are expensive.

[Heat]

... in response to Re: Got evidence?  YES!!!!, posted by Brazilophile on Apr 6, 2005

Still looking for that source for all this.

Should felons vote?  Hell no they should not.  Where is the evidence?

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: Got evidence?  YES!!!!, posted by Brazilophile on Apr 6, 2005

This wouldn't happen in England?Because of the time factor?
Seems we are clearly trying to do the right thing and perhaps not being very effective at it.Florida is probably an extreme example of screwing up.Seems we go to huge effort to try and give people their rights,and its not always easy.Democracy is not always easy.
I remember some TV show from about 30-40 years ago.It started off with a saying  
"Democracy is a very bad form of government.But all the others are so much worse. "
And when when a national election is decided by a few hundred votes the sceemers and scammers and whinners really come out of the  woodwork,lawyers in tow.
My opinion,if you can't figure out a simple ballot or punch the vote through you are too dumb to decide who the next president should be.Make it better if we can.But the bullshit that came out to try and swing an election was extroadanary ever by US bullshit standards.
AND we  would never havean election that close without the STUPID ELECTORIAL COLLEGE.But we did have it and you have to play with what you have.To say Gore would have one otherwise neglects to considerv the campaign would have been entirely different with a different set of rules.
A much better campaign in my opinion.

Pete

[Heat]

... in response to Off Topic: Elections here & there......, posted by Hoda on Apr 6, 2005

And you have no freedom of the press in GB.

Nor freedom to bear arms ect........

[OkieMan]

... in response to Because they are socialists........., posted by Heat on Apr 6, 2005

Heat,

I do not know what you meant about no freedom of the press in England.  I am not aware of the laws on the books there, but I was stationed in England many years ago.  I was in the Air Force, and I was in England for 2 years. As far as I could tell, they had plenty of freedoms, and certainly the press over there is noted for being very open; even if you don't agree with them (which I often did not). I saw the TV news over there and read their papers.  I all seemed to be a "free press" to me. I also got to know many of the British people.  They were certainly different than us, but I found them to be very nice, overall.  I have very fond memories of my time over there. As far as the election situation, it seems that Brazilophile is very knowledgeable about their election process; as well as ours.  However, I would also like to mention something that will put it into context a little better.  Frankly, as far as population and land area, we are so much bigger than Great Britian, or any of the other individual European countries.  Europe as a whole is large, and certainly Russia, China, Australia and Canada are very large in land mass. But, as we all know, Russia and China do not have real elections, by our definition.  The other countries are by themselves too small in  either land area or population to compare to us. Case in point, Canada and Australia have alot of land, but relatively few people.  So, because of the shear size and population of the US, plus all the other stuff that has been already mentioned in this thread;  election time is a daunting task.  But, there is one more thing that over the last several years has gotten way out of hand.  The lawyers that represent the many "special interest" groups, the PACs that different politicians and parties form, etc-- this has totally taken elections to a new and dangerous level of BS!  By the way, I have noticed that the so-called
"special interest" groups are usually called that by some politician who disagrees with him or her.  I guess that all of us belong to one or more "special interest" groups, because we all care about a varielty of issues.

                               OkieMan

[Brazilophile]

... in response to Re: Because they are socialists........., posted by OkieMan on Apr 6, 2005

Thank you for sharing your experience in England.  

And for indirectly noting that Heat has not provided any evidence to support his assertion of a restricted press in England.  Even though he beseiges others to provide evidence for their assertions.