Voting Processes in the US election
By grandpa_lash
@grandpa_lash (5225)
Australia
November 2, 2012 8:39pm CST
I heard a report on radio this morning from the widow of an Australian former cabinet minister who is touring Ohio on a "political tour" in which she and some American friends are talking to voters about the upcoming election.
There was one amusing comment about a farmer, a staunch Rebublican, who was greatly distressed because his wife (and apparently a number of other Republican wives) told him she intends to vote for Obama on the grounds of his social agenda. No longer "peas in a pod" as he put it, and he was genuinely distressed.
But this discussion is about what she said of the "How to vote" card as we would call it here, and she pointed out the incredibly complex set of votes Americans face in this election. She said it includes voting for judges (an incomprehensible practice to an Australian, as is elected sheriffs and so forth), state officials and state Congressmen, Federal office, and the Presidential election, plus she mentioned a vote of something that we would call a referendum (Proposition in America?). This woman is politically highly sophisticated, having travelled with her late husband on political missions on numerous occasions, and she was flabbergasted.
Now I'm an intelligent, well educated, and politically aware person, and I would find a process like that intimidating. It's bad enough having to vote preferentially (which is something I would never want to see abolished) in our electorate vote and for the senate here, but with usually only half a dozen candidates for the lower house and clear blocks of candidates in the senate election, that is fairly straight forward, particularly since each party hands out their recommended voting preferences to voters as they arrive at polling booths. How on earth do uneducated and often politically unaware voters in the US cope with this level of complexity? I know they have non-compulsory voting (another thing which Australians find incomprehensible), so I imagine those who really can't deal with so much simply don't bother, but even so, it seems unnecessarily complicated in such an important political process, the election of a President.
Is it indeed as complex as it sounds? And how do the Americans in MyLot deal with such a widely disparate set of political demands in one election?
Lash
1 person likes this
6 responses
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
3 Nov 12
It's a big mess and there's already some good points made. But like ladybugmagic pointed out the wording in the referendums is often very tricky. The referendums are also at the end.
It sort of works out like this. You can either vote strait party D or R. A lot of people will do this and it simplifies the process a lot. Otherwise you go through a long list of people you never heard of running for offices that really don't do much. It's nice to vote for sheriffs and judges I guess, but they have little influence as to what goes on.
Here's where it becomes difficult. You vote for propositions, which are basically new laws. They are written in an intentionally confusing manner, and the description of what it's supposed to do; often, isn't what it does. If you bother to decipher the legal document which looks like those electronic license agreements that is long and tiring to read. Mind you, most people who should vote are also having to take off work to get to do so or go during lunch break.
So yes, that part is a complete mess. I honestly don't know why we can't just vote online and have the option of going to the polling place, which seems like something we should do given our technology.
Here's the other part. On one hand, it's good to put as much as possible on presidential election day. Because, it has a much higher voter turnout than any other voting time. The flip side is. This really hurts people in states that tend to vote strongly one way. For instance my state has picked the Republican nominee for the past 40 years. Not only does this not get Democrats out voting for the president. This also puts a huge party bias on any those propositions that are up for vote. Where I live this means they can put up very conservative items and have them pass. Strangely enough, they passed a tax increase to give money to big business doing this.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
3 Nov 12
I would suggest a problem not far removed from what you just said. At any given time an election represents the feeling of the general public, and as we all know, that can vary from election to election. If you hold your state elections at the same time as your federal, there is a very real danger that you could end up with wall-to-wall governments of the same party.
This is probably not quite as likely with 50 states, but certainly with our 6 + 2 territories it can happen. This is the same in effect as a massive landslide which leaves one party in complete control of a jurisdiction, and it doesn't matter which party it is, this means 4 years (or whatever) in which time an enormous amount of change, some good but also some bad, can be brought about with no effective opposition. When you consider that generally elections are won with only slightly more than 50% of the overall vote, it means that 49% are disenfranchised to the extent that the changes made will generally be the opposite of what they want to see.
In a system where the elections are spread out, the excesses of one form of government can act as a warning to other electorates, and in Australia this usually means that there is a mix of governments between the two major parties, allowing for some balance to be maintained.
Our federal system at least has a very strong senate which is designed to allow minor parties and independents to have a genuine say, and often to act as a brake on lower house enthusiasms. I gather this is not so in the US.
Lash
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
3 Nov 12
Actually what you described with a vast majority of one party being elected happened in 2008. However mind you, we have a nearly constantly rotating legislature. Every 2 years there are major votes for the House/Congress and as sentiments quickly change by 2010 the majority rule was over. Not only that but even with a historically large majority on one side our system is so broken almost nothing got done in those 2 years, and the few things that did had to make huge compromises with the minority that lacked the power to pass much but could still grind the legislative session to a halt, which they basically did for 2 years.
@peavey (16936)
• United States
3 Nov 12
It sounds really complex when you put it like that, but it's really not so hard. It does take some thought, as it should, to make wise choices. Every voter receives pamphlets and much information is available that explains each proposition (these are local or state wide), judges and other local service positions and their stands on various things.
The ballot itself is straightforward and one must know before hand how one intends to vote. A page of notes is allowable in the voting booth.
I am glad to be able to elect local and state officials as well as representatives and senators. That way, we have a much louder voice in who is doing what.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
3 Nov 12
Thanks for the information.
Of course one must be able to elect state and local officials, although I do have real issues with elected law enforcement officers. My issue is with doing it at the same time as a presidential election. It seems unnecesarily complicating in such an important election. Each Australian state and territory has its elections on a different date, and nowhere near the Federal elections, and it seems to work well. Local elections tend to all be on the same day within each state, but not at the same time as other elections. Most people would find it a bit demanding to have to do it all at once.
The cynical side of me suggests that doing it that way is to deliberately affect people's ability to understand and assess the multiple issues involved. It may work out OK, but I suspect that voting would be more meaningful for most people if they were separated.
Lash
@peavey (16936)
• United States
3 Nov 12
There are arguments to be made either way. By doing it all at one time, it's over and done with and people don't have to keep going back and voting on something else (which they probably wouldn't, so people would get elected by their aunts and uncles or best friends). Also, there's the cost to the state of voting. For some, it seems more efficient to do it all at one time. I doubt there is any deliberate effort to skew the vote.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
3 Nov 12
In my state, the ballot questions are very important. Prior to an election, the state prints out a ballot guide with the full text of any referendum on the ballot with arguments pro and con, written by proponents and opponents of the proposed new law. There are usually no more than 3-5 questions per election year. In one case, many years ago, the state legislators voted themselves a raise. A referendum on the state ballot rescinded it. We have also lowered the state income tax rate the same way. It is our only way to get a majority view on an issue when the legislature is often tilted in just one political direction.
There are many levels of law enforcement in the States. Sheriffs are county officials usually, and are elected. Police officers are not elected. The practice of electing sheriffs goes back to the founding of the nation, and the settling of the frontier. The people of a settlement or community elected their head peacekeeper and it makes sense for them to have done so. Sheriffs perform duties that are quite different than average police department officers.
Some states appoint judges, some elect state level judges. An appointed judge may have a lifetime tenure. In some states, that is not a desirable situation to the people living there. In my state, judges are appointed by the governor and then approved by the state legislature. There are some judges that many of us wish we could vote out, trust me.
Everyone has the right to vote, but no one is compelled to. In a free country, with the right to individual liberty, we don't really support the government's right to compel us to do very much. It goes against the pioneer grain. I am surprised that Australia seems less ruggedly individualistic. I suppose the difference is that we severed those colonial ties very early on in our history.
@Hatley (163781)
• Garden Grove, California
3 Nov 12
hi grandpa lash with difficulty as though I try to learn what I can about various candidates I am partly physically handicapped so cannot go to a lot of places where some of these candidates are stumping so am still voting for some whom I have not the foggiest idea of whether or not they are the best for their job. Now I like Obama and did vote for him and Diana Finstein too. Just mailed in my absentee ballot today.And I know a lot of people just simply do not vote at all.I am pretty intelligent so can comprehend a lot of the political stuff its just I dislike voting for people who are just names to me. I did meet one candidate who r eally impressed me for city counsel so I di
d vote for him,
d vote for him,@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
3 Nov 12
Actually, I was asking about the actual ballot paper and its complexity.
Lash
@natliegleb (5175)
• India
3 Nov 12
well for sure this time it seems to be a close call and we will have to wait and see how it turns out with this much complexity
@auwielady (116)
• Philippines
3 Nov 12
I'm not really that familiar when it comes to US elections. But I really appreciate the fact that your candidates are gentlemen and have sure sportsmanship. Unlike our politicians here and the politics as a whole in the Philippines, I can say that it is truly more peaceful and more organized there. I really hope the political system in our country will have a complete overhaul.
