Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

[Brian Peacock]

...

Indeed, and if it's done that way, the national popular vote is not determinative. Instead of states being the unit, congressional districts. I.e. each representative is elected by a majority in that district. That is not the same as the majority popular vote. Some representatives will be elected by only a slight majority (or even a plurality, where there are several candidates for the same seat). Some representatives will have won with, say 40% of the vote, because two other candidates split the remainder 30-30, for example. Some representatives will win by 90% to 10%. As you can see, it's not outlandish to see a party win more seats without winning the pure popular vote. The Repubs can get more seats in Congress without having the majority nationally vote Republican, and so can the Democrats, depending on how it shakes out.

This is a peculiar equivocation. Nobody says that 'the popular vote' is the same as 'the majority of voters', just that the candidate which polls more votes that the others has won the popular vote. There is no 'pure popular vote' as opposed to some inferior or 'impure popular vote'. When it's a foot race between standing candidates to poll the most votes, the one that wins is the one with more votes than the others.

The same is true in a Parliamentary system, where there are multiple candidates for a seat, or where some districts/ridings are heavily populated by voters to one party, while other districts/ridings are near half and half. The parliamentary system also can result in a party with only, say 35% of the seats in the Parliament getting to pick the prime minister from their ranks, because they join with one other party that has 16% of the seats. That can result a party candidate that would not have achieved a majority of a popular vote getting the PM seat.

You're confusing 'the majority of votes' and 'the popular vote' again. Certainly, depending on how boroughs, ridings, constituencies, or whatever are organised a party could gather a majority of MPs, and thus form the government of the day, by polling less votes than their nearest rivals. This would amount to winning the 'unpopular vote' and, to my mind, it would go against the idea and principle of a what it means to talk about a representative democracy.

Had we had this kind of system in 2016, the Republicans would have picked the President, and the likely scenario would have been that a guy like Jeb Bush would be President, maybe Ted Cruz. Or, if the Pres had to be drawn from the ranks of the Republicans, then it would likely have been President Paul Ryan, or Kevin McCarthy, none of which would likely have garnered a majority of the direct popular vote.

What's the 'direct popular vote', as opposed, one presumes, to the 'indirect popular vote'. The national election of the President is a foot race between candidates, and what it means to talk about 'the popular vote' in this respect is that in such a race the candidate who returns the most votes wins. No amount of wiggling can alter this basic, and quite simple principle: the candidate who returns the most votes wins the popular vote whether you want to call it the 'direct', 'indirect', 'pure', or 'impure' popular vote or not.

Yes, I agree, that the indirect choice of the President or PM by the House of Representatives or the Parliament does involve the indirect vote of the people for those representatives and parliament members. But, it does not equal the popular vote, and it does not mean that whoever is elected PM in that circumstance has the support of the majority of voters.

To win 'the popular vote' a candidate must return more votes than their rivals. I keep mentioning this because you seem keen to suggest that returning someone who hasn't polled the most votes is somehow just as fair and democratic as returning someone who has.

Another option that could be used under the American structure would be to allow the STATE legislatures to choose who the States opt to vote for President. That way, the people's vote is taken into account by their votes for their state legislators, and they would choose the President. Most state legislatures are Republican, just like most Congressmen are republican now. So, the result would be a Republican President again. Not Trump, but it would be an establishment republican candidate - pro free trade, pro small government, limit funding for abortions, oppose gay marriage, all that.

One could also say that parish elections grant parish commissioners the ability to choose county representatives, who could choose state legislators, just as easily as state legislators could choose the president, and argue that the President had been elected by popular vote - but this is farsical is not the kind of election people are voting in, so it's irrelevant.

Your complaint appears to be that the EC, while taking into account the popular will indirectly, does not guarantee that the majority will of the popular vote ,nationally, wins. Well, neither does the Parliamentary system, which as I pointed out, indirectly involves the popular will, but can result in a PM taking office who is from a party holding only a plurality and who would not otherwise win a popular election.

The 'plurality' of a hung parliament and coalition in a first-past-the-post system of course means that each MP was elected by the popular vote in their area, and that who forms the government may not comprise parties or individuals who garnered more votes nationally than their rivals. The UK's 1951 general election saw the Labour Party winning the popular vote but the Conservative party won the majority of Parliamentary seats and formed the government. That this can and does happen under various systems does not mean that all systems are somehow equal, fair, or representative, and it certainly does not mean that the winner by 'unpopular vote' can claim the mandate or authority of the electorate even if they can claim the mandate and authority of the system.

[Forty Two]

...

Indeed, and if it's done that way, the national popular vote is not determinative. Instead of states being the unit, congressional districts. I.e. each representative is elected by a majority in that district. That is not the same as the majority popular vote. Some representatives will be elected by only a slight majority (or even a plurality, where there are several candidates for the same seat). Some representatives will have won with, say 40% of the vote, because two other candidates split the remainder 30-30, for example. Some representatives will win by 90% to 10%. As you can see, it's not outlandish to see a party win more seats without winning the pure popular vote. The Repubs can get more seats in Congress without having the majority nationally vote Republican, and so can the Democrats, depending on how it shakes out.

This is a peculiar equivocation. Nobody says that 'the popular vote' is the same as 'the majority of voters', just that the candidate which polls more votes that the others has won the popular vote. There is no 'pure popular vote' as opposed to some inferior or 'impure popular vote'. When it's a foot race between standing candidates to poll the most votes, the one that wins is the one with more votes than the others.

Indeed - and we're talking past each other here. Let me try to explain it a different way. If we chose the President like they do in the Parliamentary system, it still would not reflect the winner of the popular vote. It would reflect the winner of the Congressional vote. The makeup of Congress would be a function of the vote of individual districts. So, the party that wins control of the legislature would not necessarily have won the national popular vote -- i.e. the Republicans could control congress by having won the most districts, but not having won the most votes.

The same is true in a Parliamentary system, where there are multiple candidates for a seat, or where some districts/ridings are heavily populated by voters to one party, while other districts/ridings are near half and half. The parliamentary system also can result in a party with only, say 35% of the seats in the Parliament getting to pick the prime minister from their ranks, because they join with one other party that has 16% of the seats. That can result a party candidate that would not have achieved a majority of a popular vote getting the PM seat.

You're confusing 'the majority of votes' and 'the popular vote' again. Certainly, depending on how boroughs, ridings, constituencies, or whatever are organised a party could gather a majority of MPs, and thus form the government of the day, by polling less votes than their nearest rivals. This would amount to winning the 'unpopular vote' and, to my mind, it would go against the idea and principle of a what it means to talk about a representative democracy.

What I'm saying is that the parliamentary system does not elect a head of government on the basis of either the majority of votes, or the popular vote, and a PM could be chosen who would not have won either.

Had we had this kind of system in 2016, the Republicans would have picked the President, and the likely scenario would have been that a guy like Jeb Bush would be President, maybe Ted Cruz. Or, if the Pres had to be drawn from the ranks of the Republicans, then it would likely have been President Paul Ryan, or Kevin McCarthy, none of which would likely have garnered a majority of the direct popular vote.

What's the 'direct popular vote', as opposed, one presumes, to the 'indirect popular vote'. The national election of the President is a foot race between candidates, and what it means to talk about 'the popular vote' in this respect is that in such a race the candidate who returns the most votes wins. No amount of wiggling can alter this basic, and quite simple principle: the candidate who returns the most votes wins the popular vote whether you want to call it the 'direct', 'indirect', 'pure', or 'impure' popular vote or not.

A direct vote is when you vote for your MP in your district. You are voting for John Smith for MP from your district. So, you directly vote for him. You do not vote for PM. However, your will is accounted for indirectly when you cast your vote for John Smith, because then if he belongs to the winning party or coalition, he helps choose the PM.

When you talk about "the candidate" - there are no popular votes cast for the PM, except to the extent he's running in a district for MP, and then his constituents vote for him to be an MP, not PM.

I'm talking about how the PM is chosen. You don't have a popular vote for the PM, your head of government. You let your legislature pick the PM. That's perfectly fine, but it's not in any sense more "fair" than having an EC system which picks the head of government involving the votes of the separate states. If you did it like that, then your head of government would be chosen by several separate elections in your states, and then the states would pick the head of government. Nothing unfair about that either.

Yes, I agree, that the indirect choice of the President or PM by the House of Representatives or the Parliament does involve the indirect vote of the people for those representatives and parliament members. But, it does not equal the popular vote, and it does not mean that whoever is elected PM in that circumstance has the support of the majority of voters.

To win 'the popular vote' a candidate must return more votes than their rivals. I keep mentioning this because you seem keen to suggest that returning someone who hasn't polled the most votes is somehow just as fair and democratic as returning someone who has.

Look - in Australia, they don't even let the people vote AT ALL for the prime minister. That's not more fair than having a vote of the states. The US system is not meant to be merely whoever gets 50.0001% of the vote of the people. It's a vote of the States. It always has been, and it recognizes that the States are political entities that have interests taken into account in the federal system. That's fair.

The representatives in congress are like Ozzie members of parliament. They are elected by simple majority of the vote. We then have a separate election by each state (however they want to do it - by popular vote, or by vote of their state legislatures, or by appointment of the governor - whatever their state statute would specify). It's conceivable that some states would have citizens vote, and other states would have their state house of representatives vote and not even have an election.

I.e. we do not have a national election. We have 50 separate state elections. They then send their electors to Washington to vote for the President.

This is not a function of having a national election which "returns" a winning candidate. That's why on election night, it's state-by-state, and the issue is who won the election in Florida, New York, Texas, California, etc. etc., and not "who won the most votes." It has never been otherwise. And, it is not unfair because it's not unfair to not have a national popular vote for the head of government.

Another option that could be used under the American structure would be to allow the STATE legislatures to choose who the States opt to vote for President. That way, the people's vote is taken into account by their votes for their state legislators, and they would choose the President. Most state legislatures are Republican, just like most Congressmen are republican now. So, the result would be a Republican President again. Not Trump, but it would be an establishment republican candidate - pro free trade, pro small government, limit funding for abortions, oppose gay marriage, all that.

One could also say that parish elections grant parish commissioners the ability to choose county representatives, who could choose state legislators, just as easily as state legislators could choose the president, and argue that the President had been elected by popular vote - but this is farsical is not the kind of election people are voting in, so it's irrelevant.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that says there is to be a national vote for the President. The States choose electors who then choose the President. How the states choose the electors is up to them. The state legislatures make election laws about how that happens. Each state could do it differently - some could do it by legislature vote, others by popular vote. The reason is that it is not a NATIONAL election. It is 50 separate elections in 50 separate states, and always has been.

Your complaint appears to be that the EC, while taking into account the popular will indirectly, does not guarantee that the majority will of the popular vote ,nationally, wins. Well, neither does the Parliamentary system, which as I pointed out, indirectly involves the popular will, but can result in a PM taking office who is from a party holding only a plurality and who would not otherwise win a popular election.

The 'plurality' of a hung parliament and coalition in a first-past-the-post system of course means that each MP was elected by the popular vote in their area,

Of course, but that's nothing more than saying each representative in the US congress are elected by popular vote in their area. So what? We're talking about how the Prime Minister - head of government - is chosen.

and that who forms the government may not comprise parties or individuals who garnered more votes nationally than their rivals.

Exactly. The PM is not chosen by popular vote, and probably often is someone who would not win that post if the people were allowed to vote for or against him or her.

The UK's 1951 general election saw the Labour Party winning the popular vote but the Conservative party won the majority of Parliamentary seats and formed the government. That this can and does happen under various systems does not mean that all systems are somehow equal, fair, or representative, and it certainly does not mean that the winner by 'unpopular vote' can claim the mandate or authority of the electorate even if they can claim the mandate and authority of the system.

I never said they were equal. However, it's what I've been pointing out - that under parliamentary systems as well, there are times, based on the structure of the system, where the popular will does not control who heads the government, who is PM, and/or who is President.

You may prefer a system which would require all government seats to be elected by a simple majority of constituents, but then why are you not calling for Prime Ministers to be elected by a popular vote of the citizens nationally? Wouldn't that be the fair way to do it, and prevent any chance of a PM getting in office who is not supported by a majority of the voters who voted?

[Sean Hayden]

Dude, Donald Trump is the President of the US! :holyshit:

Isn't he better than the Republican alternatives? Would you prefer Ted Cruz? http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/comm ... d-ted-cruz

Oh, I guess when you put like that Trump doesn't seem so crazy as President after all...

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, would you prefer an enema with a cactus or a pineapple?

[Brian Peacock]

...

Indeed, and if it's done that way, the national popular vote is not determinative. Instead of states being the unit, congressional districts. I.e. each representative is elected by a majority in that district. That is not the same as the majority popular vote. Some representatives will be elected by only a slight majority (or even a plurality, where there are several candidates for the same seat). Some representatives will have won with, say 40% of the vote, because two other candidates split the remainder 30-30, for example. Some representatives will win by 90% to 10%. As you can see, it's not outlandish to see a party win more seats without winning the pure popular vote. The Repubs can get more seats in Congress without having the majority nationally vote Republican, and so can the Democrats, depending on how it shakes out.

This is a peculiar equivocation. Nobody says that 'the popular vote' is the same as 'the majority of voters', just that the candidate which polls more votes that the others has won the popular vote. There is no 'pure popular vote' as opposed to some inferior or 'impure popular vote'. When it's a foot race between standing candidates to poll the most votes, the one that wins is the one with more votes than the others.

Indeed - and we're talking past each other here. Let me try to explain it a different way. If we chose the President like they do in the Parliamentary system, it still would not reflect the winner of the popular vote. It would reflect the winner of the Congressional vote. The makeup of Congress would be a function of the vote of individual districts. So, the party that wins control of the legislature would not necessarily have won the national popular vote -- i.e. the Republicans could control congress by having won the most districts, but not having won the most votes.

The same is true in a Parliamentary system, where there are multiple candidates for a seat, or where some districts/ridings are heavily populated by voters to one party, while other districts/ridings are near half and half. The parliamentary system also can result in a party with only, say 35% of the seats in the Parliament getting to pick the prime minister from their ranks, because they join with one other party that has 16% of the seats. That can result a party candidate that would not have achieved a majority of a popular vote getting the PM seat.

You're confusing 'the majority of votes' and 'the popular vote' again. Certainly, depending on how boroughs, ridings, constituencies, or whatever are organised a party could gather a majority of MPs, and thus form the government of the day, by polling less votes than their nearest rivals. This would amount to winning the 'unpopular vote' and, to my mind, it would go against the idea and principle of a what it means to talk about a representative democracy.

What I'm saying is that the parliamentary system does not elect a head of government on the basis of either the majority of votes, or the popular vote, and a PM could be chosen who would not have won either.

Had we had this kind of system in 2016, the Republicans would have picked the President, and the likely scenario would have been that a guy like Jeb Bush would be President, maybe Ted Cruz. Or, if the Pres had to be drawn from the ranks of the Republicans, then it would likely have been President Paul Ryan, or Kevin McCarthy, none of which would likely have garnered a majority of the direct popular vote.

What's the 'direct popular vote', as opposed, one presumes, to the 'indirect popular vote'. The national election of the President is a foot race between candidates, and what it means to talk about 'the popular vote' in this respect is that in such a race the candidate who returns the most votes wins. No amount of wiggling can alter this basic, and quite simple principle: the candidate who returns the most votes wins the popular vote whether you want to call it the 'direct', 'indirect', 'pure', or 'impure' popular vote or not.

A direct vote is when you vote for your MP in your district. You are voting for John Smith for MP from your district. So, you directly vote for him. You do not vote for PM. However, your will is accounted for indirectly when you cast your vote for John Smith, because then if he belongs to the winning party or coalition, he helps choose the PM.

When you talk about "the candidate" - there are no popular votes cast for the PM, except to the extent he's running in a district for MP, and then his constituents vote for him to be an MP, not PM.

I'm talking about how the PM is chosen. You don't have a popular vote for the PM, your head of government. You let your legislature pick the PM. That's perfectly fine, but it's not in any sense more "fair" than having an EC system which picks the head of government involving the votes of the separate states. If you did it like that, then your head of government would be chosen by several separate elections in your states, and then the states would pick the head of government. Nothing unfair about that either.

You're right. Although there is great and intense focus on the leader of the standing parties during a general election the head of the government, the Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury, is consequentially the leader of the party which secures the majority of seats in Parliament. This may influence people's votes locally, or it may not. But I think part of the problem here is that you're thinking of the position of the UK PM as being equivalent to that of the US head of state - it isn't. Where you have separate votes for the legislature and the executive here the control of the executive is a function of the composition of the legislature. OK, these systems are different, but the point I have made, and which has been left upon the sidelines, is that people actually go to the polls in a US presidential election to cast their votes for their nominated presidential candidate. While I understand the background of the Electoral College system, it does mean that votes in some states count for more (or less) than votes in other states - clearly evidenced by last year's spectacle of the declared winner in a two-horse race being the horse which came in a poor second.

Yes, I agree, that the indirect choice of the President or PM by the House of Representatives or the Parliament does involve the indirect vote of the people for those representatives and parliament members. But, it does not equal the popular vote, and it does not mean that whoever is elected PM in that circumstance has the support of the majority of voters.

To win 'the popular vote' a candidate must return more votes than their rivals. I keep mentioning this because you seem keen to suggest that returning someone who hasn't polled the most votes is somehow just as fair and democratic as returning someone who has.

Look - in Australia, they don't even let the people vote AT ALL for the prime minister. That's not more fair than having a vote of the states. The US system is not meant to be merely whoever gets 50.0001% of the vote of the people. It's a vote of the States. It always has been, and it recognizes that the States are political entities that have interests taken into account in the federal system. That's fair.

See my previous remarks about PMs, presidents, executives, and legislatures.

The representatives in congress are like Ozzie members of parliament. They are elected by simple majority of the vote. We then have a separate election by each state (however they want to do it - by popular vote, or by vote of their state legislatures, or by appointment of the governor - whatever their state statute would specify). It's conceivable that some states would have citizens vote, and other states would have their state house of representatives vote and not even have an election.

I.e. we do not have a national election. We have 50 separate state elections. They then send their electors to Washington to vote for the President.

Indeed. See my previous comments about the votes in some states counting for more (or less) than in others.

This is not a function of having a national election which "returns" a winning candidate. That's why on election night, it's state-by-state, and the issue is who won the election in Florida, New York, Texas, California, etc. etc., and not "who won the most votes." It has never been otherwise.

Indeed. But you're just arguing that the system is fair because it's the system again. Some states (most?) will allocate all their electoral college votes to a candidate on the basis of who won the popular vote in that state, even if they won by one vote - a 49.9-51.1% split garners 100% of the electoral college votes in that state. That doesn't represent or reflect either the result of the popular vote or the voting concerns of the population: it merely reflects the will of the system regardless of the expressed will of the people.

And, it is not unfair because it's not unfair to not have a national popular vote for the head of government.

The system is fair because it's the system.

Another option that could be used under the American structure would be to allow the STATE legislatures to choose who the States opt to vote for President. That way, the people's vote is taken into account by their votes for their state legislators, and they would choose the President. Most state legislatures are Republican, just like most Congressmen are republican now. So, the result would be a Republican President again. Not Trump, but it would be an establishment republican candidate - pro free trade, pro small government, limit funding for abortions, oppose gay marriage, all that.

One could also say that parish elections grant parish commissioners the ability to choose county representatives, who could choose state legislators, just as easily as state legislators could choose the president, and argue that the President had been elected by popular vote - but this is farsical is not the kind of election people are voting in, so it's irrelevant.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that says there is to be a national vote for the President. The States choose electors who then choose the President. How the states choose the electors is up to them. The state legislatures make election laws about how that happens. Each state could do it differently - some could do it by legislature vote, others by popular vote. The reason is that it is not a NATIONAL election. It is 50 separate elections in 50 separate states, and always has been.

An appeal to constitutional fundamentalism is a poor argument for excusing how the person who is least favoured by the citizenry at election time can be elevated to the highest public office in the land.

Your complaint appears to be that the EC, while taking into account the popular will indirectly, does not guarantee that the majority will of the popular vote ,nationally, wins. Well, neither does the Parliamentary system, which as I pointed out, indirectly involves the popular will, but can result in a PM taking office who is from a party holding only a plurality and who would not otherwise win a popular election.

The 'plurality' of a hung parliament and coalition in a first-past-the-post system of course means that each MP was elected by the popular vote in their area,

Of course, but that's nothing more than saying each representative in the US congress are elected by popular vote in their area. So what? ...

Apples and oranges. You have separate votes for the legislature and the head of the executive, so lets stick to the point shall we?

... We're talking about how the Prime Minister - head of government - is chosen.

Again, while we're all aware that the head of government will be the leader of the party which maintains the confidence of the majority party in Parliament we do not explicitly vote a particular person into executive power.

I think the point you're labouring to prosecute here is that all electoral systems are imperfect to some extent, and while this might be true it doesn't mean that all electoral systems are equally or equivalently flawed or unfair. In the US you have a two-year campaign period focused entirely on who will be the best person to take the reigns of executive power and lead the nation, only to find that the person who gets the least votes can be elevated to the highest possible public office. As imperfections go it's a pretty significant one. Wouldn't it be fairer, more democratic, a fairer reflection of the expressed will of the people, etc, to allocate one vote each to each eligible voter and just count them up - and if not, why not?

and that who forms the government may not comprise parties or individuals who garnered more votes nationally than their rivals.

Exactly. The PM is not chosen by popular vote, and probably often is someone who would not win that post if the people were allowed to vote for or against him or her.

See my comments above regarding apples and oranges.

The UK's 1951 general election saw the Labour Party winning the popular vote but the Conservative party won the majority of Parliamentary seats and formed the government. That this can and does happen under various systems does not mean that all systems are somehow equal, fair, or representative, and it certainly does not mean that the winner by 'unpopular vote' can claim the mandate or authority of the electorate even if they can claim the mandate and authority of the system.

I never said they were equal. However, it's what I've been pointing out - that under parliamentary systems as well, there are times, based on the structure of the system, where the popular will does not control who heads the government, who is PM, and/or who is President.

Do you think a flaw in one electoral system legitimises all the flaws in all the other systems?

You may prefer a system which would require all government seats to be elected by a simple majority of constituents, but then why are you not calling for Prime Ministers to be elected by a popular vote of the citizens nationally? Wouldn't that be the fair way to do it, and prevent any chance of a PM getting in office who is not supported by a majority of the voters who voted?

Does America really prefer a system which returns the second-place candidate to power, or is it, as with the UK system, that politicians generally prefer whatever system has returned them to power as do those who voted for them?

Personally I think proportional systems are more democratic, but in a FPTP two-horse race for a single position 'winning' with less votes than one's rival is, quite frankly, a bit of a disgrace, democratically speaking that is.

[Hermit]

the national popular vote is not determinative.

Maybe you should familiarise yourself with our system. The fact that government and Prime Minister have always been formed as a result of who got the majority of the popular vote for more than a century is not a coincidence. It happened by design.

Instead of states being the unit, congressional districts. I.e. each representative is elected by a majority in that district. That is not the same as the majority popular vote.

Yes. That is one of the problems in the USA.

Some representatives will be elected by only a slight majority (or even a plurality, where there are several candidates for the same seat). Some representatives will have won with, say 40% of the vote, because two other candidates split the remainder 30-30, for example. Some representatives will win by 90% to 10%. As you can see, it's not outlandish to see a party win more seats without winning the pure popular vote. The Repubs can get more seats in Congress without having the majority nationally vote Republican, and so can the Democrats, depending on how it shakes out.

In the USA. Now look up preferential voting. We use it in Australia. You could also look up multi-member seats. New Zealand has adopted that system.

the indirect choice of the President or PM by the House of Representatives or the Parliament does involve the indirect vote of the people for those representatives and parliament members. But, it does not equal the popular vote, and it does not mean that whoever is elected PM in that circumstance has the support of the majority of voters.

Let us compare now: In the US almost 3 million more people voted for the Democratic candidate than the Republican to become president. Who won the office? There have been three previous instances in which the candidate who attracted fewer votes than the opponent finished up the winner. Need I go on?

Your complaint appears to be that the EC, while taking into account the popular will indirectly, does not guarantee that the majority will of the popular vote ,nationally, wins. Well, neither does the Parliamentary system

You basically have not many more than 50 electoral units supposedly transmitting the will of 235 million eligible voters. In Australia 150 units transmit the will of about 15 million, and given the nature of preferential voting, the winner always finishes up with a clear, though often very slender, majority. I put it to you that the finer granularity and the preferential voting system in Australia make for a fairer outcome, especially because in almost all US states the winner takes all electoral college votes

which as I pointed out, indirectly involves the popular will, but can result in a PM taking office who is from a party holding only a plurality and who would not otherwise win a popular election.

I do concede this: Had the candidates been furnished by the party who won the 2013 election, but subject to popular vote, we would have most likely finished up with Malcolm Turnbull as PM rather than that utter oaf, and national embarrassment, Noddy Tony "Mad Monk" Abbott, but again, at least the head of government comes from the party the majority has voted for. I very much doubt that Labor's Kevin Rudd would have got a look in.

That said, unless we got rid of all parliaments, congresses, diets, what have you, and govern ourselves exclusively via a bureaucratic administration controlled by a constant stream of referendums, we will never have a pure democracy, and a pure democracy brings with it its own set of problems. Prohibition, anyone? Capital punishment? Decisions to go to war?

In the end you have not succeeded in making a case that the US form of government is as democratic, let alone more democratic, than the country I live in. And no, just in case you are tempted to make it, I do not accept an argument along the lines of saying the US version of democracy is as good for the US as the Australian version of democracy is good for Australia.

[Hermit]

in Australia, they don't even let the people vote AT ALL for the prime minister. That's not more fair than having a vote of the states. The US system is not meant to be merely whoever gets 50.0001% of the vote of the people. It's a vote of the States. It always has been, and it recognizes that the States are political entities that have interests taken into account in the federal system. That's fair.

What exactly is fair about one voter in Wyoming being worth 3.5 voters in California? What is fair when this repeatedly results in candidates with fewer votes becoming President than the one more voters voted for? Yes, in Australia voters do not vote for who gets to be Prime Minister at all, but yes, the PM, unlike the President in the US, has always come from the party or coalition that finished up with the majority of the vote.

I should note that our upper house has been put in place specifically to put the brakes on democracy, and it does facilitate unfair representation due to the states with the smallest population sending the same number of senators to Canberra as the one with the largest. I am opposed to such weighting. It places the voters of smaller states on a privileged level, the unfairness of which is reflected by how they are advantaged when it comes to pork-barrelling.

[Brian Peacock]

"Noddy Tony 'Mad Monk' Abbott"

[Hermit]

"Noddy Tony 'Mad Monk' Abbott"

"Noddy" is a reference to this interview, in which he was asked to comment on one of his many gaffes. "Mad monk" is not so much a weak stab at his surname as the fact that he spent a couple of years in a seminary on his way to becoming a catholic priest before abandoning that vocation in favour of a political career.

[Tyrannical]

"Noddy Tony 'Mad Monk' Abbott"

"Noddy" is a reference to this interview, in which he was asked to comment on one of his many gaffes. "Mad monk" is not so much a weak stab at his surname as the fact that he spent a couple of years in a seminary on his way to becoming a catholic priest before abandoning that vocation in favour of a political career.

He was not too long ago, a lifesaver at a surf club. Not too many politicians do that kind of public service.

It's physical, hard, unpaid and dangerous. And he wasn't just doing it to get tail. Oh, and it saves lives too.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, but he's still a wanker.

[Tyrannical]

Yeah, but he's still a wanker.

You only wish one or more of his hot daughters would wank you

[pErvinalia]

True. One of them particularly is really nice. Which is a bit strange, as they are twins, I think. But one is definitely hotter than the other one.

[Forty Two]

the national popular vote is not determinative.

Maybe you should familiarise yourself with our system. The fact that government and Prime Minister have always been formed as a result of who got the majority of the popular vote for more than a century is not a coincidence. It happened by design.

You don't vote for the Prime Minister. He never gets the majority of any vote, except the vote to make him a member of parliament, which is limited to his district/riding.

So, you do not have prime ministers who got a "majority of the popular vote" - you have a prime minister elected by Parliament. You can't say that your PM got the majority of the vote in Australia when the majority in Australia did not vote for him, they voted for other people to be the "electors" of the PM.

[JimC]

However, it is always the case that the public opinion of the current PM, vs the potential PM (the leader of the opposition) is a major factor in voting intentions, in any electorate.