Voted

[dr_tectonic]

I voted! I am now officially excusing myself from being informed for the rest of the week (or as long as I can manage, anyway).

I found that the toughest question for me was actually about whether the mayor of Broomfield should break tie votes for the 10-member city council. As it's set up currently, ordinances can only pass by a 6-4 vote. So the question is basically, which do you value more: the local government being able to make decisions with relative ease and speed, or the local government needing to develop strong agreement before it can make changes? I ended up going with the status quo, but it was hard.

Comments

On two parties

[(Anonymous)]

Don't underestimate the value of the two party system. In a democracy where majorities are the goal, there are essentially two models to follow: one where interest groups win elections and then form coalitions; and one where interest groups form coalitions (parties) and then win elections. It's certainly nice to have more options for voting in the first model and to be able to vote for candidates more closely aligned to your beliefs. But the latter model has its own advantages. Mainly: moderation. The power of extremely radical groups is dampened as long as they represent a tiny fringe of the population. Obviously, this affects radicals on both sides of the spectrum. It also makes compromise between the two parties more possible. Multi-party systems like Canada and Israel end up with serious gridlock, Byzantine alliances, and ultimately more political animosity.

One might still decide they prefer the benefits of the multi-party system to those of the two-party system, but be sure to recognize that there are benefits to both. One is not "broken" and the other "fixed."

As you point out, the Electoral College encourages the two-party system. It also acts independently for similar ends: By splitting votes up into geographical partitions, the most dangerous and volatile kinds of majorities (racial, religious, ideological) lose their ability to single-handedly control the political picture. This effect is something that is far from anachronistic.

That said, I totally agree with the effects of communications media on the Presidential attention argument. Do note that there are still provincial issues that crop up from time to time. Nevada's Yucca Mountain, for instance. What's to stop all the other states in a popular system from overwhelmingly making the whole state of Nevada their dumping ground for every kind of toxic crap (hypothetically, of course)? What politician would stand up for Nevada?

Give our Founders credit where it's due: they understood with remarkable clarity the importance of not putting majority rule ahead of minority protections. The Electoral College was--and IS--an important element in that.

Addendum

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, let me invte our friend in Canada to give us his perceptions of the Canadian system. Perhaps my characterization is off-base.

And, here's a signature for this and the previous post:

--Chris

Re: Addendum

[dr-tectonic.livejournal.com]

By splitting votes up into geographical partitions, the most dangerous and volatile kinds of majorities (racial, religious, ideological) lose their ability to single-handedly control the political picture.

Um. No offense, but from my perspective, yesterday's vote utterly contradicts your statement.

I value our friendship. Do me a favor and don't try to talk to me about anything political for a few days, okay?