Our Bungling Electoral System

1917 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 685-710
Author(s):  
Joseph Cady Allen
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Majority Vote ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Present System ◽  
The People

According to popular parlance, we elect a President and vice-president, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November of each fourth year, by vote of the people. It is well known however that, technically speaking, we do not choose these officers on that day or at any time by popular suffrage. Instead of that, we choose in each state a committee that is called the electoral college; and these electors meet on the second Monday of January and elect the President and vice-president by ballot. The theory of the Constitution is that these electors are not to be pledged or obligated to vote for any particular person, but that they and not the people shall really make the choice.But, practically from the start, and contrary to the expectation of those who framed the Constitution, the choice of President and vice-president was seized by state legislatures and afterwards transferred to the people, through the device of appointing electors that were virtually pledged to designated candidates. So the electoral colleges have failed of their purpose and become a useless complication. And not only are they useless, but objectionable also and dangerous in many and serious ways.This paper will endeavor to show that our present system of presidential election is bad in every step of the process, viz. in a. the appointment of the electors, b. the membership and proceedings of the electoral colleges, c. the count of the vote in congress, d. the interval between the election and the time when the President takes office, and e. the election by the house of representatives in case the electors fail to give a majority vote to any candidate.

The 2016 Election: Like 1888 but not 1876 or 2000

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrice Barthélémy ◽  
Mathieu Martin ◽  
Ashley Piggins
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Anomalous Behavior ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The Us ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
House Size

ABSTRACTDonald J. Trump won the 2016 US presidential election with fewer popular votes than Hillary R. Clinton. This is the fourth time this has happened, the others being 1876, 1888, and 2000. In earlier work, we analyzed these elections (and others) and showed how the electoral winner can often depend on the size of the US House of Representatives. This work was inspired by Neubauer and Zeitlin (2003, 721–5) in their paper, “Outcomes of Presidential Elections and the House Size.” A sufficiently larger House would have given electoral victories to the popular vote winner in both 1876 and 2000. An exception is the election of 1888. We show that Trump’s victory in 2016 is like Harrison’s in 1888 and unlike Hayes’s in 1876 and Bush’s in 2000. This article updates our previous work to include the 2016 election. It also draws attention to some of the anomalous behavior that can arise under the Electoral College.

Evaluation of a Presidential Election Game

1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 947-953 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillermo Owen
Keyword(s):  
Shapley Value ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Mathematical Point ◽  
The Shapley Value

The Shapley value of the presidential election “game” is approximated by the method of multilinear extensions; the likely error in this approximation is computed by studying the error in the electoral college game. A comparison with the Banzhaf ratio is also given. The several biases inherent in the electoral system are analyzed from a mathematical point of view. It is shown that the system incorporates a strong bias in favor of the larger states, and a small bias in favor of the smallest states.

scholarly journals Kryzys konstytucyjny w Estonii w 2016 r.

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 65-81
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Zackiewicz ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
The Republic

By law, the president of modern Estonia is elected indirectly by parliament or, in the absence of a decision in three consecutive votes, by a specially appointed electoral college. In 2016, Estonia experienced an unprecedented political crisis resulting from the impossibility of appointing the head of state according to the procedure specified in the constitution. It was determined both by more general factors related to the electoral system itself, as well as the specificity of Estonia's political life in the second decade of the 21st century. The 2016 presidential election proved to be a complicated game involving major political parties, going well beyond simply appointing a new head of state. The purpose of this article is to discuss the origins, course and immediate effects of these events, culminating in the unexpected election of Kersti Kaljulaid to the office of President of the Republic.

scholarly journals SUCCESSIVE ELECTION OF REGIONAL HEADS: A COMPARISON STUDY OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS OF MAJAPAHIT, INDONESIA, AND THE UNITED STATES

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wahyu Hindiawati ◽  
Wiwik Utami ◽  
Dian Utami Ikhwaningrum ◽  
Ika Kusumaning Wardhani ◽  
Devita Rosa Salsabila
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Representation System ◽  
Reform Era ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
The People ◽  
Democratic Principles ◽  
Representative System

A constitution is a written regulation and a state convention (state administration) that determines the composition and position of state bodies, regulates relations between the bodies, and regulates the relationships between these bodies and the citizens. The enactment of a constitution as a binding fundamental law is based on the highest power or the principle of sovereignty adopted by a certain country. If the country adheres to the notion of popular sovereignty, then the source of the legitimacy of the constitution is the people. If monarchical sovereignty is applied, then the monarch will determine whether or not a constitution may be enforced. A constitution also contains regulations for the election of regional heads. Regional head elections are one of the characteristics of a state that applies democratic principles. This study aims to analyze the election of regional heads by comparing the constitutions of Majapahit, Indonesia, and the United States of America. The method used in this research is normative juridical, namely by reviewing the norms of Constitution, laws and other sources of legal material, including journals. The results of this research are that regional heads in Majapahit were directly elected by the Prabu (King). It was a District/majority representative system since the regional heads were directly elected by the king, an Organic and Non-Democratic electoral system. Whereas in Indonesia, regional heads (Governors, Regents and Mayors) are democratically elected, elected directly by the people or by the Provincial, Regential and Municipal House of Representatives (district representation system based on the majority and balance). However, in the reform era, the legislators interpreted the democratic system as direct election by the people. The electoral system is mechanical, organic and democratic. In the United States, the Head of State is directly elected by the people but at the discretion of the legislature, hence the representative system is a balanced representation system. The electoral system is organic and semi-democratic. <p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0754/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>

scholarly journals Direct Election of President and Vice President In Pancasila Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-430
Author(s):  
Sonny Taufan ◽  
Risang Pujiyanto
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Direct Election ◽  
The People ◽  
The Republic

AbstractAfter the amendment to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the Election of President and Vice President was not conducted by the People's Consultative Assembly but voted directly by the people. Amendment to the provision for the election of President and Vice President have invited debate, partly because they are deemed incompatible with Pancasila. This study examines the appropriateness of the presidential and vice-presidential election based on Pancasila. The research method uses normative juridical, using secondary data obtained through literature study and qualitative analysis. The result and discussion of this research are that the implementation of the election of President and Vice President based is in accordance with Pancasila, especially with the fourth principle.Keywords: Democracy, Direct Election, and Pancasila AbstrakSetelah amandemen Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, Pemilihan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden tidak dilakukan oleh Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat tetapi dilaksanakan langsung oleh rakyat. Amandemen terhadap ketentuan untuk pemilihan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden telah mengundang perdebatan, sebagian karena mereka dianggap tidak sesuai dengan Pancasila. Studi ini mengkaji kelayakan ketentuan pemilihan presiden dan wakil presiden berdasarkan Pancasila. Metode penelitian menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, menggunakan data sekunder yang diperoleh melalui studi literatur dan dianalisis secara kualitatif. Hasil dan pembahasan penelitian ini adalah bahwa pelaksanaan pemilihan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden berdasarkan Pancasila sudah sesuai dengan Pancasila, terutama dengan prinsip keempatKata Kunci: Demokrasi, Pemilihan Langsung, Presiden dan Wakil Presiden, Pancasila. АннотацияПосле внесения поправки в Конституцию Республики Индонезия 1945 года выборы президента и вице-президента не проводились Народной Консультативной Ассамблеей, а проводились непосредственно всенародными выборами в Индонезии. Поправки к положениям о выборах президента и вице-президента вызвали дебаты, отчасти потому, что они считаются несовместимыми с Панчасилой. В этом исследовании рассматривается соответствие принятия положений о президентских и вице-президентских выборах на основе Панчасилы. Метод исследования – нормативно-юридический, используя вторичные данные, полученные в результате изучения литературы и проанализируемые качественным методом. Результаты и обсуждение этого исследования заключаются в том, что осуществление выборов президента и вице-президента на основе Панчасилы соответствует Панчасиле, особенно четвёртому принципу.Ключевые слова: Демократия, Прямые Выборы, Президент и Вице-Президент, Панчасила.

Elbridge Gerry's Suspicions and the Presidential Election of 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (03) ◽  
pp. 587-590
Author(s):  
Michael L. Rosin
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
The Difference ◽  
2012 Election

AbstractDefenders of the Electoral College frequently assert that victory in the Electoral College requires a winning candidate to “produce a coalition of states with wide and diverse interests” thereby producing “a broadly based electoral victory.” These defenders never stop to consider the fact that in a close election the difference between the winning and losing coalition of states may depend on highly contingent factors. In a 2003 article in this journal Neubauer and Zeitlin demonstrated that George W. Bush's Electoral College victory in 2000 depended on the size of the House of Representatives. In this article I demonstrate that the outcome of the 2012 election could have depended on the 2012 Electoral College being based on the newly apportioned incoming House rather than the previously apportioned outgoing House. This is a statutory specification rather than a constitutional requirement. It could be changed by simple legislation. We have Elbridge Gerry's suspicions to thank for this statutory contingency!

Contingent Elections

2019 ◽  
pp. 78-100
Author(s):  
George C. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Political System ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Simple Majority ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
System P ◽  
Democratic Principles ◽  
To Receive

This chapter focuses on contingent elections. If the presidential and vice presidential candidates fail to receive a simple majority of electoral college votes, the Twelfth Amendment provides that the House of Representatives chooses the president and the Senate chooses the vice president in a process known as “contingent” election (contingent upon the absence of a majority in the electoral college). There have been two contingent elections for president in U.S. history, following the elections of 1800 and 1824. Very minor shifts of popular votes in the nation, however, would have sent a number of other elections to the Congress for a decision. In the House, where each state must vote as a unit, a majority of 26 or more votes is required to elect a president; in the Senate, a majority of 51 or more votes is required to elect a vice president. Although a superficial reading of these rules suggests the operation of majority rule, the chapter maintains that this process actually represents the most egregious violation of democratic principles in the American political system.

scholarly journals Authority of General Election Commission for the Electoral Constitutional Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Nasruddin Nasruddin ◽  
Galang Asmara ◽  
RR. Cahyowati
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
State Institution ◽  
Vice President ◽  
General Election ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The People ◽  
Election Process ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
Election Commission

Indonesia is a country that adopts a democratic system that puts sovereignty in the hands of the people. As a manifestation of people's sovereignty, there is a direct election process, in which the people can determine their choices in electing the House of Representatives, the Regional Representative Council, the Regional People's Representative Council, the President and Vice President, the Governor and Deputy Governor, the Regent and Deputy Regent, as well as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. The purpose of the study was to analyze the discretionary authority of the National Election Commission as a state institution. Research methods, this type of research is normative research, using a statutory approach, and conceptual. Sources of legal materials use primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. After the legal materials are collected and identified, the analysis of legal materials is carried out using analytical prescrisive methods, namely studying the purpose of the law, the values of justice, the validity of the rule of law, legal concepts, and legal norms. In conclusion, the General Election Commission is a supporting state institution or an auxiliary institution or an independent institution that is of a national, permanent and independent nature which holds elections in Indonesia. The General Election Commission in safeguarding the constitutional rights of voters has the authority to make discretionary decisions on issues if the laws and regulations do not regulate, are incomplete or unclear so that it causes stagnation at some stages, especially in the preparation and determination of the Voter List in the Data Upgrading Stages.

The Lodge-Gossett Resolution: A Critical Analysis

1950 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth C. Silva
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
National Party ◽  
The Past

Since 1797, when Representative Smith of South Carolina proposed a constitutional amendment to reform the electoral college, scarcely a Congress has adjourned without the introduction of one or more resolutions on this subject. A plan which is currently receiving attention was introduced in the Senate by Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts and in the House by Ed Gossett of Texas. The Senate has already passed the so-called Lodge-Gossett proposal by a vote of 64 to 27—three more than the necessary two-thirds. There is actually some chance that the House of Representatives will approve the measure and send it to the states as it enjoys bi-partisan support and has received favorable committee action in the House.The plan provides for three major changes in the electoral system. First, it would abolish presidential electors but retain the electoral votes of each state as at present. The purpose of this change is to prevent electors from acting on their own judgment. In the past, this matter has seemed relatively unimportant. But the recent election indicated the dangers of an electoral system which allows a determined minority to seize a national party label and appropriate electoral votes as the Thurmond forces did in Alabama and Tennessee.

scholarly journals Does the Commonwealth Electoral Act Satisfy the Requirement That Representatives Be ‘Directly Chosen’ by the People?

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Bede Harris
Keyword(s):  
Western Australia ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
Vote System ◽  
Representative Government ◽  
Minor Parties ◽  
Voter Preferences ◽  
The People ◽  
Accurate Reflection

<p>The electoral system embodied in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) is notable for its startling unfairness to voters who support minor parties. This article argues that the disparity between voter preferences and the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives means that the electoral system cannot be said to provide for the election of members ‘directly chosen by the people’, as required by s 24 of the Constitution, and is therefore open to challenge. Although challenges to the electoral system in Attorney General (Cth); Ex rel McKinlay v Commonwealth and McGinty v Western Australia were unsuccessful, dicta by majorities in both cases support the argument that at some point – albeit unstated by the courts in those cases - an electoral system will be so unrepresentative as not to be consistent with s 24. Subsequent decisions in Roach v Electoral Commissioner and Rowe v Electoral Commissioner, to the effect that franchise laws must be appropriate and adapted to the system of representative government, also provide grounds for a constitutional challenge to the current electoral system. The article ends with a discussion of the criteria to be used to determine what system would be consistent with direct representation of the people, and argues that the Single Transferrable Vote system satisfies the requirements of accurate reflection of voter sentiment and provision to voters of identifiable local representatives.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document