• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s not just the electoral college. The US was the first big modern democracy, and all the democracies that have sprung up since took one look at its structure and said “nah”. This includes democracies the US directly helped setup in their current form, such as Germany, Japan, and Iraq. Nobody wants to replicate that structure, including the US.

    States as semi-sovereign entities rather than administrative zones? Nope. Every state gets two reps in the upper legislative branch? Nope. Those two reps plus at least one lower legislative rep means that the smallest state gets at least three votes in the Electoral College? What madness is that? Even the executive being separate from the head of the legislative branch is uncommon everywhere else.

    Parliamentary systems, where the Prime Minister is both head of the legislative branch and the executive, are more common. Some of these split some of the duties of the executive off into a President, but that President isn’t as singularly powerful as the US President. The US idea that the different branches would have checks and balances against each other was rendered pointless the moment the first political parties were developed.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Even the executive being separate from the head of the legislative branch is uncommon everywhere else.

      The Presidential System (as distinct from the Prime Ministerial System) is common throughout Latin America and West Africa. Incidentally, it is also a governmental structure more vulnerable to coups and similar violent takeovers, as the President being in conflict with the Legislature often leads to these snap power grabs rather than more well-defined transitions of power after elections.

      The US idea that the different branches would have checks and balances against each other was rendered pointless the moment the first political parties were developed.

      Well, that’s another big difference between the US system and systems in countries with more settled populations. Regional parties (the Scottish National Party being a large and distinct block of voters in the UK, the uMkhonto weSizwe as a Zulu nationalist group in South Africa, the Taiwan Solidarity Union as a Taiwanese nativist faction, or Otzma Yehudit in Israel which draws its doctrine from a single ultra-nationalist Rabbi Meir Kahane) can all exist in parliamentary systems in a way that a Mormon Party or a Texas Party or an African-American Party has failed to materialize in the United States.

      The idea of checks and balances doesn’t work when you’re forced into coalition with one of the two dominant (heavily coastal) parties to have any sway in Congress or within the Presidential administration. And that goes beyond just “Voting for President”. The Democrats don’t nominate bureaucratic leaders (Sec of State, Attorney General, etc), the President does. This gives enormous influence to a singular individual who functions as both Party Leader and National Leader.

      Compare this to Brazil or Germany or India or Israel, where power-sharing agreements between caucusing parties encourage the incoming Prime Minister to choose from the leaders of aligned party groups to fill cabinet positions. There’s an immediate payoff to being the head of a small but influential partisan group under the PM system in a way that the American system doesn’t have.

      Now, do you want Anthony Blinken or Janet Yellen to have to hold a Congressional seat and act as Secretary of State or Secretary of Treasury? Idk. I’ve seen Brits scoff at this system as being its own kind of mess. But I can imagine a country in which a Yellen-equivalent head of the Liberals for Better Economic Policy Party has half a dozen seats and Blinken’s Americans for NATO Party has half a dozen seats, and this is what Biden needs to be Prime Minister, so he appoints them to his cabinet as a trade-in for their support.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    The Electoral College is outdated and should be dissolved. Another problem in the USA, the wealthy are admired and considered heroes. In the EU, nobody trusts the bastards and people will strike. I believe the French are the best when they disagree with their leaders and upper class because they would drag out the guillotine.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is such a lazy, circle jerk answer. And also patently wrong because both parties have wealthy interests, and one would love to get rid of the EC because it would give them more power.

      The answer is much more obvious: it would require a constitutional amendment which would require a bunch of states and representatives voting to dilute their power and the power of the people they represent when it comes to choosing the POTUS.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        The National Popular Vote movement is a shortcut around the need for a constitutional amendment. States that sign on to it change their EC allocation process so that their state’s votes go to the winner of the national vote – but it only kicks in when enough states sign on to constitute a majority of EC votes.

        IIRC it has passed in enough states to be just over 200 EC votes, but getting the last 70 will be a tough process. Still, it is an easier lift than an amendment. And maybe if it ever passes and makes the EC irrelevant there might be more momentum around the amendment to get rid of it altogether.

  • Jagothaciv@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well yea, this country is held hostage by the shitbag wealth class. Get rid of them. Tax them out of the wealth they lied, cheated, and stole via tax schemes, loopholes, and other criminal activity. We still have the power.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      As long as they’re able to mislead a bunch of stupid idiots to think that things that don’t affect them, such as trans rights, they’ll keep winning. Class solidarity is impossible when your fellow-poor believe that immigrants are the reason they’re poor. Unfortunately, they’ve succeeded in keeping people stupid and uneducated.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Problem is that half the population is willing to keep the wealth class in power. And, ironically, many in that half of the population are among the poorest in the nation who believe the wealth will eventually trickle down to them.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      What are you talking about, Bozos and Muskrat absolutely earned the 100 billion increase in their wealth over the last 10 years! They just Work Harder™ and are More Valuable™ than us!

      /Wrist

  • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    the idea of using an electoral college to indirectly elect a president spread to other republics.

    This was news to me. In particular, after the Holy Roman Empire fell, other countries still adopted an EC. Before abandoning it.

    But they all did.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    It all goes back to the negotiation at the start of the country: “We want to vote” vs. “We don’t want those people to vote”

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The Roman Republic.

      No, really - the Tribal Assembly, the democratic legislature of the Republic, was divided by tribes, and tribes sorted according to geographic residence. Urban tribes got 4 votes, and rural tribes got 31 votes. Just like today!

      [sobbing]

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I know there wasn’t exactly much else to go off of at the time, but it still blows my mind that the American Founding Fathers looked at an empire that collapsed largely due to political corruption and thought “oh yeah, this is what we gotta use!”

  • kenjen@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    日本語
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This isn’t news. I mean, even if it is just now true, the United States being a “Democratic Republic” that promised citizens the vote and then kept a body who basically sat around to subvert the popular vote when things got close was largely considered to be another aspect of the USA’s rather f****d up interpretation of “freedom”.

  • 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Would it be much of an issue if we insisted presidential powers were limited to what they were when the Constitution came into force? Today’s presidents (both parties) greatly exceed the powers of Washington and Jefferson.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Washington is a bad example, the people wanted to king him, his salary was huge, and if he wanted to do so something all he had to do was ask.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not just the electoral college that causes that issue though, first past the post is the culprit in Canada and our lack of precedent for minority alliances doesn’t help.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            How many NDP ministers have we had at the federal level in Canada’s history?

            What parties have had their leader be the prime minister?

            The NDP kept what party in power longer than any other minority government in Canada’s history?

            What party would have taken power had the NDP not postponed the elections?

            What party will take power to replace the one in place come next election?

            • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              That’s not what determines whether a country is a 2 party system or a multi party system. There are plenty of countries that have small parties which have never formed government themselves but nevertheless have held real power in coalitions or minority parliaments.

              Canada’s public health care system was created by Tommy Douglas, an NDP MP and party leader. If Canada were strictly a two party system like the US then that would never have happened.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Douglas implemented it in… Saskatchewan. At the federal level it was implemented by a Liberal majority government.

                At the federal level the NDP and Bloc only have power insofar as the Liberals and Conservatives choose to entertain them, the Liberals could have decided not to implement any of the NDP demands and then the Conservatives would have taken their place and then all of the NDP objectives would have been buried and forgotten.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Australia’s isn’t based on FPTP or anything explicitly, nefariously, anti-democratic — except the part where media ownership is one of the most monopolised of all western “democracies”, or the part where most state and federal politicians are financed by the wealthiest individuals and corporations (not in the American direct payment, openly corrupt, kind of way. More in the golden parachute, regulatory capture, quid pro quo kind of way).

          Interesting how 5 eyes are all stuck in a plutocratic two-party system, huh? Almost like the MIC and most advanced mass surveillance apparatus in history has a lot more influence over our politics than any of us realise…

          • NateNate60@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s true that many large established liberal democracies right now have only a maximum of two major parties with any realistic chance of holding power.

            In Germany, that’s the Social Democratic Party and the CDU/CSU. In Spain, it’s the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party and People’s Party. In Taiwan, it’s the Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party. In New Zealand, it’s the National Party and the Labour Party. In Singapore, it’s the People’s Action Party and the Workers’ Party.

            I think I can even argue that liberal electoral democracy in general trends towards two major political parties or permanent coalitions—a centre-left liberal coalition and a centre-right conservative coalition.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s a product of our fptp voting system, so any country that has this is going to trend towards two parties.