h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As you know by now, I'm guessing, the incumbent US President won another term in office.

The system seems a little complicated to outsiders, so just to sum up:

Mr Obama won 59688943 popular votes, or 50%
Mr Romney won 57065895 popular votes, or 48%

Mr Obama won 303 electoral votes, so he wins big.
Mr Romney won 206 electoral votes.

Across the board, how did people vote?

Well, the Democrats won 191 seats in the House, and the Republicans won 232. That leaves the Republicans in charge over there, but by less than before.

The Democrats kept control of the Senate, 51-45.

Interesting developments: People all over the country were voting FOR 'progressive issues', such as: gay marriage, legalisation the planting of marijuana (or, back to the 18th Century, when everybody was growing hemp in the South Forty), and for reproductive rights, etc.

Wisconsin got a new Senator. She defeated a former Governor for the seat. She will now be the first 'openly gay' Senator in US history. Tammy Baldwin was a Representative before this, so she's got a lot of experience in government:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/wis-s-baldwin-1st-openly-gay-senator-article-1.1197949

I put 'openly gay' in quotes because people only say that to mean, 'Sure, there were gay people in government before, but since nobody talked about it, this one's a milestone.' Someday there will be a 'gay First Lady', and Eleanor Roosevelt will chuckle up in Heaven...

Some people had tech problems with their voting machines, and the storm last week caused a lot of problems for people getting to the polls, as well. Also, when the election is so important, more people show up, so the lines get really long (except out in the boondocks, where I am).

Political memories being so short, I'm not sure if most people realise what this all means. I would conclude that:

- People in the US are NOT, overall, trying to turn back the clock on social issues.

- Most people (including me) would very much like to go back to the time before the two major parties got so polarised. In other words, yesterday was the first time in my life I've voted a straight-party ticket, and I want it to be the last. That's not good democracy, people, but we had to send a message.

A commentator has summed this up so well that I'd like to share his column with you:

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2012/11/david_kolb_time_for_the_gop_to.html

Yeah, like that. Get rid of the lunatic fringe, and let's have some real dialogue again.

And no more rude campaigns that insult the intelligence.

What's a "straight-party ticket" ?

http://xkcd.com/1127/

I found this comic very useful in seeing the odd way things have changed, especially recently. The fact that almost the entire centre (sorry, center) right has disappeared and been replaced by far right explains a lot.

Does it mean voting for a particular set of candidates based solely on their political party, rather than on their personal strengths?

Yep.

Amy's got it.

You see, we're supposed to vote for the candidate, not their affiliation.

But if you're a diehard fan of one of the two parties, you can fill in 'straight Democrat' or 'straight Republican', except for the presidency and the 'non-partisan' offices, such as judges.

Now, it used to be that in some places, one party or the other had a better organisation. It also used to be that one party's group in one area was, say, more conservative than the same party in another area...

Take, for example, in Milwaukee back in the 1890s or so. No matter what party they were, most of those guys were what they called 'sewer socialists' - that is, they had very German ideas of civic responsibility. And they were concerned with practical issues like urban infrastructure.

I know what you mean, although most people over here vote purely for the party.

Whereas I think and usually vote at a candidate level, if a candidate is actually any good at what they do, where they're likely to get into the Cabinet, or onto boards doing other stuff, they'll spend more time in London doing that stuff than they will actually doing their stuff for their constituency. So, I try and balance out that with how effective I think they'll be local.

Voting on party lines isn't as immature or politically unsophisticated as it might seem at first glance. We have, in the UK, fairly effective systems in place in parliament to make sure that MPs toe the party line, at least on votes where a lot is at stake. The ones who don't tend to find themselves relegated to the sidelines sharpish.

The fact is, people choose to stand for a given party for a reason - and parties produce policies and manifestos which apply on a national level - so it is a perfectly rational and responsible act to choose the set of policies most closely in line with your own views on how the country should be run.

for english politics, I still say Guy Fawkes had the best idea

I personally think that fear of death had a lot to do with the election going the way that it did.




On polarization of the political parties, I grew up in a district where most of the candidates had gotten the endorsement of both parties at the primary level under the old cross-filing system* that allowed candidates to register as a candidate for any and all the primaries, irrespective of their own political affiliation, if any and were running in the actual election essentially unopposed.

To be sure, the cross-filing system was much decried by political malcontents like Voorhees and Robert A. Heinlein, who hadn't read the fine print in the election laws and cross filed themselves, losing at the primary level to candidates who had done so and gained the endorsements of both major political parties.

If I could see the potential, reading the basic election law at the age 11, I don't see why they should have had any problem.




The cross-filing system was repealed in 1979 on account of efforts by the 'Citizens Committee', the same organization that later promoted the the SDI, or 'Star Wars' program.

This marked the beginning of a long period of elevated voter dis-satisfaction.

The cross-filing system had favored candidates who were careful to read the fine print and make use of all of their options, who were also capable of putting together a platform satisfactory to both major parties.

Its abolition encouraged careless and univalent types.




*The cross-filing system is not to be confounded with the 'open primary' system, under which anyone can vote in any primary, irrespective of their own political affiliation, if any.

The primary system was invented as a convenience for the purpose of supporting internal elections within the political parties for candidates.

The open primary system was brought into force for one election in the State of California by means of a rather bizarre quorum vote undertaken when most of the legislators were out of Sacramento and was promptly repealed buy a coalition of mainstream Democrats and Republicans who objected to surrendering control of the internal affairs of their political parties to a rather questionable lobbying organization.

An effort was made to bring it back at the next State elections by means of a ballot initiative, which, thankfully, was defeated by the voters.

If it were up to me, I'd require proof of at least a sustaining membership in a political party as a qualification for voting in its primary election: if you don't pay dues, you don't vote in the primary.

What California has now is a system where the two top winners from the primary run against each other in the general election, no matter which party they're representing. Previously, it was the winner from each of the major parties who ran against each other, occasionally leading to 5 candidates or more, depending on how many parties had candidates who placed sufficiently highly in the Primary.

We had some interesting races this time around, with two Dems or two Reps running for the same office. One even included a shoving match at a rally...between two Dems (the shover won).

"One even included a shoving match at a rally" Yeah, that was weird.

I worry about California having only two choices on the general election ballot...what if they both turn out to be idiots?