American civil rights

[Echnaton]

Depends on what you mean by "fair", I guess.

As above, fair is so ill defined that it can be invoked used to support almost anything.   

Fair in that each vote have equal weight
Fair in that each vote is counted
Fair in that the election is swiftly concluded without suspicion of post election maneuvering.....

One problem with direct voting is that the if no one gets a majority, then there must be an alternative method of selection.  Such as a runoff or the preferential voting method Peter B. mentioned.  Runoffs are "unfair" to voters that cannot go to the polls twice or loose motivation.  IIRC preferential voting can lead to "unfairly" selecting a winner that was not among the top first choice candidates.  Defaulting to Congress if there is no majority leads to post election maneuvering. 

Right now it defaults to the electoral college, who are selected by the prevailing party of the state.  But the system makes an lack of majority in the college a rather  unlikely possibility.

Every system will have some unfairness's in it. 

used to think that the next time an inversion were to occur the Constitution would be changed with lightning speed.

It is always seems easier to stick the not perfect but familiar rather than move toward some uncertain problems. 

Electoral votes are assigned only every 10 years after a census so it's possible that Texas' population has grown so much since the last census that it has the most residents per electoral vote even though its total population is still less than that of California.

You have no idea how the oil boom has caused people to flood into Texas.   Since the last census, Exxon and BP have consolidated their formerly wide spread domestic businesses into the Houston area.  Then there are the roughnecks, truck drivers, seismic crews, service crews......  Rural roads are clogged with trucks and small trailer towns are built to just to give them all a place to live.    With $50 oil and $3 natural gas, they may all be gone by the time the next census starts though. 

[Bob B.]

Depends on what you mean by "fair", I guess. If you believe that every US citizen should have an equal say in electing the president, the electoral college is most definitely unfair.

I think the small states should have a greater say in the presidential election process than what population alone would give them.  Each state makes up 2% of the union, and that equal balance shouldn't be ignored.  I think the Electoral College strikes a good balance between equal representation and population-weighted representation.

[Luke Pemberton]

I think the small states should have a greater say in the presidential election process than what population alone would give them.  Each state makes up 2% of the union, and that equal balance shouldn't be ignored.  I think the Electoral College strikes a good balance between equal representation and population-weighted representation.

There's a similar argument here for proportional representation. At the moment we have one Green Party MP in the House, but the Green party polled 1% of the popular vote. Crudely, by proportion of the vote one could argue that 1% of MPs should be Green. Similarly, in the 2005 election, Labour only had 5% more of the popular vote, but had almost twice as many MPs.

British politics appears to be in state of flux at the moment, with the rise of nationalist Scottish politics and UKIP, and what appears to be the demise of Liberal support, we could be entering an interesting period of multi-party politics, much like we have seen on the continent.

When I use the word fair, I belive I mean fairness to what the votes actually translate to representation of the people's views. But, as I have said, I'd rather live in a democracy, even if it is not perfect.

[Luke Pemberton]

I'm pretty sure someone has demonstrated that a seat-based political system eventually leads to a two-party system, while proportional representation leads to a multiplicity of parties. The danger of the former is that off-party views rarely get a look-in - you have to take the whole legislative platform of one party or the other. The danger of the latter is that governments can only be formed with unstable coalitions - see particularly Weimar Germany and post-WW2 Italy.

A situation which has largely governed UK politics for most of the last 120 years. A few analysts would argue that given the situation at the end of the last Labour term, the political situation here has moved away from the two party bias. The basis for this argument was that even with the unpopularity of the Brown government, Cameron could still not command a majority. I think there were many in Conservative central office that did not understand what they needed to do. I think there were those around the country that felt they still remembered the Tories of old, and those wounds still linger. With the Liberal vote holding reasonably firm we moved towards a Coalition.

The damage that forming a Coalition with the Tories has yet to be seen, but current polls put the Liberals in 5th, behind Con, Lab, UKIP and Greens. Some analysts here suggest we are heading for a period of Coalition governments.

[Echnaton]

When I use the word fair, I belive I mean fairness to what the votes actually translate to representation of the people's views.

It is as good of a goal for fairness as any. 

The devil though is in the details on how to accomplish it.  Just because a scheme works one time, for one group, doesn't mean it always will provide a practical level of fairness any other time.  All we can do is try.

It seems to me that the uncertainty of the kind parliamentary situation you describe would not play well here and that most people prefer the "stability" of our two party Congresional system.  I for one, would like to see some "instability" in government, though.  Rather then just welcome a new group of Congressional overlords every few years. 

[Luke Pemberton]

It is as good of a goal for fairness as any. 

I believe our democracy if fair in the sense that we are allowed to vote, the counting is quick and transparent so fraud is unlikely, and the rules are clear for all candidates. I'm still undecided if 'proportion of vote' is translated into 'representation' in the Commons in a fair manner. But, as you have reminded me, what is fair. It is vague, and a loaded term.

The devil though is in the details on how to accomplish it.  Just because a scheme works one time, for one group, doesn't mean it always will provide a practical level of fairness any other time.  All we can do is try.

Absolutely, and hence my ambivalence towards PR and First Past the Post.

It seems to me that the uncertainty of the kind parliamentary situation you describe would not play well here and that most people prefer the "stability" of our two party Congresional system.  I for one, would like to see some "instability" in government, though.  Rather then just welcome a new group of Congressional overlords every few years.

I too want to see instability. I think politicians should be kept on their toes and reminded they are elected by the people to serve the people. I recently went to a conference about education in our country and a phrase that I connected with was 'power is not absolute, with  power comes responsibility.'