hacker

He brags that the Canadian electoral system is better-run (I have no way of finding out if that is true)

No way at all?

He's probably talking about the actual running of elections by a neutral agency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_Canada

There are considerable problems with the enforcement of electoral campaign laws by Elections Canada. Our elections are generally about 6 weeks, and they don't have the ability to intervene when laws are being broken during a campaign. It seems to take two years for charges of electoral malfesance to get to court.
But generally independent electoral commissions running elections is a helluva lot better idea than the concept of state governments running them as happens in the US. There's less finagling the rules to the benefit of the State governments loyalties.

Long response again, I pre-apologize:

Ricky, do you not have access to Encyclopedia Britannica? I admit they don't have quite the extensive amount and degree of topics as does Wikipedia, but I remember a college professor telling us to not use Wikipedia because, well, just about anybody can edit an article, academic credentials notwithstanding.

Of course, I've looked up stuff on Wikipedia before myself, I did say it's more topically extensive.

At any rate, you're right about there has been change in corruption in US elections as far as campaign donations. But has anybody considered that that has anything to do with the proliferation of electronic mass media? Not everyone owned a television set in say, 1965. Most owned at least a radio of course, but those had been used effectively for "reaching the public" since the 1930s. FDR was great at using radio to get his message(s) out.

The whole point of public funding of presidential debates, commercials, etc., is the very fact that, once presidential candidates could electronically beam themselves into our homes, they had to spend a lot of money doing it. The internet hasn't really been within reach of most people until, say, 1995 or perhaps a little earlier; that's less than 20 years. Some people still do not use computers at all--not necessarily the poor, but mostly a large segment of the older population who wouldn't know how to switch it on and those are the people who vote the most out of all age groups--and rely on TV instead. And with each passing year, it gets easier and easier to do snazzy websites and so forth. But we shall see what we shall see; the jury is still out on the effects of the internet age on campaign spending and electoral corruption. I agree with you that money talks, but I do believe it's not as bad as you think it is. Though, again, I'm not trying to say curbs on lavish campaign spending/fundraising are....well exist in the way they ought to if you get my meaning. There clearly aren't enough such curbs. I have already agreed with that. What I do not agree with is your arguments that, money-wise, the United States Congress is a step short of the Roman Senate.

Now, Ricky, here's where you are lacking a bit of info. The state election boards are independently run. They are not controlled by the Governor and State Legislatures in any state I know of. If you were really talking about the conflict of interest that leads to Gerrymandering of electoral boundaries by the State Governments, then you'd be right. But the state governments do NOT "run" the respective state boards of election. The conflict of interest is not over election rules/vote counting/overseeing/etc, it's over the drawing and redrawing of congressional and legislative districts. The latter is indeed done by the actual state government (bad idea, I agree).

P.S. should your ideal independent electoral commission be run at the FEDERAL level, if not the State? The expression "out of the frying pan and into the fire" comes to mind...

Anyway, I still do not see how our electoral corruption is a result of presidential government. And were you posting there book reviews? or was that an excerpt from the book itself? While I agree that Presidential power has indeed expanded at the expense of Congress, or presidents that are doing stuff these days which may be more properly performed by law makers, not law-executors/executives, the first of the two large quotes is largely-stereotyped twaddle, which misses the point entirely. Besides a president's "inner circle" of supporters can come from members of Congress, not just external "supporters" or "donors". Again, however, I am not underestimating the role of money, just not playing it up or attributing its power to a presidential government structure. Remember, the current President came from the ranks of the Senate himself. Thus, his power network is quite likely to come from fellow members or former members.

Members of Congress often play a very powerful role in picking presidents, but their role is more covert and unofficial in so doing. The President's deck of Essentials (the "winning coalition" of a ruler), that is, the People without whose support his rule would collapse, include a crapload of congressmen and other people who are influential, not just in "certain states" that a presidential candidate needs to win, but certain PARTS of states. Even within a state, there are conflicting interests, even if 48 out of 51 states (DC is a de facto "state" during presidential elections) use the "winner take all" system. American elections aren't as black and white as you're cutting it.

By the way, about Mann and Ornstein, I was a poli sci major, and I've never heard of the bastards. Whoever the hell they are, they do not seem to be very "most renown" among scholars. Again, is that a quote from the actual book or just the book review published in the Guardian?

hacker

By the way, about Mann and Ornstein, I was a poli sci major, and I've never heard of the bastards

Party School?

The quotation from Amazon I didn't link because I thought you could look the book up on Amazon if you were interested ... ....and the actual the link was a mile long ...

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/mannt?view=bio

http://www.aei.org/scholar/norman-j-ornstein/


hacker

At any rate, you're right about there has been change in corruption in US elections as far as campaign donations. But has anybody considered that that has anything to do with the proliferation of electronic mass media? Not everyone owned a television set in say, 1965.

For the record, ownership of television sets by American households was over 90% by 1965.
I don't know that corruption changed .... so much as the cost of running a campaign increased, meaning the cost of corruption may have gone up. For a number of reasons.
1) The use of primaries became institutionalized.
2) The cost of campaigning increased, as media fragmented. As an advertising professional I can tell you that a multi channel universe made it more expensive to reach people in the 80s over the 70's and the Internet has fragmented audiences even more today. Audience fragmentation has made the cost of a large media campaign more expensive. Making campaign funding ever more important, and therefore providing big donors ever more importance as they grow.


hacker

The state election boards are independently run. They are not controlled by the Governor and State Legislatures in any state I know of.

Who writes the laws and regulations governing the boards? In the US, laws tend to be quite prescriptive, rather than objectively written. So when an election board is "independent" their hands are often tied on issues like: - voter identification rules, hours of polling, advance polls. numbers of polls and as you note in drawing electoral boundaries. In the 1960s, civil rights legislation came about partly because oppressive Jim Crow laws that governed elections and voting in the South were outlawed and many southern states electoral commissions independence were taken way with Federal oversight ...
Any way, the notion that election boards are independent should also be challenged by the nature of the appointing of said election boards. Are they a permanent beauraucracy or is their leadership appointed after each election cycle that brings about a change in State government.? There's 50 so I won't check every one, but i'm pretty sure that the leadership of these boards is mostly a political appointment. In the UK and Canada, I know that the electoral commissions are permanent civil servants.You appoint a known operative from the republicans (or Democratic) party to head an "independent" electoral commission and you might not get the neutrality that the word "independent" suggests.

hacker

I admit they don't have quite the extensive amount and degree of topics as does Wikipedia, but I remember a college professor telling us to not use Wikipedia because, well, just about anybody can edit an article, academic credentials notwithstanding.

I think that on historical record, like the events noting the institutionalization of primaries, we're pretty safe.

I think that your arguments tend to focus on mechanics, and instruments of government. What you haven't noted is that much of the American system of elections and governance is not written into the Constitution. Where a duopoly of two parties has institutionalized, it was never a feature of the Constitution. Where primaries are not even mentioned in the Constitution.
Where many of the rules of procedure in Congress were invented out of whole cloth and have no basis in the Constitution. (i.e. Cloture, Super majority votes).
These are all evidence that specific power interests have managed to control the levers of government to ensure their ability to control government.

The reason public financing works to eliminate some of the corrupting influence is that when a party knows what and where their campaign budget comes from, the only thing that matters is votes. A billionaire gets one vote. A pauper gets one vote... It means that the outsize influence of a check writing corporation is eliminated... (That actually means the corporations need to adjust their business activities to make money within the system rather than bending the system to optimize their profits. Its one reason , in Germany for instance, energy companies have grown their development of sustainable energy systems, rather than protecting old age technologies. And done so, profitably. )

There are also advantages in a parliamentary system in that it is much easier to start and grow a new party representing a specific point of view. The duopoly in the US is largely unchallenged and unchangeable. What that has meant in the is two sides to every debate and increasing partisan action. The end to compromise. Where parliamentary systems give rise to small voices, they also tend to mean compromise in the legislature is required . At least at some point. Or, if a majority is achieved, then governance is not hampered by procedure and "checks" that stifle the ability of a majority to actually govern as a majority.

Still nothing is perfect. But I'd say in the US, If Mann and Ornstein are right, there is a crisis in governance.

Acrimony and hyperpartisanship have seeped into every part of the political process. Congress is deadlocked and its approval ratings are at record lows. America’s two main political parties have given up their traditions of compromise, endangering our very system of constitutional democracy. And one of these parties has taken on the role of insurgent outlier; the Republicans have become ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, and ardently opposed to the established social and economic policy regime.

In It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein identify two overriding problems that have led Congress—and the United States—to the brink of institutional collapse. The first is the serious mismatch between our political parties, which have become as vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a governing system that, unlike a parliamentary democracy, makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. Second, while both parties participate in tribal warfare, both sides are not equally culpable. The political system faces what the authors call “asymmetric polarization,” with the Republican Party implacably refusing to allow anything that might help the Democrats politically, no matter the cost.

With dysfunction rooted in long-term political trends, a coarsened political culture and a new partisan media, the authors conclude that there is no “silver bullet” reform that can solve everything. But they offer a panoply of useful ideas and reforms, endorsing some solutions, like greater public participation and institutional restructuring of the House and Senate, while debunking others, like independent or third-party candidates. Above all, they call on the media as well as the public at large to focus on the true causes of dysfunction rather than just throwing the bums out every election cycle. Until voters learn to act strategically to reward problem solving and punish obstruction, American democracy will remain in serious danger

.

http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-L ... 343&sr=1-2

I haven't read this one.... But it looks like a pot boiler!

Firstly, this book of yours:

Ah, so it was a quote from the book review on Amazon, then...I was right. Now I do not wish to be hypocritical, as I myself am not capable of reading every book in sight, but I think you do absorb information more accurately when you do actually read the book itself...not just a review or description of it on Amazon's website. You cannot expect to convince someone with an argument of "if Mann and Orstein are right..." while, in the same breath, admitting you have not read the actual book.

I must admit the possibility that you may be right or wrong, but of course those short descriptions have to, by definition, oversimplify things. And some book critics are bloody fools as far as I am concerned. They never slam a book, because, naturally, they are trying to SELL the thing. Amazon would never have a description of one of it's books consisting of several paragraphs about exactly how the thing sucks and why the author(s) are full of $h*t.

Speak of the devil, I'm in the middle of reading a rather interesting one myself. I believe I mentioned it above, The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Alastair Smith & Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. So far, so good, but I'm only on chapter two. If I were to quote that one, I would do so with some heavy caveats, for I have not actually finished the damn book; only up through Chapter 2. But it is certainly one that I think you ought to read. It slams political scientists who see differing political systems in rather one (or at best two) dimensional models. That is one you ought to pick up. So far it is an eye-opener, but of course I could be disappointed by the time I finish it. Just thought you might like to see this one too:

http://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403464499&sr=1-1&keywords=dictator%27s+handbook

At least so far, it seems to support my point that, both parliamentary and presidential systems are capable of consolidating power in ways that they oughtn't (and were designed NOT to). But they have indeed mentioned campaign finance, and whether governments use the money collected in taxes to either pay off its backers, or benefit the general welfare of the People from whence the government revenue originated (i.e., the taxpayers).

Secondly, our incredibly corrupt Boards of Election:

You are essentially saying that, even though you do not know for a fact our Boards of Election are controlled by the in situ government (the present Governors & State Lackeys oops Legislatures), since you have not personally looked at every state government website or done some such research that would actually PROVE the products of your very competent imagination, you simply "imagine" that they are. Do you have some sort of a priori knowledge of American Law that the rest of us do not have?

As a fact, I know the running and appointments to the state and county boards of election in my own state are not as you assume. But I'll ask my buddy Spencer, whom I am helping get elected to the House of Delegates and who has served as a legislative aide in Annapolis, about that one. Then we'll know.

Thirdly, about 90% of American households owning TV sets in 1965:

Where'd that little gem come from? I doubt it, from all that I am told by my parents and other senior citizens, be they "baby boomers" or earlier. Not imagining that, just from what people who were old enough in 1965 to actually know that fact told me, I have some doubts. So I'm just curious where you picked up the statistic, that's all. I think my point was that mass media got more expensive over time. Remember that Super Bowl commercials are the most expensive commercials aired on American television (that in itself is a fact, but I do not remember exactly how much for a 30 second spot at half time---I'd be grateful if someone could dig that one up for me).

Fourthly, the "prescriptive" vs. "objectively written" American laws:

What the crap are you talking about?

Fifthly, the Constitution:

There is a BOATLOAD of stuff that isn't in the Constitution, but is part of the larger unwritten "constitution" (lowercase c). The Chinese have an expression that "the best rules are the unwritten ones." I tend to agree. If the Constitution did include a lot of procedural items, it would be so long, and so specific, that it would be nearly impossible to competently alter when necessary, and would contain many items that would need to be changed with the slightest alteration of political, social and/or economic conditions. In other words if you make a constitution too damn long, and so specific, you're rewriting the thing every ten years. There's really only a couple of "procedural" items the Constitution of 1787 includes, the vote of cloture (1/5), the quorum to do normal business and compel attendance, etc. After all how could Congress convene without knowing what a proper quorum was (it's stated there, too) unless it was in the Constitution, since the House and Senate hadn't sat down to write their parliamentary procedure manuals, yet, because they had not yet convened for the first meeting? (Chicken or the egg thing.)

You want a more specific constitution? I can give you a link to the Maryland Constitution, and you will see EXACTLY what I mean about why a Constitution should never be too long for the original to fit comfortably onto four, large pieces of parchment. [the state constitution here is 108 pp long. Take note that it gets amended in some small, or even large, way every single election, no exaggeration! Every general election, every two years, there is a ballot question to ratify a proposed amendment to the Maryland Constitution. It's a mess. The "original date" on it is 1867.]

And Sixthly, the meat and potatoes of the whole thing (finally):

HOW--you still have not directly explained this--how does a presidential government (compared to a parliamentary one) cause greater corruption and less listening to the "little people" compared to wealthy donors, corporations and special interests? Did you not read anything Danivon wrote, about how prime ministers have, themselves, become more "Presidential" as far as their authority, their campaigning and their direct appeal to the masses (versus the rest of the theoretically-collective Cabinet)?

P.P.P.P.S. About Germany and its renewable sources of power vs. the United States; is there a German in the house who can verify this?

Oh and I looked at the "pot boiler" on amazon.com of the book you were talking about. The impression *I* get of this "pot boiler" is that it's a little sensationalized. But like I said, neither of us has read it. Right? Are a fan of Tom Daschle by the way?

i was alive in 1965; the vast majority of people had tvs ... here's the back up

http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TV_Basics.pdf

Total U.S. HH TV HH % HH
Year (000) (000) With TV
1950 43,000 3,880 9.0
1955 47,620 30,700 64.5
1960 52,500 45,750 87.1
1965 56,900 52,700 92.6

hacker

You cannot expect to convince someone with an argument of "if Mann and Orstein are right..." while, in the same breath, admitting you have not read the actual book.

Whether or not I'd read the whole book doesn't matter. I'm quoting a specific passage because it makes a point.
If I'd not made the admission that I hadn't read the second book, you'd assume that I had read the whole book and that makes the content of the quotation more credible? Odd.

hacker

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Alastair Smith & Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

.
I'm glad they mention the corrupting influence of money in campaign finance. And I don't doubt that parliamentary systems are capable of creating situations where power is consolidated. indeed if you recall i noted that the Canadian system, power actually is far more centralized (In the PMOs office) than the UK or US systems.At least when a party has a majority in the House.
But that hasn't thrown the country into gridlock the way the system of checks and balances and the excesses of partisanship have to the US of late. Indeed the idea that a parliamentary majority allows a party the freedom and authority to actually enact an agenda for a guaranteed period is an assurance of action.

Hacker

Secondly, our incredibly corrupt Boards of Election

Did I say they were incredibly corrupt? Some have been. See my historical reference to the Jim Crow laws and their decades long enforcement.
I said that electoral commissions were politically appointed positions in many states. Any political appointment means that there is "influence" on the person. No?
The notion that the optics are better if an election commission is a permanent beauracrcay stands I think. No matter how fair and impartial a commisisoner might be, if he or she was appointed by one party of another ... then the optics are bad, And sometimes that's enough to taint the process.
Morover i made the point the the Boards don't make the regulations for elections. They execute the laws. And the electoral laws change by state. In many states there is considerable concern about specifc laws, defining the length of voting, places of voting, early voting, identification laws etc. You don't see these often in nations with entirely independent election commissions.

hacker

Where'd that little gem come from? I doubt it, from all that I am told by my parents and other senior citizens, be they "baby boomers" or earlier.

If you're going to refute something offered as fact try looking something up next time? Thank you Ray.

Hacker

Fourthly, the "prescriptive" vs. "objectively written" American laws:

What the crap are you talking about?

Here's what I mean ...
An objective law or regulation is written so that It means that the Reasonable Person could read and understand it just from that reading alone, and clearly see what is protected, allowed, compelled, or forbidden under that law.
When setting up a government agency to function, an objective law would provide the agency with the general direction of achieiving a goal and allow the agency the freedom to achieve that goal as they see fit.
A prescriptive law is very specific and provides a very specific definition that is designed to provide exact guidance for agents of the law. A prescriptive law regulating a government agency is often so constricting to how an agency operates that the intent of the agency, is often difficult to attain if all of the prescriptive parameters are achieved. And its often easy for rich stakeholders to actually write laws to their favor because prescriptive law is so dense.
I think that the way laws are often written is so prescriptive that they often create problems.
I'd favor a sunset law for all laws that require budgeting. They should be renewed every 10 years or be taken off the books.

hacker

HOW--you still have not directly explained this--how does a presidential government (compared to a parliamentary one) cause greater corruption and less listening to the "little people" compared to wealthy donors, corporations and special interests? Did you not read anything Danivon wrote, about how prime ministers have, themselves, become more "Presidential" as far as their authority, their campaigning and their direct appeal to the masses (versus the rest of the theoretically-collective Cabinet)

I'd point to the situation in the US now. And compare it to the German model.
Two modern, capitalist nations with similar economies. And yet German corporations and democracy seem healthy.
In the US there is a crisis of governance. Both "gridlock" in Congress and increasing lack of confidence in the mechanisms of government.
Is this gridlock and lack of confidence not self evident?
I suggest to you that in a duopoly gridlock is far more difficult to get out of then in a multi party system.

Again Ricky, how do you KNOW these 50 (51, actually) boards of election are political appointees and not civil servants? Did you email 51 Boards of Election to find out? I kept asking you HOW you know, but you have not quite answered my question.

And I certainly WOULD call Jim Crow laws corrupt. However, these laws are no longer on the books: they've either been struck down by the federal courts, or eliminated--however grudgingly on behalf of the white people in those states at the time--by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and other assorted progressive legislation of the time. My advice is to stop mentioning the Jim Crow laws because it isn't supporting your argument. I can tell you they do not have them in Maryland, at least. From what I know of federal law--I have taken a couple of classes involving the supreme court and the Bill of Rights as part of my poli sci major--they're quite done with them anywhere else. We do not live in a perfect society, racially, but I know they went out a long time ago.

I live in Maryland and I know that in our state, I am 99.9% sure our Boards of Election--both of the State of Maryland as a whole AND those of the 23 counties & City of Baltimore--are NOT staffed by political appointees, making them non-independent. Now I did say 99.9%. Why the .1% of self-doubt? Because I can admit that I'm possibly wrong. I am going to ask Spencer, who am I helping to run for the Maryland House of Delegates to make sure of this. I said at the beginning of this thread I was trying to GATHER INFORMATION and to LEARN something. So far this hasn't turned into the kind of frank and open exchange of views I had imagined it would.

Why am I doubting your views on campaign finance? I ran for office before, in Carroll County, Maryland. In fact, I have a whole spiral-bound book on my desk I got from the Board of Elections of Carroll County, at its office in Westminster, Maryland. It is on campaign finance and ethics; and it's quite anally thorough (and extensive). However, since I decided against running for the House of Delegates this year after gathering up the paperwork and beginning to fill it out (not because the paperwork was too extensive, LOL, but for other reasons), I still have the whole book sitting on my desk. And having run for office before, I participated in campaign finance. I learned quite a bit about raising campaign money in the United States. Maybe not for president, but quite a bit.

So:

If you're going to refute something offered as fact try looking something up next time

Ditto that.

Now, on the subject of Prescriptive vs. Objective laws: I understand what you are saying and do not doubt that you believe what you're saying, but have you read American laws before? As mentioned above, Obamacare is 10,000 pp long. Now that would of course seem to support your assertion that American laws tend to be more prescriptive, as the average man doesn't read 10,000 page laws whilst sitting in the bathtub soaking and having a smoke. But just out of curiosity, are you a lawyer in Canada?

Maryland's constitution, and other states, do not allow a lot of the shenanigans that go on in Congress that result in such lengthy bills. Maryland's constitution says something that believe it or not was in the CSA constitution: that all bills relate to but one subject, expressed in the title and all amendments to it must be germane. Now, whether they are prescriptive or objective I cannot tell. (And I do not see what that has to do with presidential v. parliamentary democracy anyway. Or campaign finance, or plutocracy.)

Since you are still under the assumption that a Parliamentary Democracy is apparently less corrupt (as far as campaign finance) than Presidential Democracy for the reason that it's a presidential democracy and not "the good kind", I want to let you know, Germany has its own problems. I took a class called The History of Europe, 1914 to Present, and the professor had herself studied in Germany for quite a while. Not like one semester, she was there for years. From what I learned, I gather that Germany has a DIFFERENT set of political and economic (and corporate) problems than the United States, not LESS problems, per se. Now you have a good point about the budget gridlock between the President and the two chambers of Congress we had last year (and the year before that). However:

I suggest to you that in a duopoly gridlock is far more difficult to get out of then in a multi party system.

You should run for a seat in the Italian Parliament, buddy.

My point, Ricky, is that both systems of government simply have a different set of problems. Again, I didn't say it had no problems, but your arguments supporting the link between those problems and the institution of presidential democracy have been weak, is what I am saying. That said, I will let you know what my friend says the next time I talk to him. And I'll go to the Board of Elections tomorrow (if they're not swamped; the primary is literally the next day). So we shall see what we shall see.

As Im not feeling really well today, I emailed the Maryland Board of Elections and the Carroll County Board of Elections to see how they are appointed/hired. So we shall see what happens when I get written back by them. Though they probably are busy and if I do not get a response within a day or two I'll call them on the phone or go there in person once I am feeling better.

Again however, I have run for office in Maryland before so I know at least in part that you're wrong about the boards of election, state or county, being non-independent. And as far as the book descriptions, my point is that you cannot determine too much from just what it says on the amazon book description, even if it quotes a whole paragraph. that's not the same a reading the book. Do you understand my point? I have an idea. Since you seem to think the books are each a real "pot boiler" as you put it, go read them, or at least get as much information out of them as you can. I have ADHD and I am reading the book by Mesquita/Alastair Smith (not very quickly but it is fascinating).

I'll humor you for a moment and assume that you're right about campaign finance can outright buy votes. But, you are still thinking in terms of parties in your own country when you talk about a duopoly. Our politicians have much greater freedom of action than ones in multiparty parliamentary democracies. You see a "duopoly" which is to some extent true but it cannot explain everything because it is really not like "parties' in most countries. It's like someone explained the Yin and Yang to me: you cannot think of it as a circle divided equally into a black zone and a white zone, but many shades of gray. The "borders" between the black and the white zones are neither absolute nor exact. So when you get right down to it, there is no precise "duopoly": it's a bizillion tiny factions and interests. American parties are not as cut and dried as parties in Canada. If there were the same kind of party discipline (at least in the United States) the corruption you are talking about would be multiplied tenfold.

I fully support campaign finance reform; I am, however, not willing to go so far as to say one democratic structure causes more corruption than another. That is the part of your argument I think is fallacious and all I'm saying is that you have not supported your argument well enough.

Personally it surprises me that congressmen/etc even spend or raise that much money. They do not need to: take the great seals of the Senate and House of Representatives. Scratch that out and substitute "The House of Lords". It has a greater than 90% incumbency rate. Now if you were to argue that the REDISTRICTING is not done independently, and ought to be, I would have to agree wholeheartedly and frankly. But that is not performed by boards of election. Which is probably the problem. Only a mere handful of states have done something about gerrymandering. THAT is the most corrupt part of the American electoral system. Raising money to me is a distant second.

hacker

Again Ricky, how do you KNOW these 50 (51, actually) boards of election are political appointees and not civil servants?

because thats what i says when you look up how state election boards are formed
Some are prescriptively balanced between Republican and Democrat with the chairman always the Governors.
By the way the appointments are made by the State Attorney general in every one I've seen.

http://state.tn.us/sos/election/
barret

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/mediaCen ... 03-03.aspx

http://appointments.illinois.gov/appoin ... .cfm?id=81

http://www.state.nj.us/counties/mercer/officials/

Typically the boards are described as below (Alabama)

The Madison County Board of Registrars consists of three members. Each member is independently appointed by the Governor of Alabama, the Alabama State Auditor, and the Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries. Board members are appointed for four-year terms.

The Board of Registrars manages the registration of voters and maintenance of all voter registration records for Madison County. At the conclusion of the voter registration period, prior to each election, the Board certifies the list of eligible voters used to identify voters at each precinct. At the conclusion of each election, the voter lists are returned to the Board where each voter’s participation becomes part of his or her voting history. The Board also makes determinations on all provisional ballots cast on Election Day

.
If you go back to the boards of elections that i linked to, you'll notice that often these boards are made up specifically of members of the Democratic or Republican parties. First, its hard to argue that the boards are not political appointments when its in writing that they be Democrats or Republicans. Second, in Parliamentary systems in UK and Canada the election commission officers hold no political affiliation. Which seems more likely to break down in political acrimony?

hacker

And I certainly WOULD call Jim Crow laws corrupt. However, these laws are no longer on the books: they've either been struck down by the federal courts, or eliminated--however grudgingly on behalf of the white people in those states at the time--by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and other assorted progressive legislation of the time. My advice is to stop mentioning the Jim Crow laws because it isn't supporting your argument

Its your argument that the structure of government ensures that corruption doesn't exist. Jim Crows are evidence that without extraordinary Federal intervention corruption surely did exist for some 75 years. Now, you could argue that the eventual Federal intervention was an example of how the structure of the US government dd eventually eliminate the corruption. To which i'd reply, "What took so long?"
And why is there such debate today about voter ID laws, polling locations, polling times and early voting opportunities?

hacker

As mentioned above, Obamacare is 10,000 pp long. Now that would of course seem to support your assertion that American laws tend to be more prescriptive, as the average man doesn't read 10,000 page laws whilst sitting in the bathtub soaking and having a smoke

Its a great example of how prescriptive laws can be written. Yes. Thank you for this admission.
Its also an example of how the congressmen actually don't write many of the laws. (Nor their aides.) Large parts of many bill are written by lobby groups and adopted by congressmen as their work.


hacker

Maryland's constitution, and other states, do not allow a lot of the shenanigans that go on in Congress that result in such lengthy bills. Maryland's constitution says something that believe it or not was in the CSA constitution: that all bills relate to but one subject, expressed in the title and all amendments to it must be germane. Now, whether they are prescriptive or objective I cannot tell. (And I do not see what that has to do with presidential v. parliamentary democracy anyway. Or campaign finance, or plutocracy.)

Maryland must be nirvana.
The point I've been making, which Danivon mentioned, is that an examination of the "better system" has to include everything that makes up the system. All the evolutions that have occurred over time, and the eventual out come. (Situation today).
Today in the US, you have gridlock.
And yes, it is possible for parliaments that have proportional representation (or even in First Past The Post ) to end up in gridlock. However, when you have a dozen or so parties in a house, there are far more opportunties for compromise and deal making. Eventually the Italians found a way forward. Will the US also find a way out of gridlock?

Hacker

Since you are still under the assumption that a Parliamentary Democracy is apparently less corrupt (as far as campaign finance)

Please read what i said again. I said that publicly financed elections eliminate much corruption from politics. That can happen in a parliamentary or a Presidential system. But it really only happens in places like Germany, The Netherlands and perhaps Sweden and Norway. (At least that I know of...we had moved towards public financing in Canada but the Tories changed those laws. They had lots of money and the other parties didn't)
What I originally said, and which I hold to, is that he US system has largely been corrupted by the influence of money. The outsized influence. because of the out sized cost of running for office.
It costs far too much to run for office. and the need to constantly fund raise both makes elected officials and potential candidates too beholden to a handful of wealthy donors. And makes them make too much time in the act of fundraising when they should be reading the laws the are going to voting upon. Or listening to ordinary constituents who can't afford to donate thousands to them ...
Until and unless the persuasive force of money is lessened, democracy is distorted.

cross posted last reply Sorry.

About this

Our politicians have much greater freedom of action than ones in multiparty parliamentary democracies

.
used to. Not so much the last 20 years.
That independence was admirable and it was possible to cross the aisle before Newt Gingrinch came along. . However, extremism has caught on, particularly in the republican Party. Congressmen who who don't toe the line find themselves punished.
Mostly by primary challenges from the extremists. Like Cantor they can be unseated for being too willing to compromise (In Cantors case for compromising on immigration reform).
Even if a primary challenge is defeated, it costs a lot of money to run a primary defence. In the 60s incumbents rarely faced a challenge in their own party.

rickyp wrote:cross posted last reply Sorry.

About this

Our politicians have much greater freedom of action than ones in multiparty parliamentary democracies

.
used to. Not so much the last 20 years.
That independence was admirable and it was possible to cross the aisle before Newt Gingrinch came along. . However, extremism has caught on, particularly in the republican Party. Congressmen who who don't toe the line find themselves punished.
Mostly by primary challenges from the extremists. Like Cantor they can be unseated for being too willing to compromise (In Cantors case for compromising on immigration reform).
Even if a primary challenge is defeated, it costs a lot of money to run a primary defence. In the 60s incumbents rarely faced a challenge in their own party.

Even if we don't like the results, isn't it healthy to have contested primaries? We certainly don't want incumbents being rubber stamped for their party's nomination.

ray

Even if we don't like the results, isn't it healthy to have contested primaries? We certainly don't want incumbents being rubber stamped for their party's nomination

Good point. And I agree to a point.
One problem with the primary system is that only a small percentage of people vote, and that tends to be people who are more committed. And I'll suggest that the more extreme views are often held by the most committed members. Now, if there were room for dozens of parties, that attracted a range of ideologies, and policy platforms, this might not be so important. But when you essentially offer only 2 candidates to the electorate at large (And I know that there are minor parties that occasional compete but not that often) isn't it more important that the nomination process be such that a more widely acceptable candidate is nominated.
I know that this seems like it should be "the parties problem". And perhaps the Republican party has suffered some from nominating more extreme candidates ...
However, if the objective of a representative democracy is to elect a legislature that is "representative" then primaries may contribute to a failure to meet this objective.
And what does the established primary system do to cut off the development of third and fourth parties??? If even the Elections boards are appointed by party, third parties have an impossible task in getting established. I don;t think was the original intent of the constitution ... I think the notion was that there would be many voices heard from, not just two.

And the primaries by themselves contribute to the never ending election cycle, with the never ending campaign. When a candidate is always campaigning they have to be sure that they constantly appeal to the motivated minorities (extreme views held by many). That means there isn't a quiet period just governing, when congressmen could compromise and cross the floor.

In a parliamentary system, if a majority is elected you've got 4 years or more to govern. The minority accepts that their role is to criticize and to oppose but they also accept that the majority will have its way....
If the parliament is a minority, then active compromise is the norm.
And although the nomination of local candidates by each party occurs, and is sometimes contested , that is usually only active party members. The real attention on electioneering only takes place for the 6 to 8 week campaign period. (Although I'll note that there has been a change in Canada at least where there has been "political advertising" outside of the election period. To date it doesn't seem to have been very persuasive to the party doing most of the advertising....

Ricky probably hasn't chosen very good examples, but he does make one good point. Hyper-partisanship is a serious problem when you have an American style political system. Controlling only one branch of government, while not sufficient to get anything done, is quite enough to prevent the other party from getting anything done. When more and more successful candidates in the primaries come from the super partisan wing of their respective parties then you're practically inviting perpetual gridlock. Even when you have a majority in all three branches you don't have very long to use it, which itself invites hasty legislation.

Parliamentary systems have their faults, but they usually result in a strong government with the ability to act. I find it hard to envisage when this will next apply to the US.