On 13. December, the electors in the USA will vote
In Ohio, a new payout is rejected on the grounds that the first payout wasn’t even done yet. Burger rights activists such as Jesse Jackson are over the moon, because "Ohio determines the outcome of the presidential election, but the state hasn’t even finished counting the votes yet." What Jackson doesn’t know: The elections for the presidency in the USA haven’t even taken place yet. The re-election of Bush will not be legally binding until the 13th. December, when the electors cast their votes. The referendum on 2. The November ballot, in fact, only served to shape the mood of the electorate, since the electors are not obliged to vote in the same way as the electors they actually represent. And the experts are sure: Although Bush’s lead in Ohio is 17.000 votes less than originally estimated, there will be no more votes before the 13. December will probably not give a new payout.
On 13. December 2004 the hammer falls: The President of the USA is elected. So nothing is decided yet. In 2000, everyone was looking at the U.S. Constitutional Court, which was accused of deciding the elections instead of the people. Nothing of the sort has happened, however. The court has rather provided for rest and stopped a new disbursement. But only the "Electoral College" (Electoral College) has decided the outcome. The only question is: in the name of the people or instead of them??
Why was the electoral board created in the first place?
When the USA was founded, there was not only the democratic idea, but also the fear of the Nobel Prize. Finally, one has seen what the French democracy has done. Some experts therefore argue that the electoral body was an undemocratic instrument created to protect the interests of the elites.
Others argue that the electoral college was merely an attempt to simplify the electoral process. Just imagine how elections were to be conducted in the 1800s in an area stretching from Hamburg to Gibraltar. Also, at that time, political parties were not yet firmly formed and the body was intended to ensure greater uniformity throughout the country. Moreover, at the time, a lot of weight had been given to individual states to ensure that small states would participate at all. And if a state can bundle its votes, it has more influence than if it simply throws a small difference between the candidates into the pot.
The argument cannot be dismissed out of hand. One can see similar tendencies in the EU today: while Germany has 29 votes in the EU Council, Luxembourg has 4. For every German vote, there are 2.8 million citizens of Germany; for every vote from Luxembourg, 100.000 burgers. Apparently, there is no other way: the small states would perish next to the big ones and therefore would not join the Union at all.
Also in the USA, the "small" states, which is interesting especially for these elections, because Bush did not really divide the country into blue and red states, into the coastal and central states, as is often claimed, but into urban and rural states. Whoever can do this and win the rural vote will have a good chance, because the rural population tends to be overrepresented.
But back to the electoral college: In 1888 (23 years after the Civil War), as is well known, the Republican Harrison got the majority of electoral votes, although he did not get the majority of votes from the people. Some thought the panel acted at the time exactly as the founding fathers had intended, because while Cleveland, a Democrat, had won rough majorities in the southern states, Harrison had been able to win many narrow majorities in the rest of the country. Put another way, the Electoral College protected the country from being reacted to by a strong but regionally concentrated majority.
What makes the electorate undemocratic, despite whatever practical considerations there may once have been, is the fact that they are not bound by the election results. They can choose how they want. And this has happened again and again in the last 50 years.
Why aren’t poll workers bound by election results??
In 48 states, the "winner takes all"-Principle. Maine and Nebraska have conceded the possibility of division. Maine z.B. has 4 votes. If different candidates are the two "districts" If you win the election, you each get one vote for your district, and whoever gets the most votes in the state gets the other two. So it’s possible that Maine’s electors voted 3:1, but such a split never happened de facto, not even in Nebraska.
Nevertheless, every elector can vote as he likes – even for a candidate who did not run for election and therefore did not receive any votes from the people. It’s all been done before. While 28 states have laws that would have made the "abstruse elections" of the Wahlmanner, but it is questionable whether the penalties are legal, because the Wahlmanner could be understood as federal agents, d.h. they are under the control of the federal government, not the individual state. And at the federal level, there is no prohibition on "abtrunnig elections".
A U.S. government website clearly states the facts:
Under the Federal system adopted in the U.S. Constitution, the nationwide popular vote has no legal significance.
Why was this allowed to happen when the electoral college was created?? Well, on the one hand, certainly out of incompetence and sloppiness: this Lucke was not recognized and fought by the opponents of this policy. (a similar thing happened in Germany the other day, when Saxony did not vote unanimously in the Bundesrat; an obvious gap in the procedure had simply been overlooked for a long time).) On the other hand, at least the opponents of democracy among the founding fathers of the U.S. seem to have attributed to the body a certain protective function against too much democracy. Thus Alexander Hamilton, principal author of the Federalist Papers, wrote of the panel that it would probably be better if the citizens elected a small group of persons from the general masses who would be able to know the relevant information and possess the discernment necessary to figure out who should be president:
A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
The Americans do not elect their president directly, but they elect the people who are to elect the president for them. What may appear at first glance to be the German system has two gross differences: First, it is not Congress that determines the outcome of the elections, but a body created specifically for the elections that performs only this function. The founding fathers wanted a clear division between the executive and legislative branches; they wanted a president and not a prime minister. The second difference to the German system is that the electorate can vote however they want, regardless of the mandate of the eligible citizens. Thus wrote James Madison in 1823:
Although they are merely the voice of their electors, it may be intentional [sic!] sometimes be allowed to form their own judgment guided by further information.
The electorate makes certain non-binding proposals to the electors. More not.
A short journey through the annals of the electoral college
No sooner had the committee been founded than everything went chaotic. Ironically, in 1908, the first victim was James Madison, of all people, the champion of the board: 6 New York electors refused to vote for him and voted for a man named Clinton. Madison won anyway, which is why the process didn’t get much attention.
In 1820 the time had come again, and now one begins to suspect what a gentleman’s club the committee was: James Monroe received all the votes, because no other party had sent a candidate into the race. Only a joker from New Hampshire did the Great Nation a favor and voted for John Quincy Adams, so that only George Washington would go down in history as the only President with a 100% majority. Incidentally, the three "not voting"-Electors had died between the day of the popular vote and the day of the electoral vote.
Why have elections at all if there is only one candidate? That’s what the Americans thought at that time, and so there were no elections everywhere in 1824. The electoral body, however, suddenly disagreed without a clear mandate from the people and chose four candidates from the one remaining party. No one got a majority, and so the House of Representatives had to decide. Now John Quincy Adams won. And you thought 2000 would have been wild…
Speaking of opposing candidates: The New York Times reports that in 2004, many states had only one candidate running for office. This is so for 75 percent of the seats in the Arkansas Senate, 73 percent in Florida, 70 percent in South Carolina, 62 percent in New Mexico, etc. In total, only 7 incumbents were voted out of office in the House of Representatives (440 seats in total), because you draw the lines for the constituencies so that incumbents "sure" are (gerrymandering – constituencies with tentacles). According to the New York Times, 4 of the 7 defeated incumbents were Democrats from Texas, which is how "cut out" Have been (gerrymandering).
After 1824 they returned to the old politics, because things were not going well without a mandate from the people. Moreover, the one party was too boring in the long run, and so the Democrat-Republicans quarreled successfully: The Democrats and the Whigs were formed. In 1836, the latter proved to be quite inventive advocates of democracy: they knew that the electorate was free to vote as they saw fit, so they sent different candidates into the race in different states – always the most suitable candidate for each region. In the end, however, the Whigs were to vote unanimously. However, the math did not add up: Democrat Van Buren won a majority, and the cunning effort has not been repeated since. But at least it proved that Americans were actually not informed enough to vote, because many had not even noticed that one party has several candidates – at that time David Letterman and Jay Leno did not exist, so today such an undertaking would be doomed to failure.
Consequently, a few years later, the Whig party became the so-called "American Know Nothing"-party. This aimed to take advantage of Americans’ ignorance by having members act as a quasi secret society (also called a conspiracy), i.e.h. they posed as Democrats or Republicans, but really weren’t, or they only said so when asked about their party affiliation: "I don’t know nothin’". In 1856, a Know-Nothing even won the electoral votes from the state of Maryland. Malicious tongues claim that the Know-Nothings would still rule the country today…
Now we jump directly to 1876. In between was the Burger War, but little happened with the Electoral College. The country had real problems staying a unit in the meantime. And to his 100. Jubilee the country gonne itself a real scandal: in the states of Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina, apparently Republican voters were threatened with violence, and also otherwise spoke of election fraud. These also happened to be the states where troops were still stationed since the end of the Civil War (1865). According to the election results provided by the governors of these states, the Republican won, and according to the figures provided by the respective state senates, the Democrat won.
Democrats in the U.S. Senate threatened to block the outcome of the elections by filibuster if the college voted Republican. A predominantly Republican panel was set up to decide the outcome of the election, and the Republican – unsurprisingly? – carried the victory away. But the Sudanese states had called for an end to the demoralizing "reconstruction" (the southern states were, so to speak "de-emphasizes") conditioned.
According to the "reconstruction" (the southern states were, so to speak "de-railed") everything remained very, very constant: the South voted democratically