And speaking of elections …
Posted by Jacques Chester on Monday, November 3, 2008
A man carrying a musket rushed at him. Another threw a brick, knocking him off his feet. George Kyle picked himself up and ran. He never did cast his vote. Nor did his brother, who died of his wounds. The Democratic candidate for Congress, William Harrison, lost to the American Partys Henry Winter Davis. Three months later, when the House of Representatives convened hearings into the election, whose result Harrison contested, Daviss victory was upheld on the ground that any man of ordinary courage could have made his way to the polls.
That was the shape of American voting in 1859.
The New Yorker is running this interesting historical essay about the shift from voting by voice to the secret ballot — the Australian ballot as it was once called.
It’s a pity that the USA hasn’t kept up with other developments in Australian electoral life: preferential voting, compulsory turnout, scrutineering, independent and non-partisan electoral institutions, numbered ballot boxes …
This entry was posted on Monday, November 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 AM and filed under History, Politics - international, Politics - national.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
. . . pencils
Posted on 03-Nov-08 at 2:18 pm | PermalinkIt’s just staggering that they can speak complacently of the glories of their perfect democracy while stories are aired of people queuing for 8 – 10 hours to cast a vote, something more often associated with fledgling third world representative government systems. And the election is on a normal working day! No wonder they are lucky to get a 70% turnout.
Posted on 03-Nov-08 at 2:18 pm | PermalinkIt’s hard to see that compulsory turn-out would ever be politically feasible in the US, but even if it were, would it really be so advantageous?
Posted on 03-Nov-08 at 3:51 pm | PermalinkNPOV: compulsory turnout does two important things. One, it diminishes the influence of extreme outliers in the citizenship, two, it does away with ‘voter suppression’ shenanigans.
Posted on 03-Nov-08 at 3:57 pm | PermalinkWell I’d suggest that “One” isn’t really a problem in a country with over 200 million voters. And regarding “voter suppression” shenanigans – a) are these a big problem in other large nations with non-compulsory voting? b) compulsory turn-out is still no gaurantee against it, especially in cases where the legality of voter registration is challenged.
To be honest I don’t think there’s a strong enough case for or against compulsory voting for any last nation with a basically functional democracy to switch (given the huge costs involved in switching). If the U.S. was suffering turn-outs in the order of 10 or 20%, it’d be one thing, but 70% seems workable.
Posted on 03-Nov-08 at 5:47 pm | PermalinkOn the positive side the US elections seem to allow fairly liberal pre-polling if the numbers who have already voted are an indication. Also they have polling booths in shopping centres which might prove an interesting innovation were it to catch on in Australia.
Posted on 03-Nov-08 at 7:19 pm | PermalinkNot to mention the blatant gerrymandering of state and congressional districts by state legislatures. Appalling.
Something about voting on a work day – it may not be a problem if voters are easily able to vote beforehand or on the day – this may be the reason behind the early voting.
Posted on 03-Nov-08 at 7:44 pm | PermalinkNPOV 70% is the absolute best they ever get in a presidential year. More often it’s in the low 60s for presidential elections. In non-presidential year Congress elections it can be in the 40s.
These are national averages, meaning that in some districts the figures will be a lot lower. I’m betting they won’t be districts with lots of poor people.
Posted on 04-Nov-08 at 6:42 am | PermalinkBugger the pencils. Graphite can be erased. Ink can’t
Posted on 04-Nov-08 at 3:32 pm | PermalinkPart of the reason for such abysmal turnout in the US is that an overwhelming bulk of races aren’t competitive due to their intense gerrymandering of congressional districts and the electoral college. This is where the intense focus on ‘battleground’ states comes from.
Posted on 04-Nov-08 at 5:50 pm | PermalinkThe issue of low turnouts at Presidential elections and compulsory voting is further complicated by differing systems of government vis the US separation of powers v our “Washminster” system. For example the 2000 voter turnout was 54.2% of which Bush obtained 26.0%. So we end up with a President (ie executive)elected by about 1/4 of eligible voters. (Reminiscent of Joe years in Qld!!)
Malcolm Mackerris made the point a number of years ago that the reason why we have such a voter friendly system in Oz is because it is compulsory. Politicians saw it as being in their interests to make the system user friendly.
I would think that compulsory voting would probably assist both in creating more efficient systems and in reducing corruption. Both being in short supply in the US!
Posted on 06-Nov-08 at 3:21 pm | Permalink