intimidating men of ordinary firmness
November 2, 2008 1:38 PM Subscribe
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 Party’s Henry Winter Davis. Three months later, when the House of Representatives convened hearings into the election, whose result Harrison contested, Davis’s victory was upheld on the ground that any “man of ordinary courage” could have made his way to the polls.
The New Yorker looks at how we used to vote.
Ok, how you used to vote. Thought this was a fascinating read, though, on the history of voting in the U.S. and adoption of the "Australian ballot".
Ok, how you used to vote. Thought this was a fascinating read, though, on the history of voting in the U.S. and adoption of the "Australian ballot".
In comparison, I've blown off early voting a few times when I couldn't find a place to park. But I'll dodge bricks if need be, come Tuesday!
posted by empyrean at 1:47 PM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by empyrean at 1:47 PM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
"Spirited contest, my dear sir," said the little man.
"I am delighted to hear it," said Mr. Pickwick, rubbing his hands. "I like to see sturdy patriotism, on whatever side it is called forth;--and so it's a spirited contest?"
"Oh yes," said the little man, "very much so indeed. We have opened all the public-houses in the place, and left our adversary nothing but the beer-shops--masterly stroke of policy that, my dear sir, eh?"--the little man smiled complacently, and took a large pinch of snuff.
"And what are the probabilities as to the result of the contest?" inquired Mr. Pickwick.
"Why doubtful, my dear sir; rather doubtful as yet," replied the little man. "Fizkin's people have got three- and-thirty voters in the lock-up coach-house at the White Hart."
"In the coach-house!" said Mr. Pickwick, considerably astonished by this second stroke of policy.
"They keep 'em locked up there till they want 'em," resumed the little man. "The effect of that is, you see, to prevent our getting at them; and even if we could, it would be of no use, for they keep them very drunk on purpose. Smart fellow Fizkin's agent--very smart fellow indeed."
Mr. Pickwick stared, but said nothing.
posted by dhartung at 2:16 PM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
"I am delighted to hear it," said Mr. Pickwick, rubbing his hands. "I like to see sturdy patriotism, on whatever side it is called forth;--and so it's a spirited contest?"
"Oh yes," said the little man, "very much so indeed. We have opened all the public-houses in the place, and left our adversary nothing but the beer-shops--masterly stroke of policy that, my dear sir, eh?"--the little man smiled complacently, and took a large pinch of snuff.
"And what are the probabilities as to the result of the contest?" inquired Mr. Pickwick.
"Why doubtful, my dear sir; rather doubtful as yet," replied the little man. "Fizkin's people have got three- and-thirty voters in the lock-up coach-house at the White Hart."
"In the coach-house!" said Mr. Pickwick, considerably astonished by this second stroke of policy.
"They keep 'em locked up there till they want 'em," resumed the little man. "The effect of that is, you see, to prevent our getting at them; and even if we could, it would be of no use, for they keep them very drunk on purpose. Smart fellow Fizkin's agent--very smart fellow indeed."
Mr. Pickwick stared, but said nothing.
posted by dhartung at 2:16 PM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Ah, back when only white male landowners were allowed to vote. The tragedy in this is that we went so far as to have a multi-party system, but ended up with two (viable ones). Ah, well, at least we let minorities vote now. To an extent.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:21 PM on November 2, 2008
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:21 PM on November 2, 2008
It's much more sophisticated to let people vote and then make that vote dissapear electronically.
posted by longsleeves at 2:23 PM on November 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by longsleeves at 2:23 PM on November 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
Help monitor the elections by participating in the NPR Twitter VoteReport. The nation-wide initiative asks voters to report irregularities they witness at their polling places.
posted by netbros at 2:26 PM on November 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by netbros at 2:26 PM on November 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
What sites are other Mefites using Tuesday to follow the election? (My new fave is Memeorandum with Waxy's visualization plugin).
posted by acro at 2:35 PM on November 2, 2008
posted by acro at 2:35 PM on November 2, 2008
That is fascinating stuff, acro. Thanks.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:48 PM on November 2, 2008
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:48 PM on November 2, 2008
Marisa The tragedy in this is that we went so far as to have a multi-party system, but ended up with two (viable ones).
This might be the (moderately easily upset) equilibrium state of a parliamentary democracy: two parties, each with a policy platform that nearly evenly divides the electorate, without much regard to the inherent consistency of the platforms.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:27 PM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
This might be the (moderately easily upset) equilibrium state of a parliamentary democracy: two parties, each with a policy platform that nearly evenly divides the electorate, without much regard to the inherent consistency of the platforms.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:27 PM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
I knew I'd seen this mentioned before on MeFi -- it was linked by Miko here. I'm surprised it hadn't been turned into a FPP already -- or was there a deleted version at one point?
posted by Forktine at 3:30 PM on November 2, 2008
posted by Forktine at 3:30 PM on November 2, 2008
Ack. I searched and searched. I also searched the deleted thread blog. It does not appear to be there.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:43 PM on November 2, 2008
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:43 PM on November 2, 2008
aeschenkarnos: This might be the (moderately easily upset) equilibrium state of a parliamentary democracy: two parties, each with a policy platform that nearly evenly divides the electorate, without much regard to the inherent consistency of the platforms.
It is known as Duverger's Law.
See also Arrow's Paradox.
The only way you will every elect a truly representative body without strategic manipulation is by random draft. This is not a bad idea, actually. The ancient Greeks actually used something like this.
Voting systems are something of a mania of mine. I think that single vote has conditioned Americans into believing into the inevitability and sanctity of the two party system. See Accurate Democracy for some alternatives.
Personally, I favor a Single-Vote + Range Voting ballot. In other words, you could cast a single vote for your favorite, plus any number of scores from 00 to 99 for other candidates. Your favorite would automatically receive a score of 99. If no candidate receives a majority of the first place votes, the range scores would be used to determine a winner.
posted by Araucaria at 4:16 PM on November 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
It is known as Duverger's Law.
See also Arrow's Paradox.
The only way you will every elect a truly representative body without strategic manipulation is by random draft. This is not a bad idea, actually. The ancient Greeks actually used something like this.
Voting systems are something of a mania of mine. I think that single vote has conditioned Americans into believing into the inevitability and sanctity of the two party system. See Accurate Democracy for some alternatives.
Personally, I favor a Single-Vote + Range Voting ballot. In other words, you could cast a single vote for your favorite, plus any number of scores from 00 to 99 for other candidates. Your favorite would automatically receive a score of 99. If no candidate receives a majority of the first place votes, the range scores would be used to determine a winner.
posted by Araucaria at 4:16 PM on November 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
PS: I think None of the Above should also be a candidate.
posted by Araucaria at 4:17 PM on November 2, 2008
posted by Araucaria at 4:17 PM on November 2, 2008
The only way you will every elect a truly representative body without strategic manipulation is by random draft. This is not a bad idea, actually. The ancient Greeks actually used something like this.
I admit I haven't gone into great research on the subject, but I tend to think one of the central problems with the multi-party system is the ruling coalition concept. Rather than creating some cornucopia of platforms, the smaller parties in the coalition tend to morph themselves into the form of the largest party in the coalition. This can undermine those smaller parties' platforms and electorate - you vote in Party A because you like what they stand for, they form a coalition with the larger Party B, and in many cases end up just acting as a tool for seat Party B's seat expansion. The opposition, by contrast, often lacks the policy unity to be very effective, so you end up with the Largest Party + Whoever on a rotating basis, versus Everyone Else.
Instead, I'd prefer to see no ruling coalitions at all. Even if no one party has enough seats to hold a majority. The Prime Ministry could still go to the largest party, with other ministries aportioned out to all parties on a proportionate basis (X number of seats = one minister). In this way, each party can and will remain true to their platforms. Yes, getting an agreement on policy will take considerably longer, but I've always believed that if you want an efficient government above all else, then fascism would be preferable to democracy. Just my $0.02.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:31 PM on November 2, 2008
I admit I haven't gone into great research on the subject, but I tend to think one of the central problems with the multi-party system is the ruling coalition concept. Rather than creating some cornucopia of platforms, the smaller parties in the coalition tend to morph themselves into the form of the largest party in the coalition. This can undermine those smaller parties' platforms and electorate - you vote in Party A because you like what they stand for, they form a coalition with the larger Party B, and in many cases end up just acting as a tool for seat Party B's seat expansion. The opposition, by contrast, often lacks the policy unity to be very effective, so you end up with the Largest Party + Whoever on a rotating basis, versus Everyone Else.
Instead, I'd prefer to see no ruling coalitions at all. Even if no one party has enough seats to hold a majority. The Prime Ministry could still go to the largest party, with other ministries aportioned out to all parties on a proportionate basis (X number of seats = one minister). In this way, each party can and will remain true to their platforms. Yes, getting an agreement on policy will take considerably longer, but I've always believed that if you want an efficient government above all else, then fascism would be preferable to democracy. Just my $0.02.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:31 PM on November 2, 2008
And from the 1740's, Elections: Eighteenth Century Virginia Style.
posted by worldswalker at 4:55 PM on November 2, 2008
posted by worldswalker at 4:55 PM on November 2, 2008
these historical statistics are interesting, especially after having just watched John Adams. I didn't realize (or had forgotten) there were multiple times when the winner of the popular vote lost the election.
posted by mecran01 at 5:01 PM on November 2, 2008
posted by mecran01 at 5:01 PM on November 2, 2008
Thanks for this post. Jill Lepore is one of the best early American historians alive, and among them, one of the best writers. Check out New York Burning for a fantastic and rigorously-researched story.
posted by nasreddin at 7:03 PM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by nasreddin at 7:03 PM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
It is interesting that back when voting meant running an armed gauntlet, 70% showed up to vote. Now, when any slob can do it, only 50% vote. Coincidence?
Probably.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 8:13 PM on November 2, 2008
Probably.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 8:13 PM on November 2, 2008
the smaller parties in the coalition tend to morph themselves into the form of the largest party in the coalition.
It's often the other way around, where the smaller party dictates some of their major policy point to the larger party, threatening to leave the coalition if they don't get their way. That's particularly effective if the small party is a single-issue party representing a minority view. The larger party will then often decide to give in on the minor point (in their view), so that they can get a majority on the issues that matter to them (and to a larger part of the population)
posted by DreamerFi at 11:25 PM on November 2, 2008
It's often the other way around, where the smaller party dictates some of their major policy point to the larger party, threatening to leave the coalition if they don't get their way. That's particularly effective if the small party is a single-issue party representing a minority view. The larger party will then often decide to give in on the minor point (in their view), so that they can get a majority on the issues that matter to them (and to a larger part of the population)
posted by DreamerFi at 11:25 PM on November 2, 2008
It's often the other way around, where the smaller party dictates some of their major policy point to the larger party, threatening to leave the coalition if they don't get their way. That's particularly effective if the small party is a single-issue party representing a minority view. The larger party will then often decide to give in on the minor point (in their view), so that they can get a majority on the issues that matter to them (and to a larger part of the population)
Generally depends on the size of the largest party. If the largest party in the coalition only needs a few seats to maintain a majority, then they pretty much have the pick of the litter in terms of who gets to play Government with them. A smaller party in that situation doesn't threaten to walk away when they know they can be easily replaced. However, if the largest party needs many seats or, say, two or more parties to maintain a ruling coalition, then the power plays get interesting.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:34 PM on November 2, 2008
Generally depends on the size of the largest party. If the largest party in the coalition only needs a few seats to maintain a majority, then they pretty much have the pick of the litter in terms of who gets to play Government with them. A smaller party in that situation doesn't threaten to walk away when they know they can be easily replaced. However, if the largest party needs many seats or, say, two or more parties to maintain a ruling coalition, then the power plays get interesting.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:34 PM on November 2, 2008
Multiparty system also makes it reasonable to have a small party with limited interests: every party doesn't need to have a platform for each issue. For example for Greens with 4-8% of votes, Environment Minister becomes a very reachable position, and that is good enough and probably will lead to having a minister who is very experienced and skilled in that field: to rise into a position where Greens would accept him as their representative, she would have to be.
'A government of experts' is something that is easier to achieve if there are several parties negotiating which have different strengths and preferences, they usually can direct their efforts to pursue their goals, not absolute power or maintaining majority. That game also gets played, but it is not anymore the only game that matters.
posted by Free word order! at 10:50 AM on November 3, 2008 [1 favorite]
'A government of experts' is something that is easier to achieve if there are several parties negotiating which have different strengths and preferences, they usually can direct their efforts to pursue their goals, not absolute power or maintaining majority. That game also gets played, but it is not anymore the only game that matters.
posted by Free word order! at 10:50 AM on November 3, 2008 [1 favorite]
Read this when it popped up on RSS, thought about posting it here. Glad someone did.
~ The only way you will every elect a truly representative body without strategic manipulation is by random draft.
That would definitely be interesting. And maybe terrible, but maybe wonderful. I'd love to see that one play out.
posted by paisley henosis at 5:20 PM on November 3, 2008
~ The only way you will every elect a truly representative body without strategic manipulation is by random draft.
That would definitely be interesting. And maybe terrible, but maybe wonderful. I'd love to see that one play out.
posted by paisley henosis at 5:20 PM on November 3, 2008
I read a short story in either Asimov's or Analog, sometime in the late 70's or early 80's where the US President was drafted. They put the names of everyone who was constitutionally eligible into a computer, took out the names of everyone who ever expressed an interest in actually being president, and randomly chose one of those left every four years.
This was just background, but it stuck in my head as actually not being irrational. Wish I could remember the story, so I could reread it.
posted by QIbHom at 9:18 AM on November 5, 2008
This was just background, but it stuck in my head as actually not being irrational. Wish I could remember the story, so I could reread it.
posted by QIbHom at 9:18 AM on November 5, 2008
« Older The Music is the Message | Flying Low. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:38 PM on November 2, 2008