Eastern Europe disses US election systems

[rob in cal]

One of the truly inspiring things to someone who feels that US electoral system needs a big overhaul is that when countries started from scratch in 1989-1990 in Eastern Europe, they essentially disregarded the US model.
Consider those states that went toward an elected president, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Russia, plus some of the former Yugoslavia.  In each case these countries rejected the indirect election model (like we have in the US), and went to a direct vote of the people.  Also, the plurality system idea so prevalant in our elections for Governors and legislators was  dismissed as well, with runoffs required for presidential elections where no candidate got a majority in the first round.
   Concerning parliamentary election systems, in all cases forms of proportional representation were introduced in a further rebuke to the US single member district system for House elections.  The only partial adoption of US models was the emergence in some countries such as Poland and Rumania of viable upper houses, and this represents a big difference from western Europe where most countries have a much stronger lower house and a very weak upper house.
    Another nice feature was that, to my knowledge, noone even came close to adopting either a non-PR electoral system, or an electoral college type mechanism for presidential elections.  There was debate about who should elect the president, the people or the legislature, but once countries decided on popular vote, the idea of an electoral college mechanism never even came up, as far as I now. Awesome.

[Ban my account ffs!]

And I'm sure there are things we would do differently, were we starting our democracy in 1990.  But we started ours in the 1770s and 1780s, long before eastern Europe even gave up serfdom. (granted we had slaves in the south... but that's a different story)

So, I'd rather not hear it from them.

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, we should have followed their old examples!

Our system doesn't work everywhere. This isn't news.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

What the fuck does Eastern Europe know about democracy?

[Hash]

What the fuck does Eastern Europe know about democracy?

Typical open, knowledgeable, and tolerant worldview from the Moderate Hero.

Anyways. Very few countries use an electoral college, and when it is used, it's a congregation of elected officials from legislatures and local councils (see Pakistan, India, Nepal, France). I think Argentina used an electoral college similar to the American one to elect its President until the '90's.

[rob in cal]

I guess one point I'm driving at is that it would be great if we could have a new revamping of our system.  Or at least for electoral and constitutional reform to be on the political agenda.  Its so rare for a Democrat or Republican major candidate for pres to discuss anything remotely tied to changes such as going to PR, Senate reform, changes to electoral college, national referendum etc.  I'm not necessarily advocating these, but I think it would be great to have these things discussed.  Maybe the "change" President could get behind a dialogue on this. 
    Also, these changes in Eastern Europe were done by the good guys, let us remember, such as Havel, Solidarity, Poszgay and Nemeth in Hungary, reformists who were leading their countries out  from under communist dictatorship. 

[Lief 🗽]

The American presidential, plurality system is completely out-dated and should obviously be replaced. The fact that Iraq, the country we had liberated, adopted a completely different political system than ours when they were creating their government is very telling.

What the fuck does Eastern Europe know about democracy?

lol

[Meeker]

Giving too much power to a single executive in a young democracy inevitably leads to problems. Eastern Europe (and Iraq) were smart enough to realize this.

There was a West Wing episode on the subject, if anyone was interested.

[Keystone Phil]

.

There was a West Wing episode on the subject, if anyone was interested.

Exactly what I was thinking about when I made my post. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

When an Eastern European country can find a system that last 220+ years, then they can talk.

[GMantis]

And I'm sure there are things we would do differently, were we starting our democracy in 1990.  But we started ours in the 1770s and 1780s, long before eastern Europe even gave up serfdom. (granted we had slaves in the south... but that's a different story)

So, I'd rather not hear it from them.

How it is a different story?

[GMantis]

When an Eastern European country can find a system that last 220+ years, then they can talk.

Being the strongest power on the continent never hurts a system's success.

[Bono]

A massive eyeroll at the relativism in this thread.

Anyway, the US, unlike what someone up there was saying, was originally supposed to have a weak executive, with the legislative power being prevalent. If was only much later that the executive started gaining the cult status it has now. If you have a strong legislature, you can pick the president from the phonebook at random that it isn't going to make much difference. Of course,  no country today considers a weak executive because politicians today want more power than that.

[Nixon in '80]

.

There was a West Wing episode on the subject, if anyone was interested.

Exactly what I was thinking about when I made my post. 

I, too, immediately thought of this episode when reading this thread... what was that statistic Toby quoted?

Only two (three? another number?) U.S.-style Presidential democracies have lasted longer than thirty years.

[Middle-aged Europe]

When an Eastern European country can find a system that last 220+ years, then they can talk.

It's a matter of debate whether the U.S. still uses the same system than 200 years ago. Sure, the basic structure stayed the same, but they've been still a lot of changes.

1789:
- Only in half of the states were the members of the Electoral College elected by popular vote.
- In those states with popular vote, only white males were allowed to vote. In some states were even property requirements in place.
- The candidate with the highest number of votes became president, the second-place candidate became vice president.
- No political parties were in existence.
- There was no formal nominating process for presidential candidates (years later, presidential and vice presidential candidates were nominated by the members a political party had in Congress, and even later there were national conventions)
- If the vice presidency became vacant, it stayed this way until the next regular election.
- There were only three federal executive departments (State, Treasury, War). Positions like White House Chief of Staff or National Security Advisor didn't exist either.
- Members of the U.S. Senate were elected by state legislatures and not by popular vote. There was no such thing like majority/minority leaders and whips in House or Senate.

2008:
- The members of the Electoral College are elected by popular vote in all states.
- Suffrage is not restricted by race, gender, or property.
- Members of Electoral College cast two distinct votes, one for president and one for vice president.
- There are two political parties. Members of the Electoral College as well as the candidates usually belong to one of those parties. Members of the Electoral College vote for their party's candidates.
- Presidential candidates are nominated through a system of primaries and caucuses. The vice presidential candidate is basically picked by the presidential candidate.
- If the vice presidency becomes vacant, the president nominates a new VP which is to be approved by Congress.
- There are fifteen federal executive departments. In addition, positions like White House Chief of Staff or National Security Advisor exist.
- Members of the U.S. Senate are elected by popular vote. Each party in House and Senate has a leadership, headed by majority/minority leaders and whips.

So, the system has been in a constant state of evolution for the last 200 years.

[Franzl]

What the fuck does Eastern Europe know about democracy?

not only does this post show your basic ignorance...but it also shows your interesting obsession with using profanity.

[Hash]

What the fuck does Eastern Europe know about democracy?

Are you really that ignorant?

I wouldn't be surprised if you were, since the only thing you care about is the United States and Israel.

[Franzl]

What the fuck does Eastern Europe know about democracy?

Are you really that ignorant?

I wouldn't be surprised if you were, since the only thing you care about is the United States and Israel.

and not even the whole United States....just Virginia, and maybe other populist Southern states.

[Hash]

What the fuck does Eastern Europe know about democracy?

Are you really that ignorant?

I wouldn't be surprised if you were, since the only thing you care about is the United States and Israel.

and not even the whole United States....just Virginia, and maybe other populist Southern states.

True that.

[muon2]

I think the comparison between individual countries in eastern Europe and the US is weak at best when considering a political system. The US represents a continental nation, and only Russia fits that category of the new governments mentioned. A size and expanse of a continental nation requires structures that smaller entities don't need.

The eastern European countries are generally the size of US states, and often more homogeneous than US states. They might be better compared to forms of state election systems. Compare the populations:

Latvia = Nevada
Lithuania = Oklahoma
Estonia = Maine
Belarus = Michigan
Poland = California
Czech Republic = Michigan
Slovakia = Wisconsin
Hungary = Michigan
Slovenia = West Virginia
Croatia = South Carolina
Bosnia = Oregon
Serbia = Virginia
Montenegro = Vermont
Albania = Connecticut
Macedonia = New Mexico
Romania = Texas
Bulgaria = Virginia
Moldova = Louisiana

[frihetsivrare]

What the fuck does Eastern Europe know about democracy?

Eastern Europe knows what democracy is not, which is just as important.  They lived under repressive regimes for decades (some still are); in a way they would understand liberty democracy much more than average Americans would.

[Jacobtm]

In a rebuke to Eastern Europe, the United States is wealthier, freer and more powerful. When their model starts out-performing ours, then we should take note.