In one of our SDA classes we talked about what would be the fairest way to define the winner in an election. In both Brazil and US countries, the most important election is the presidential election, in both countries occurring every 4 years. However, each country has a different method to define who is the election's winner.
In US, elections for President are indirect elections in which voters cast ballots for a slate of electors of the US Electoral College, who in turn directly elect the President. The process is regulated by a combination of both federal and state laws. Each state is allocated a number of Electoral College electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the US Congress. Additionally, Washington DC is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest state (which is 3). US territories are not represented in the Electoral College. Each state legislature is allowed to designate a method of choosing electors. Once chosen, the electors can vote for anyone, but – with rare exceptions – they vote for their designated candidates and their votes are certified by Congress in early January. It means that a candidate could win more votes overall and yet not be elected (the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand). For example, in 2000 US presidential election, Gore won the popular vote (more Americans voted for him), but Bush actually won the presidency, because he was awarded the majority of the votes in the Electoral College.
In Brazil, the election is as simple as possible: each person votes for one candidate (with the possibility of leaving it blank or null), the votes are count all over the country, and the candidate who receives the higher number of votes, if this number is more than the sum of all other candidates' votes, is the new Brazil's president. If the number is lower, then Brazil faces the second round for president election, and only the two more voted candidates run it. In the second round, who receives the higher number of absolute votes, is the new president. The process is regulated by only federal laws.
Which of the two systems is the fairest one? The system where the candidate who receives the higher number of votes in the state receives all the votes for it, or the system where one person's vote counts as one vote, independent of which state and how big is the state? The difference is that in the first system, the more populated states will have more votes among the 538 votes. But wouldn't the size of the state be counted twice? In Brazil, Sao Paulo is the most populated state, with 21.6% of the country's population. Thus, the state itself has the power to count up to 21.6% of the votes. Sao Paulo doesn't need an extra system to denote higher power to this state, it already has 21.6%. Besides that, the system that counts absolute votes (Brazil) guarantee that the candidate with higher number of votes win the elections.
EXTRA INFORMATION BEYOND SDA CONTENT: Besides all the comparisons in the methodologies to select the new president, another difference is in the way the population vote. While one of every seven people in Brazil is illiterate, voting is obligatory. And the election is computerized. In the presidential election on October 6 2004, yet less than 10 hours after the polls closed, all of the more than 90 million votes cast had been tabulated. There was no muss, no fuss and no hanging chads, thanks largely to a new computerized voting system that experts described as perhaps the most advanced and efficient in the world. ''Certainly Brazil is way ahead of the United States right now in terms both of the technology and administration of the election process,'' said Robert Pastor, director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University in Washington.
The heart of the Brazilian system is a plain $420 computer with a keyboard much like that of an automatic teller machine. Voters punch in the number of the candidate they want to vote for, wait for the candidate's picture and name to appear on the screen, confirm their choice or correct any error by pressing another button, and then move on to the next office on the list.
Instead of relying on election judges who are vulnerable to error or political pressures, the results are transmitted on a secure line to the state capital and then to a national center in BrasÃlia.
''From what I saw, the security of the system is outstanding,'' said Anton E. Reel, a United States Federal Election Commission official whom the Brazilian government invited as an observer.
Though Brazil's tropical climate is harsh and many polling places are out of doors, the computerized system's breakdown rate on October 6 was only 1.47 percent, or fewer than 5,000 of some 325,000 machines. That was significantly below the American rate for manual machines.
Sources:
Wikipedia
http://www.ogpaper.com/How-US-Presidential-Elections-work-200808.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2DC123FF933A05753C1A9649C8B63
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mcgowan/what-brazil-can-teach-the_b_32801.html
In US, elections for President are indirect elections in which voters cast ballots for a slate of electors of the US Electoral College, who in turn directly elect the President. The process is regulated by a combination of both federal and state laws. Each state is allocated a number of Electoral College electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the US Congress. Additionally, Washington DC is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest state (which is 3). US territories are not represented in the Electoral College. Each state legislature is allowed to designate a method of choosing electors. Once chosen, the electors can vote for anyone, but – with rare exceptions – they vote for their designated candidates and their votes are certified by Congress in early January. It means that a candidate could win more votes overall and yet not be elected (the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand). For example, in 2000 US presidential election, Gore won the popular vote (more Americans voted for him), but Bush actually won the presidency, because he was awarded the majority of the votes in the Electoral College.
In Brazil, the election is as simple as possible: each person votes for one candidate (with the possibility of leaving it blank or null), the votes are count all over the country, and the candidate who receives the higher number of votes, if this number is more than the sum of all other candidates' votes, is the new Brazil's president. If the number is lower, then Brazil faces the second round for president election, and only the two more voted candidates run it. In the second round, who receives the higher number of absolute votes, is the new president. The process is regulated by only federal laws.
Which of the two systems is the fairest one? The system where the candidate who receives the higher number of votes in the state receives all the votes for it, or the system where one person's vote counts as one vote, independent of which state and how big is the state? The difference is that in the first system, the more populated states will have more votes among the 538 votes. But wouldn't the size of the state be counted twice? In Brazil, Sao Paulo is the most populated state, with 21.6% of the country's population. Thus, the state itself has the power to count up to 21.6% of the votes. Sao Paulo doesn't need an extra system to denote higher power to this state, it already has 21.6%. Besides that, the system that counts absolute votes (Brazil) guarantee that the candidate with higher number of votes win the elections.
EXTRA INFORMATION BEYOND SDA CONTENT: Besides all the comparisons in the methodologies to select the new president, another difference is in the way the population vote. While one of every seven people in Brazil is illiterate, voting is obligatory. And the election is computerized. In the presidential election on October 6 2004, yet less than 10 hours after the polls closed, all of the more than 90 million votes cast had been tabulated. There was no muss, no fuss and no hanging chads, thanks largely to a new computerized voting system that experts described as perhaps the most advanced and efficient in the world. ''Certainly Brazil is way ahead of the United States right now in terms both of the technology and administration of the election process,'' said Robert Pastor, director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University in Washington.
The heart of the Brazilian system is a plain $420 computer with a keyboard much like that of an automatic teller machine. Voters punch in the number of the candidate they want to vote for, wait for the candidate's picture and name to appear on the screen, confirm their choice or correct any error by pressing another button, and then move on to the next office on the list.
Instead of relying on election judges who are vulnerable to error or political pressures, the results are transmitted on a secure line to the state capital and then to a national center in BrasÃlia.
''From what I saw, the security of the system is outstanding,'' said Anton E. Reel, a United States Federal Election Commission official whom the Brazilian government invited as an observer.
Though Brazil's tropical climate is harsh and many polling places are out of doors, the computerized system's breakdown rate on October 6 was only 1.47 percent, or fewer than 5,000 of some 325,000 machines. That was significantly below the American rate for manual machines.
Sources:
Wikipedia
http://www.ogpaper.com/How-US-Presidential-Elections-work-200808.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2DC123FF933A05753C1A9649C8B63
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mcgowan/what-brazil-can-teach-the_b_32801.html
No comments:
Post a Comment