2 votes

Democratic Process - libertarians have won almost every election!

Reference for the following article:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php

Every election cycle we hear, "So and so wins with 56% of the popular vote and 70% of the electoral college vote." Or whatever the numbers happen to be. This gives the illusion that there is a 100% commitment to two major candidates (with a little 3rd party sprinkled in). With no real data ever about voter turn out being reported on, so let's actually include all voter aged persons and those that did not cast a vote for any candidate.

Let's review. Please note that candidate percentage is estimated by giving each 50% of the vote. I will correct this in the next revision of the chart to be completely accurate, but that takes more time, and don't want to do it if no is interested. :)

Clearly, the below chart shows that No President has won almost every election. So, if our democratic process were honest, would we not have eliminated the office for those periods? And just as disturbing, the elected president only has the support of 25% (and usually lukewarm at best), and yet can control the behavior of the remaining 75% in addition to the supporting 25%.

libertarian election results:

    Year, Candidate Est., No President
  • 1828, 28.80%, 42.40%
  • 1832, 27.70%, 44.60%
  • 1836, 28.90%, 42.20%
  • 1840, 40.10%, 19.80%
  • 1844, 39.45%, 21.10%
  • 1848, 36.35%, 27.30%
  • 1852, 34.80%, 30.40%
  • 1856, 39.45%, 21.10%
  • 1860, 40.60%, 18.80%
  • 1864, 36.90%, 26.20%
  • 1868, 39.05%, 21.90%
  • 1872, 35.65%, 28.70%
  • 1876, 40.90%, 18.20%
  • 1880, 39.70%, 20.60%
  • 1884, 38.75%, 22.50%
  • 1888, 39.65%, 20.70%
  • 1892, 37.35%, 25.30%
  • 1896, 39.65%, 20.70%
  • 1900, 36.60%, 26.80%
  • 1904, 32.60%, 34.80%
  • 1908, 32.70%, 34.60%
  • 1912, 29.40%, 41.20%
  • 1916, 30.80%, 38.40%
  • 1920, 24.60%, 50.80%
  • 1924, 24.45%, 51.10%
  • 1928, 28.45%, 43.10%
  • 1932, 28.45%, 43.10%
  • 1936, 30.50%, 39.00%
  • 1940, 31.25%, 37.50%
  • 1944, 27.95%, 44.10%
  • 1948, 26.50%, 47.00%
  • 1952, 31.65%, 36.70%
  • 1956, 30.30%, 39.40%
  • 1960, 31.39%, 37.23%
  • 1964, 30.96%, 38.08%
  • 1968, 30.42%, 39.16%
  • 1972, 27.61%, 44.79%
  • 1976, 26.78%, 46.45%
  • 1980, 26.28%, 47.44%
  • 1984, 26.56%, 46.89%
  • 1988, 25.08%, 49.85%
  • 1992, 27.62%, 44.77%
  • 1996, 24.54%, 50.92%
  • 2000, 25.65%, 48.70%
  • 2004, 27.64%, 44.73%
  • 2008, 28.74%, 42.52%

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm not sure I follow what the actual percentage of people

voting for a President has to do with libertarians winning anything.

Yes, we know that as a percentage of the total population, even the total voting eligible population, and even the registered voter population, presidents usually receive only a very small percentage. This is true of nearly every elected official.

What's your point?

Do you want to require an absolute percentage? An absolute majority?

wolfe's picture

The democratic premise is.

That the majority decides. But as we can clearly see, the majority almost always chooses to abstain which indicates that either the office is not important enough to vote for, the proposed candidates are not fit, or their is active opposition to the election on principle. Hence, No President wins.

How few people is acceptable to decide for the rest of us? How few people would it take to elect a president for you to say, "Oh, now that's just ridiculous."

50%, 25%, 10% of the population?
1 Vote?

If the majority was truly in control, most elected offices would have disappeared decades ago. It is interesting to note, that as the system shifted into a pure two party duopoly, the turnouts and election support has generally declined.

I would almost be willing to bet, that those that did win an election, even compared to No President, are likely to be minimal government presidents. But I haven't done all of the research on that to say one way or another.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Oh I agree, it just wasn't clear from the OP what the point was.

Certainly, I think we should have some form of ranked approval voting (not IRV) and we should include NOTA as an option for all elections with rules for what happens if NOTA wins or someone loses to NOTA but no one else gets a majority.

I also think referendums should require an absolute majority, specifically, I think all taxes should be approved by referendum, and they should require an absolute or absolute super majority, AND have automatic expiration dates.

In Louisiana we vote on property and sales taxes locally, and we vote to incur debt locally, but we don't require absolute majorities. (sales taxes do sunset, but I don't think property taxes do) I also think we should require these procedures at the state level.

I also think only those who own property should ever get to vote on property taxes.

Bump 4 Visibility

*******

...and think about what this chart means.

fonta

Who Cares About the Small Percentage

...of voters (those reported even if not accurate) who actually elect
the President? I do and look forward to your revision which I bet you will do for yourself even if there is no interest here.

Could you also explain what this means in terms of the last "elected" Democrat and the prior "Republican" (Short two or three sentences in a nutshell) and consider extending it to whatever are the results of this election?

Seems it (if known by the masses) would be a huge wake-up call. (Wish I could make this final request very tiny print ...could you write it at the level of a ...say Fonta Gullible, because I really do want to understand it and I am sure others do as well.)

fonta