"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." - Shakespeare, "Hamlet"
"If the elections mattered, we would not be allowed to participate in them." – Mark Twain.
Key points: (for those who have no time)
The word "democracy" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, and the Founding Fathers did not intend to create a democratic government.
There is no word "party" in the U.S. Constitution, and their election participation is unconstitutional.
According to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. presidential electors are random people.
The votes of 80% of American voters mean nothing.
States artificially inflate their populations to gain more seats in Congress.
The election of the federal President and members of Congress is left to the discretion of the state legislatures, and they "do whatever they want" to help the ruling Party of the state retain power.
Under current laws, candidates for elected office accept large donations from anonymous donors, believing this does not obligate them to do anything. The Supreme Court considers this freedom of speech.
Despite the above, since nothing depends on the people, the recent 2024 elections turned out to be the most honest and fair.
The recent U.S. elections ended so unexpectedly for me that I wanted to organize somehow and analyze the information available to me and, at the same time, share the results with my readers. An attempt to understand something, be it a phenomenon of socio-political life, the emergence of a theory or a mechanism of operation, always and immediately reveals the limitations of your knowledge and the need to replenish it, or at least systematize it, which previously required reading books on the topic for general education, and further primary sources - archival documents, has changed dramatically with the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Not using AI in our time is obviously stupid, but the opposite is also true: you can stupidly use this AI, but what do you do?
Yes, AI algorithms can both filter and distort facts, and there can be no absolutely correct method of assessing them: "Truth is one, but lies are many," as Montaigne wrote in his "Essays," and further indicated that the way to recognize lies is to uncover the motives and psychological reasons that motivate people to hide the truth. In our advanced case, by "people," we simply mean those who are giving the correct ideological settings to AI algorithms, as they now say, moderating content. And in each case, when requesting who won the Peloponnesian War in 403 BC, it is helpful to ask yourself whether there is an ideological background to the then confrontation between Athens and Sparta that could resonate in the mind of a neoliberal? - You say paranoia? - Of course! - But still, their conflict was political, and the oligarchic militaristic Sparta defeated the Athenian democracy, and this is not progressive. Therefore, we should look into Thucydides and his eight-volume history of this war. His work is considered a model of objective analysis of historical events; however, he fought on the side of Athens, albeit unsuccessfully, after which he was exiled for 20 years.
So, nothing can be taken on faith, but using common sense (and, if possible, cross-checking), let's try to figure out "where America has come" and "who is running the show there." For now, this is in the human hands, and although AI is playing an increasingly important role, it can still be controlled. As Thucydides said, "History repeats itself because human nature remains unchanged. "
Democracy
Let's start with the pre-election environment, which can be characterized as fearmongering for the fate of democracy, which both parties, Democrats and Republicans, were doing. The implication is that we enjoyed democracy until now, but now evil forces are encroaching on it again, although this is not entirely true. The Founding Fathers thought for quite some time about what kind of state America would be after separating from Great Britain, and although Plato, in his writings, recommended an aristocracy ruled by a philosopher king, this was too similar to the hated British monarchy. An oligarchy of the Spartan type obviously did not appeal to them, and their minds turned to democracy and a republic, which are not the same thing. Democracy means citizens' direct participation in government decisions, and a republican government is carried out through the institution of people's representatives.
The political system in the USA can be defined as the Constitutional Republic, the Constitution of which describes in detail the rules for electing representatives to Congress and the Senate, but the word "democracy" is not mentioned at all—a surprise for me and, probably, for members of the Democratic Party. Calls for preserving democracy are, at the very least, meaningless and, in fact, unconstitutional, but let's assume that the concerns were related to the right of the people to elect their representatives democratically, that is, by direct vote.
It was not by chance that the Founding Fathers "shunned" the term democracy because they had an idea of its "unpleasant" properties, such as the trampling of minority rights - the democratic majority decides everything, the thoughtlessness of decisions made by the poorly educated masses - the danger of demagogues promising the people all sorts of benefits in exchange for votes, which will have to be paid for immediately after the elections or by future generations, such as free housing, higher education or forgiveness of student debts. Sounds so nice! Therefore, instead of direct elections, an Institution of Electors is established, who, in theory, will be the people's worthiest, fair, honest, and wise representatives. Well, they will pass good laws and elect the supreme commander-in-chief - the President, a kind of embodiment of Plato's philosopher king, but without the right of inheritance.
Well, let's figure out what we have with these electors—the servants of the people. The question is not simple; a large portion of the U.S. Constitution is devoted to who, whom, and how elects. Let's "dance from the stove"—the original text—and see where we end up.
Who do we choose?
In Article 1, Section 2 (A1s2), one representative to Congress is elected from every 30,000 people. He must be no younger than 25 years old, have lived in the country for at least 7 years, and be a resident of his state. This provides a proportional representation of all citizens of the country.
In A1s3, the Senate is elected by two people from each state, not younger than 30 years old, who have lived in the country for at least 9 years. This gives an equal number of votes to each state.
In A1s4, each state chooses Congressmen and Senators separately, and the State Legislature establishes the election rules. This ruling seems reasonable: these elected officials' primary duties are to manage that state's affairs, and the state chooses its representatives as it sees fit. However, Article 2 extends the states' legislative powers on the election of the Federal President.
Electoral College
In A2s1: The President is elected for 4 years, must be at least 35, and must be born in the United States.
The President is elected by direct vote of Electors, appointed by each state according to the number of its Congressmen and Senators; they do not elect the President themselves (too much honor!) but entrust this job to special people. A lot is said about the Vice President, but this is less interesting and can be omitted. The Constitution does not specify who can be an Elector; it only says that Senators or Congressmen cannot be them. And who can be is not specified! However, it seems important and logical for the President to be elected by Congress (including senators) since the President is the head of the executive branch and, together with his ministers, must carry out the will of Congress. For example, Congress allocates money to help Ukraine, and the President spends it at his discretion.
Did this "simple and logical solution" come to the Founding Fathers in 1787 when they designed the Constitution? - Of course, many people thought the same way, but doubts and disputes arose that this would give too much power to Congress. A compromise was adopted, giving the right to choose the President to "random people" in the sense that they are appointed by the state Legislature and not elected by the People.
What about the electors these days, like in Massachusetts in 2020? – Ask ChatGPT this question, and you'll get a list of 11 of the state's top officials, including two senators and three congress members. – Wow, you might say, that's a direct violation of the Constitution (A2s4) that prohibits Senators and Congressmen from electing the President!? – You're a good boy – you got that right! – the AI replies and corrects itself. – That's not quite it: those 11 very important people aren't actual electors; they're "ceremonial" ones and just participating in the voting process as honored guests.
The AI tells a convincing story – he listed all the names of the participants, but I decided to check him – it looked too incredible! Yes, that was fake: AI made it all about the ceremonial electors. There is no Internet source for this, so you must be vigilant! But the reality is no less absurd.
- Who are these Electors who choose the President? – Congressmen or state officials do not choose them, but the Party appoints these folks at its Convention; in Massachusetts, it is the Democratic Party, but the same is true in Republican states. - How do you get on this list of electors? - Be useful to the Party, such as an activist campaigner, a major donor, or an LGBT leader, okay?
Parties
I see, but excuse me, what does a party have to do with it? After all, no parties are mentioned in the Constitution or its subsequent amendments. - Yes, that's true, but everything revolves around parties and their struggle for power in modern politics. - Is it by chance that our Constitution is silent about parties, or did the Fathers know their danger? - Of course, they did! Take, for example, the definition given by James Madison: "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." (The Federalist No.10, 1877)
Or George Washington (in Farewell Address, 1796): "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."[1] . Nevertheless, already in the same year, when Washington refused to participate in the elections, the party struggle between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans began, in which John Adams (Fed) won, gaining 71 out of 139 electoral votes, that is, 51%. For some time, there was hope that the Checks and Balances system and strong federalism (that is, many rights delegated to the states) would not allow factions to gain too much strength and influence. Still, since then, the party struggle has never ceased, taking on increasingly ugly forms, and, as they say now, has become an integral part of the political life of society. Parties were constantly uniting, separating, and changing their slogans, and it would take a lot of time to analyze their history and dismantle them, and you know the result yourself. https://images.app.goo.gl/hvrkHsypBiZAsqNN9
From time to time, the Supreme Court, which stands guard over the Constitution, considered lawsuits against the party system but always ruled in favor of political parties, where the main argument was a reference to the 1st Amendment, which guarantees the right of peaceful assembly of citizens and freedom of speech. The meetings were meant to file petitions, but that's boring - the case is lost. It's good that it didn't end with a one-party system, although the Soviet and Chinese comrades have something to object to.
The winner takes all.
Let's get back to the President Electors: no one, meaning the American People, elects them, but they are appointed by the Party that wins the elections in each of the 50 states. The number of electoral votes a state gets is the same as the number of representatives in Congress. For example, California gets 54, Texas - 40, and Alaska only has 3 - very few people live there. Despite what was said above about the harmfulness of direct elections, in every state, we do not vote for presidential electors but for a presidential candidate from one of the Democratic or Republican parties. True, there are candidates from other parties and sometimes even independents, but they do not receive electoral votes (due to their small number), and it is believed that they simply distract voters from the main players, which is fair. As they say, "It is impossible to understand, but it must be remembered.": you go to the polling station and cast your vote for your presidential candidate, but in fact, you vote for the Party that nominated this President.
Then the votes are counted in each state, and if the Republican candidate (I forgot who is it today) gets a simple majority of the votes, then the Republican Party gets all the electors in that state: in Texas, all 40, and in Florida, all 30. The winner gets all, and woe to the loser – he gets zero without a stick. That is, in Republican Texas, woe to the Democratic voters: they got 42% of the votes and could have claimed the votes of 17 electors out of 40. But in California, the Republicans could have gotten 21 votes out of 54, and nothing – everything is fair.
And who determines this justice? - The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 (Chiafalo vs Washington) that party-appointed electors must vote only for their Party's presidential candidate under penalty of a $1,000 fine or simply having that elector replaced. The ruling was made after the 2016 election when several cases of "treason" were recorded: seven so-called Faithless electors voted for Colin Power and some other figures instead of Hillary Clinton. The practical consequence of this Supreme Court decision is that the institution of electors has practically lost any meaning, and therefore, in our time, the results of the presidential election are announced as soon as the results of the votes in the states are known, without waiting for these disenfranchised creatures to gather for a formal ceremony of the Electors Casting Ballots.
In reality, all the intrigue of the elections occurs in seven so-called swing or key states, where the number of potential Democratic and Republican voters is approximately equal and where the main efforts to agitate voters are invested. In the presidential elections, all states together have 538 votes or mandates, of which 226 are guaranteed to the Democrats (18 blue states) and 215 to the Republicans (25 red states), and the remaining 97 are actually tossed in 7 swing states. In the last 2024 election, all the votes in these seven states were received by the Republicans, gaining 215 + 97 = 312 votes, which is much more than the 270 needed to win. About 30 out of a total of 150 million voters live in the swing states; that is, the votes of 20% of the population are important and determine the result, and the remaining 80% might not have come to the polls.
How interesting that the Pareto Principle or the "80-20 rule" works here, too! To win in these key states, you need to invest 80% of your resources and spend the lion's share of your money on advertising, and presidential candidates need to be there as often as possible during the election campaign, delivering passionate speeches, promising, and threatening with the prospect of the death of democracy and the rise of a dictatorship (of the proletariat or a tyrant).
There are exceptions to all this arithmetic, but we usually omit them to save space and the reader's time (the writer has plenty of it). For example, some states moved from the category of swing to colored ones, like Florida, which in four years went from pale pink to crimson red, losing interest for both parties.
Congressional Elections
We have sorted out the election of the President a little: in America, this is the most pivotal figure (not the King, but rather the Queen), possessing enormous power to quickly rule the country by Presidential Decrees without their approval by Congress; therefore the inter-party battle for this chair is of the most fierce nature, in which if not all means are suitable, but definitely acceptable those that are on the verge of the law, and the definition of this verge depends on which Party wins. One of the circumstances that confuse the picture is the "mine" embedded in the Constitution from the very beginning: the President is a federal position, he leads the entire country, and the rules for his election, that is, the election process procedures, are given over to the mercy of the legislative assemblies of the states, of which there are naturally also fifty.
In the early years of the American Republic and during the development of the Constitution, the Federalists tried to fight for the strengthening of the power of the central government, but the success was very partial, and now, as always, each state has the opportunity to establish the rules for the appointment of both presidential electors, senators and representatives to the U.S. Congress, as well as local state leadership: governors and their congressmen-legislators, which we will not discuss here - the federal level is enough for us. Let's see where and how the two-hundred-year evolution of the legislative process has led.
Population size
The Constitution states (A1s2) that one representative to Congress is elected from 30,000 citizens, and to enumerate the population, a census is taken every 10 years, and only free citizens vote. - Simple and clear? - Of course, they handed out questionnaires and counted every one. At first (1797), all free people except Indians were counted as population, and enslaved people were counted at the rate of three for five souls (a compromise between the northern and southern "slave" states, but only white men over 21 could vote. The larger the population, the more representatives from a state in Congress, and the greater the influence of this state on federal policy and the distribution of money: they can finance a highway to the most remote city of Bangor, or they can consider this sparsely populated Maine insignificant - only 4 representatives, and extend the road only to Portsmouth in New Hampshire.
In general, the states need delegates and as many as possible, and further lawmaking was determined by two questions: where to get more residents and legal voters since not everyone votes. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution (1865) abolishes slavery, and soon the 14th and 15th Amendments give the right to vote to all men, regardless of race and skin color. In 1920, the 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote, and the number of voters doubled. Finally, in 1971, the 26th Amendment lowers the voting age to 18.
Since then, the Constitution has not changed, but the process is ongoing, and some states retain the right to vote even for convicted criminals. Maine and Vermont organize voting even for those serving sentences in prisons - there is still a shortage of people there, not in prisons, of course. It may seem weird, but the states can establish their own rules for the election of not only internal but also federal authorities, including the President. Apparently, this is what Plato had in mind (Republic, VIII) when he wrote about a democratic state: "Is not the mercy towards some convicts magnificent there? Or have you not seen how, under such a state system, people sentenced to death or exile nevertheless remain and continue to move in society: as if no one cares about him, and no one notices him, such a person walks around just like a demigod. "
And another quote from the same place: "It would seem that this [democracy] is the best form of government. Like a fabric, dotted with all the colors, so this system, dotted with various customs, may seem the most beautiful. Probably, many, like children and women admiring everything colorful, will decide that it is the best of all."
The fight for the number of voters continues even now: there is an outcry to lower the voting age to 16, but in terms of population, an impressive victory has been achieved: all states, without exception, consider illegal immigrants, that is, undocumented persons (a euphemism in ancient Greek) who arrive and stay in the United States illegally, to be residents and count them in the census. Some people think this is a trifle, but here is an example from the 2021 census: the state of Texas counted 29.1 million residents, which gave them 38 seats Representatives in Congress. Of these, legal citizens made up only 83% (31 seats), legal residents 11.5% (5 seats) and illegals 5.5% (2 seats). Ask how officials survey undocumented immigrants while their location is unknown; that is, they are fearing deportation, and besides, the question of a person's legal status cannot be asked during the census. – They don't; government officials make certain statistical estimates, for example, based on payments of various benefits or medical services, and multiply the number of legal residents by coefficients. But relax, not everything is so bad - tourists have not been taken into account yet.
Polling stations
Somehow, we forgot about the parties, and they are very much concerned about both the number of deputies and their color: blue or red; it is not enough for the state to get a seat in Congress; the main thing is that a person of specific Party fills this position. In theory, members of Congress should defend the interests of their state at the federal level, but since the Party nominates them, their main task is to protect the interests and implement the policy of the Party (allegiance), and then the state, if anything remains.
There are various methods to achieve party control over the state government, all of which are used. The main task is to take control of the state Legislative Assembly, then all the "useful" proposals are approved much easier and even receive the form of a law, and if not, then legalized practice. Let's start with electoral districts: representatives to Congress are elected by residential districts. Let's say Massachusetts has 9 seats; then it is necessary to divide the entire territory of the state into 9 districts so that each would have approximately 730 thousand residents. It is known that the total number of Republican-minded voters in Massachusetts is approximately 1/3, and the remaining 2/3 vote for the Democrats. If the "reds" are dispersed evenly, they will not get anything; if they are concentrated in three districts, they will get 3 seats, but with the "fair Republican layout," it would be possible to win 5 or even 6 districts. Since resettling people is painful and expensive, there remains what is called tricky as "gerrymandering," that is, drawing district boundaries in a way that suits the ruling Party. In 1812, the governor of our Massachusetts, Jerry Elbridge, drew district boundaries so that the state map looked like a salamander, which is where the new term meaning "complete chaos" came from. The current map of Massachusetts districts also looks pretty intricate, especially in the Boston area, but it guarantees all 9 seats to the Democrats; thus, it is fair.
Electoral laws
Massachusetts is a heavily Democratic state; the struggle here is quite civilized since the chances of getting any representation of the Republicans are negligible, while in key states, the battle is on all fronts, especially over how to conduct voting. For example, here are the laws on voter ID: "Can members of the election commission at the polling station check the ID of the person who came to vote?" - They can't, - say the Democrats, - this will prevent people without an ID from voting and will deprive them of their rights! - This is a multi-level absurdity, but for asking such a question, a commission member can be fined $5,000 or even go to prison for 5 years (this has not happened yet, although such laws exist in many states.)
Firstly, an ID (driver's license) is not proof of the right to vote since both green card holders - permanent residents and many illegal immigrants (many states allow them to obtain driver's licenses) have such IDs, and only U.S. citizens who were born in the country or naturalized can vote. If you ask to show some proof, then it is a passport or birth certificate. Secondly, you can't buy a bottle of beer in a store without an ID, which is not considered depriving people of the right to drink. Thirdly, having an ID does not prevent you from voting in several places since you don't need any documents at all to register as a voter - you just go to the city hall and boldly declare that you live in this state at such-and-such an address and claim to be a U.S. citizen, and you are included in the voter lists without asking for any documents, on your word of honor.
If you ask a democratically minded voter, they will say that any violations in voting are extremely infrequent; therefore, there is no need for such "draconian" measures, and people should be trusted. Well, a person does not have an ID, that is, does not drive a car and does not have a bank account, but remembers that he is a citizen of the United States, came to fulfill his duty at the polling station, and there he can be offended by suspicion. In my opinion, such people do not need to vote at all since they practically do not participate in the country's life; meanwhile, the probability of violations is not so small. As the state governor Abbott writes, let's see the results of the voter lists examination conducted in Texas this summer.
The following "people" have been removed from the lists:
6,500+ non-citizens, of whom 1,930 voted in the previous election (they are likely to face criminal charges)
6,000+ felony convicts
457,000 deceased and not removed from the register before
463,000 on the suspension list requiring verification (for various reasons)
19,000+ themselves asked to be removed from the lists (apparently, having learned about the upcoming audit and fearing punishment for forgery)
That is, they identified approximately a million illegitimate voters out of eleven million voters, which is not a small number, considering that in key states like Pennsylvania (7 million) and Georgia (5.2 million), the difference in votes that determined the winning Party was about 100,000, but there were no large-scale checks there.
The presence of "dead souls" on the voter lists is not a harmless trifle: in our state of Massachusetts, all voters are sent invitations to vote by mail (I even received them twice), after which any person, for example, a family member of a deceased or out-of-state person, can send a request to the mayor's office, receive a ballot, fill it out and send it by mail, that is, vote. In California, you don't even need to request anything since all CA residents receive a ballot by mail a month before the election and in two copies (what if you make a mistake and make a blot!)
Postal and early voting are not new inventions but have been widely introduced since 2016. The results are summarized in the table:
Year | In-person voting on Election Day | Early voting | By mail |
2016 | 60% | 17% | 23% |
2020 | 30.5% | 26.5% | 43% |
2024 | 49% | 22.2% | 31.9% |
In theory, this is done for the convenience of voters, but in fact, it is an invitation to cheat: it is clear that it is one thing to come to the polling station 10 times and vote - someone may pay attention and bust the guy, and another to print 10 ballots on a laser printer, fill them out and send them where they need to go - most likely it will pass, and if not, then you don't have to write your name there - the risk is minimal. The safety of ballots sent by mail is also challenging to guarantee, but it is not customary to think or talk about this.
There are many more tricks, if not outright manipulation, than the creation of a favorable atmosphere for abuse, such as "ballot harvesting," when party activists go door-to-door and "help" residents of nursing homes or simply the illiterate fill out ballots. By the way, about 21% of the adult population in America is illiterate, and another 54% can read and write at a 6th-grade level ( www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com ). I don't have the stomach to list and explain all of this, but the main result is that trust in the electoral process has been seriously undermined among the population, and something needs to be done.
Money
Financing an election campaign is becoming an increasingly expensive affair, and, oddly enough, this is due to the "degeneration" of the electoral college institution described above. Since electors who vote for the President are not representatives of the people like congressmen but rather individual citizens, then-presidential candidates need to be "promoted," that is, made known to the majority of the population, which is expensive. Therefore, the former President or significant public figures (actors, pop stars, generals, athletes) obviously have a huge advantage. For example, in September 2024, the New York Times conducted a public opinion poll, "Whom do you prefer to see as president: Taylor Swift (pop singer) or Donald Trump?" where Trump won by a small margin, 47% to 44%. And she did not even start any election campaign.
Money is needed to pay for thousands of assistants, lawyers, to rent premises for rallies, security, transportation, and favorable articles by journalists, but mainly for advertising the candidate - what a good fighter for people's happiness he/she is, and his/her opponent is a corrupt enemy of democracy and an evil family man. Asking a candidate questions about his program is considered indecent: if the person is good, then his program is the same; elect him and find out everything later. Naturally, all the campaigning is conducted in the swing states, and I think people vote for the one whose advertising seems less idiotic to them or less likely to interrupt their favorite TV series.
Billions of dollars are spent on presidential elections, which are given to candidates by certain non-profit organizations – Super PACs (Political Action Committees). According to the Supreme Court decision (2010), both anonymous individuals and organizations can contribute unlimited amounts of money to these funds. Theoretically, donors must report their data to the FEC (Federal Election Commission), except for donations to organizations with a non-profit status, which may not disclose their sources. Therefore, all serious donors give money through some non-profit explicitly organized for these purposes during the election campaign. By law, foreigners cannot give money to Super PACs, but they can transfer it for humanitarian purposes to non-profit organizations whose contributors are anonymous by law. - How can our Supreme Court allow this? – Very simply: it ruled that giving money is an expression of Freedom of Speech, and the 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects this freedom.
Until 2010, such anonymous donations were considered reprehensible and leading to the situation that large corporations and billionaires would influence politics and election results and undermine public confidence in the government, so a lot of laws were passed against the corruption of elections and regulation of their financing (acts of 1907, 1925, 1939, 1947, 1974 (creation of the FEC) and 2008). Accordingly, money for the election campaign was allocated to each candidate from the budget, gradually in larger and larger amounts, and individual contributions were limited to $4600, with full transparency of the contributor's identity.
This was the case until 2008, when incumbent Barack Obama refused government funding for the first time, declaring that he would raise the necessary funds himself. And he raised $745 million and defeated Republican candidate John McCain, who used a federal grant of $84 million and lost. - What have American politicians fought so fiercely for over the last hundred years and passed more and more new acts? - It's elementary! They believed that a major donor giving money for an election campaign could then ask a future elected servant of the people for something in return, and the latter would be embarrassed to refuse the sponsor. They merely did not understand that this is Freedom of Speech.
It seems that the current technology and practice of American elections have been sufficiently exposed. If anyone has any doubts that everything is in order, they have been happily dispelled. Having seen the current state of affairs, the Founding Fathers would probably have thought about it thoroughly and sat down to amend the Constitution, having properly written in there about democracy, a two-party system, and what freedom of speech there is. Meanwhile, Plato would have rubbed his hands and said, "Did I warn you that democracy inevitably develops into tyranny?"
The picture is not cheerful, and we can only hope that the new presidential administration will at least try to restore some civility and common sense to the election process, which has been lost somewhere.
Elections are Americans' favorite game, and the rules must be fair and clear.
------------------------------
Чё-то не цепляет. Свои дела чуднее.🐸