NationStates Jolt Archive


Something I thought of

Neo Art
05-11-2008, 19:37
in 1984 Ronald Regan received 54.4 million votes, more than any president in US history. That record was shattered in 2004 by both Bush and Kerry, but since Bush had more, he was the record holder, with 62 million votes to his name.

Right now Obama has gained 63.25 million votes, which means Barack Obama received more votes in his name than any other US president. However, I got to thinking more. the United States is the world's largest non-parliamentary democracy. No other country holds free elections for a single candidate larger than ours. Our turnout, even though having a low % of our population, is, by raw numbers, considerably larger than any other true, free, democratic election. And Barack Obama currently holds the record.

That would mean, if true, that Barack Obama received more true, free ballots cast in his favor, 63 and a quarter million, than any other person in the history of this world.
Tmutarakhan
05-11-2008, 19:38
You are forgetting India. However, that is a Westminster model where the votes are for party slates rather than individuals.
Laerod
05-11-2008, 19:40
the United States is the world's largest democracy. No other country holds free elections larger than ours.Um, no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India).
Neo Art
05-11-2008, 19:40
You are forgetting India. However, that is a Westminster model where the votes are for party slates rather than individuals.

sorry, I should have said largest direct vote democracy. I'm specifically talking about votes cast in his name.

Clarified my post, meant to say largest voting block for a single candidate. IE more people vote for the US president than for any other single office in the world.

India is the largest democratic system in terms of population, but the US has the largest turnout for a single office.
Laerod
05-11-2008, 19:41
You are forgetting India. However, that is a Westminster model where the votes are for party slates rather than individuals.As opposed to the US where you vote for an elector?
Neo Art
05-11-2008, 19:45
As opposed to the US where you vote for an elector?

a round about system, but what I said stands, the US presidential election receives more votes than any other political office in the world. India has more voters, but theirs is not a presidency.
Laerod
05-11-2008, 19:49
a round about system, but what I said stands, the US presidential election receives more votes than any other political office in the world. India has more voters, but theirs is not a presidency.The president receives at most 538 votes.
Luna Amore
05-11-2008, 21:13
The president receives at most 538 votes.Are you enjoying splitting hairs?
Laerod
05-11-2008, 21:21
Are you enjoying splitting hairs?The US has an electoral college not much different from any other democracy. Much as I love Neo Art, he's twisting the meaning of democracy around so that the US ends up being the biggest. Can't split hairs on India to discredit it as the world's largest democracy (by population) and then expect not to have it done for the US.

I mean Indians are just as technically voting for the Prime Minister as Americans are for a President, even though neither actually do.
Neo Art
05-11-2008, 21:37
I mean Indians are just as technically voting for the Prime Minister as Americans are for a President, even though neither actually do.

Except they're not, even in the slightest. They're not even voting for a party in general. Each ballot has specific people they voted for. My point of this thread was merely an observation that if my math is correct, more ballots were cast in favor of Obama than any other politician in history, for any office.

India may cast more ballots total, but that's for 500+ offices, not one.
The Blaatschapen
05-11-2008, 21:37
That would mean, if true, that Barack Obama received more true, free ballots cast in his favor, 63 and a quarter million, than any other person in the history of this world.

Not true, Bush ran twice so I guess he has more than 100M ballots cast in his favour. Ofcourse during 2 elections, but hey :p
Laerod
05-11-2008, 21:51
Except they're not, even in the slightest. They're not even voting for a party in general. Each ballot has specific people they voted for. My point of this thread was merely an observation that if my math is correct, more ballots were cast in favor of Obama than any other politician in history, for any office.

India may cast more ballots total, but that's for 500+ offices, not one.And that's the thing, you didn't vote for Obama, you voted for an elector, even if it was Obama's name on the ticket. Americans vote for 538 temporary offices while Indians elect a parliament. If you count the ballots as having been cast in favor of Obama, then you have to count the ballots cast in India in favor of Singh.
Kadarn
05-11-2008, 22:24
True, India is a democratic institution and it does vote, so it would make sense its bigger.
German Nightmare
05-11-2008, 22:31
Are you enjoying splitting hairs?
He's sharp, so it's easily done. :tongue:
Vetalia
05-11-2008, 22:42
It does make sense, considering the US population is still growing. Except in the event of a major decline in voter turnout, every winning president will likely receive more votes than any previous candidate. I don't think it means anything other than that there are more people voting.
Neo Art
05-11-2008, 22:45
It does make sense, considering the US population is still growing. Except in the event of a major decline in voter turnout, every winning president will likely receive more votes than any previous candidate. I don't think it means anything other than that there are more people voting.

not directly linear, neither Bush I, Clinton, Clinton again, or W. the first time beat Reagan.
Vetalia
05-11-2008, 22:54
not directly linear, neither Bush I, Clinton, Clinton again, or W. the first time beat Reagan.

Which is why I added a provision reflecting the level of voter turnout. The turnout in those elections were a good deal lower than 1980/1984 or 2004/2008.
Lacadaemon
06-11-2008, 01:07
That Indonesian guy got more votes.
Nova Magna Germania
06-11-2008, 01:10
in 1984 Ronald Regan received 54.4 million votes, more than any president in US history. That record was shattered in 2004 by both Bush and Kerry, but since Bush had more, he was the record holder, with 62 million votes to his name.

Right now Obama has gained 63.25 million votes, which means Barack Obama received more votes in his name than any other US president. However, I got to thinking more. the United States is the world's largest non-parliamentary democracy. No other country holds free elections for a single candidate larger than ours. Our turnout, even though having a low % of our population, is, by raw numbers, considerably larger than any other true, free, democratic election. And Barack Obama currently holds the record.

That would mean, if true, that Barack Obama received more true, free ballots cast in his favor, 63 and a quarter million, than any other person in the history of this world.

I'm sure someone has mentioned the population increase in US (hence more votes) and India...
Blouman Empire
06-11-2008, 02:22
Yeah and?

Or are you just saying?
Antilon
07-11-2008, 01:01
sorry, I should have said largest direct vote democracy.


I was under the impression that the U.S. was a democratic republic, b/c the Constitutional Fathers didn't trust the public to directly choose the President...
Or did Obama change that too? Not that I would be complaining.