Voting System

سیستم تجمیع آرا

most states use a “winner-take-all” approach for awarding Electoral College votes in presidential elections. However, two states do not follow this method:

1. Maine

Electoral Votes: 4

System: Maine uses the Congressional District Method. The state awards one electoral vote to the winner in each of its two congressional districts. The remaining two electoral votes, corresponding to Maine’s two U.S. Senators, are awarded to the statewide winner.

2. Nebraska

Electoral Votes: 5

System: Nebraska also uses the Congressional District Method. Similar to Maine, Nebraska awards one electoral vote to the winner in each of its three congressional districts. The remaining two electoral votes, corresponding to Nebraska’s two U.S. Senators, are awarded to the statewide winner.

+ FPTP

Proportional Representation

Western Europe

Germany: Uses a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system, where half of the Bundestag members are elected through first-past-the-post in single-member districts, and the other half are elected from party lists to ensure proportional representation.

Netherlands: Uses a pure list proportional representation system, where the entire country is a single electoral district.

Belgium: Uses a list proportional representation system with multiple electoral districts.

Switzerland: Uses a proportional representation system for electing members to the National Council.

Portugal: Uses a proportional representation system based on party lists in multi-member districts.

Spain: Uses a proportional representation system in multi-member districts, though it tends to favor larger parties due to the use of the D’Hondt method.

Austria: Uses a list proportional representation system in multi-member districts.

Northern Europe

Sweden: Uses a list proportional representation system with an additional leveling mechanism to ensure proportionality.

Norway: Uses a list proportional representation system with multi-member districts.

Denmark: Uses a proportional representation system with a combination of multi-member districts and national seats.

Finland: Uses an open-list proportional representation system in multi-member districts.

Iceland: Uses a list proportional representation system with an element of leveling to ensure proportionality.

Southern Europe

Italy: Uses a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system, combining single-member districts and proportional representation.

Greece: Uses a proportional representation system, though it has a “bonus” seat system that can favor the largest party.

Malta: Uses a single transferable vote (STV) system, which is a form of proportional representation.

Cyprus: Uses a proportional representation system with multi-member districts.

Eastern Europe

Poland: Uses a list proportional representation system with multi-member districts.

Czech Republic: Uses a proportional representation system with multi-member districts.

Slovakia: Uses a proportional representation system with the entire country as a single electoral district.

Hungary: Uses a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system.

Bulgaria: Uses a proportional representation system in multi-member districts.

Romania: Uses a proportional representation system in multi-member districts.

Estonia: Uses an open-list proportional representation system.

Central Europe

Luxembourg: Uses a proportional representation system with a unique feature that allows voters to split their votes across different party lists.

These countries all use variations of proportional representation to elect their parliaments, with some incorporating mixed systems to balance the benefits of proportionality with other electoral principles.

Number of parties

تعدد احزاب

Cracking: Diluting the voting power of the opposing party’s supporters across many districts, so they are unlikely to form a majority in any of them.

Packing: Concentrating the opposing party’s supporters into a few districts, so they win by large margins in those districts but have little influence elsewhere.

voter suppression

Gerrymandering عملی است برای دستکاری مرزهای حوزه های انتخاباتی به نفع یک حزب یا گروه سیاسی خاص

Both major political parties (Democrats and Republicans) have engaged in gerrymandering when in control of state legislatures.

In many Western European countries (e.g., Netherlands, Sweden, Norway), gerrymandering is not an issue because they use proportional representation systems, where districts are either not geographically based or are so large that the manipulation of boundaries would have minimal impact. In these systems, the number of seats a party receives is more closely aligned with its overall share of the vote, reducing the incentive and ability to gerrymander.

The UK uses single-member districts (known as constituencies), and the process of boundary drawing is overseen by independent boundary commissions, which helps mitigate gerrymandering. However, there have been accusations of political influence in the timing and nature of boundary changes.

France’s use of a two-round system for legislative elections and a strong emphasis on equal population representation in districts have limited the scope for gerrymandering. However, redistricting can still have political implications, especially in how urban and rural areas are represented.

Mechanisms of the Influence of Money in Politics in the United States

In the United States, money plays a significant role in politics, influencing elections, policy decisions, and the overall political landscape. The main mechanisms through which money influences politics include:
1. Campaign Financing

Political Action Committees (PACs): PACs are organizations that collect and distribute campaign contributions from members to support or oppose political candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. They are a significant source of campaign funds.
Super PACs: These are independent expenditure-only committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs cannot donate directly to candidates or coordinate with their campaigns but can run ads, send mail, and communicate in other ways to influence elections.
Individual Contributions: Wealthy individuals can make substantial contributions to candidates, political parties, or PACs. Although there are limits on how much individuals can contribute directly to candidates, these limits do not apply to contributions to Super PACs.
Dark Money: This refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. These organizations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, such as issue advocacy, without revealing where the money comes from.

2. Lobbying

Corporate Lobbying: Corporations spend significant amounts of money on lobbying to influence legislation and regulations. Lobbyists advocate on behalf of companies or industries, often writing or suggesting the language of laws and regulations that benefit their clients.
Industry Associations: Industry groups and trade associations also spend heavily on lobbying efforts to represent their members’ interests in Washington, D.C., and at state levels.

3. Independent Expenditures

Media and Advertising: Independent expenditures include spending by groups or individuals on political ads and media campaigns that advocate for or against candidates or policies. These expenditures are often funded by Super PACs or other independent groups.
Grassroots Mobilization: Money is used to organize and fund grassroots campaigns, which can include everything from door-to-door canvassing to digital advertising aimed at swaying public opinion.

4. Influence through Think Tanks and Policy Institutes

Policy Advocacy: Wealthy donors and corporations often fund think tanks and policy institutes that produce research and advocate for policies aligning with their interests. These organizations can have a significant influence on public policy debates and the legislative agenda.

5. Revolving Door

Revolving Door: The “revolving door” refers to the movement of individuals between roles as legislators or regulators and positions in industries affected by the laws and regulations they create. This movement can lead to conflicts of interest and a regulatory environment that favors industry interests.

1. Campaign Financing

Public Funding: Many European countries provide substantial public funding for political parties and candidates, reducing their reliance on private donations. For example, Germany, France, and Sweden have systems where political parties receive public funds based on their electoral performance or other criteria.

Contribution Limits: European countries often have stricter limits on campaign contributions and spending. For instance, France imposes strict caps on how much candidates can spend in elections, and contributions from corporations are generally banned.

Transparency: European countries tend to have stricter transparency requirements for political donations. Parties and candidates must often disclose the sources of their funding, and there are robust regulations to prevent “dark money” from influencing elections.

2. Lobbying

Regulation of Lobbying: While lobbying is present in Europe, it is typically more regulated than in the United States. The European Union, for example, has a Transparency Register where lobbyists must register to engage with EU institutions. Some countries, like the UK, have similar registers at the national level.

Lower Spending: The overall scale of lobbying spending is lower in Europe than in the United States. This is partly due to stricter regulations and cultural differences in the relationship between business and politics.

3. Media and Independent Expenditures

State Media and Advertising Regulations: In many European countries, there are strict regulations on political advertising, especially in broadcast media. For instance, the UK bans paid political advertising on television and radio, and many countries impose equal time requirements for candidates.

Political Communication: Campaigns in Europe often focus more on direct voter engagement and party activities rather than media-driven campaigns fueled by independent expenditures.

4. Influence through Think Tanks

Less Corporate Influence: While think tanks and policy institutes exist in Europe, they are generally less influenced by corporate funding compared to the U.S. European think tanks are often publicly funded or associated with political parties, rather than being primarily funded by private donors or corporations.

5. Revolving Door

Stricter Regulations: Many European countries have stricter regulations on the revolving door between politics and industry. There are often “cooling-off” periods where former officials are prohibited from immediately taking up roles in industries they once regulated.

media ecosystems

the influence of misinformation

EU-wide standards and the European Court of Human Rights.

Concentration of power in executive branch

Presidential branch

. Military Engagements Without Formal Declarations of War

Expanding Executive Power to Use Military Force

Korean War (1950-1953)

Explanation:

President Harry S. Truman committed U.S. forces to the Korean Peninsula without seeking a formal declaration of war from Congress. He justified the action under the auspices of a United Nations police action, setting a precedent for future military engagements initiated by the executive branch without explicit congressional approval.

References:

Fisher, Louis. “The Korean War: On What Legal Basis Did Truman Act?” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 89, No. 1, 1995, pp. 21-39.

Link

Vietnam War and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964)

Example: President Lyndon B. Johnson dramatically increased U.S. military involvement in Vietnam after Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. This resolution gave the president broad authority to use military force in Southeast Asia without a formal declaration of war from Congress.

Impact: The resolution granted Johnson and subsequent presidents (Nixon, especially) nearly unchecked powers to escalate military actions in Vietnam, demonstrating the executive branch’s growing control over war-making powers.

Reference: U.S. History – Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

War Powers Resolution (1973)

Example: In response to the unchecked executive power during the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to limit the president’s authority to deploy U.S. forces without congressional approval. However, subsequent presidents have often ignored or circumvented the law.

Impact: Despite being designed to check presidential power, the War Powers Resolution has been ineffective in curbing unilateral military actions by the president. For example, President Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have all initiated military interventions without formal congressional approval.

Reference: War Powers Resolution (1973)

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (2001)

Example: Following the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in 2001, which gave President George W. Bush broad authority to use military force against those responsible for the attacks. The AUMF has since been used by subsequent presidents to justify military action in numerous countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria.

Impact: The AUMF has significantly expanded presidential power in terms of initiating military action without requiring new congressional approval, essentially giving the president a blank check to conduct the “War on Terror.”

Reference: Congressional Research Service – AUMF 2001

European countries have more stringent checks on executive power, often through parliamentary systems where the executive is more directly accountable to the legislature. For example:

Germany: The president has limited power, with most executive authority vested in the chancellor, who must maintain a parliamentary majority.

France: While the French president has significant powers, they are balanced by a powerful National Assembly, and the use of emergency powers is more restricted.

United Kingdom: The prime minister must regularly answer to Parliament, which limits the unilateral use of power in areas like war-making, where Parliament traditionally votes on military interventions.

USA PATRIOT Act (2001)

USA PATRIOT Act (2001)

Explanation:

Enacted in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act significantly expanded the surveillance and investigative powers of the executive branch.

It allowed for:

Enhanced wiretapping and monitoring capabilities.

Access to business records and library information.

Increased authority for detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.

Critics argue that it has led to infringements on civil liberties and privacy rights, with insufficient oversight and checks on executive power.

Example: In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2001. The act greatly expanded the government’s surveillance powers, allowing the president and federal agencies to conduct extensive surveillance on American citizens and foreign nationals without traditional checks and balances.

Impact: The PATRIOT Act enhanced the executive branch’s ability to gather intelligence, conduct surveillance, and detain individuals suspected of terrorism, often bypassing regular judicial oversight. Presidents have since used these powers for domestic security purposes, expanding the role of the executive in national security matters.

Reference: Electronic Frontier Foundation – USA PATRIOT Act

3. Executive Orders and National Security Directives

Example: The use of executive orders by presidents to implement policies without congressional approval has increased over time. President Harry Truman famously issued Executive Order 10340 to seize control of the steel industry during the Korean War. Although this was later ruled unconstitutional, it marked an attempt by a president to unilaterally exert control over the domestic economy in the name of national security.

Modern Examples: More recently, President Barack Obama and Donald Trump expanded the use of executive orders in areas such as immigration policy (e.g., DACA and the Muslim travel ban).

Impact: Executive orders have become a tool for presidents to bypass Congress on controversial issues, thereby expanding the power of the presidency over domestic and foreign policy matters.

Reference: The American Presidency Project – Executive Orders

4. Post-9/11 Expansion of Presidential Power: Guantanamo Bay and Drone Strikes

Guantanamo Bay Detentions

Example: Following 9/11, President George W. Bush established the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, where individuals suspected of terrorism were held without charge or trial. The president used executive authority to establish a legal framework that bypassed traditional U.S. and international legal protections.

Impact: This expanded the president’s ability to detain individuals indefinitely without judicial oversight, setting a precedent for enhanced executive power in matters of national security.

Reference: Council on Foreign Relations – Guantanamo Bay

Targeted Killings and Drone Strikes

Example: Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama both expanded the use of drone strikes to target suspected terrorists overseas, often without congressional approval or judicial oversight. Obama, in particular, used drone strikes extensively in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

Impact: The use of drones and targeted killings represents a significant expansion of presidential power in conducting military operations and intelligence activities without direct accountability to Congress or the courts.

Reference: Brookings Institution – Drone Strikes

5. Domestic Executive Power: National Emergencies and Immigration

National Emergencies Act (1976)

Example: The National Emergencies Act allows the president to declare a national emergency, granting the executive branch extensive powers. Presidents have used this authority to bypass Congress on various issues, most recently by President Donald Trump to redirect military funds to build a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, despite Congress explicitly refusing to allocate funds for this purpose.

Impact: The broad discretion given to the president under this act has raised concerns about the abuse of executive power, as national emergencies can be declared with few checks.

Reference: Congressional Research Service – National Emergencies Act

References:

Dempsey, James X., and David Cole. “Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security.” New Press, 2006.

Link

Stone, Geoffrey R. “Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism.” W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.

Link

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). “USA PATRIOT Act.“

Legal Frameworks: The U.S. has fewer restrictions on government surveillance, with a stronger emphasis on national security, especially post-9/11. Europe, in contrast, emphasizes privacy protections through laws like GDPR and has more robust oversight mechanisms, although national security concerns have led to expanded surveillance powers in some countries.

Oversight and Transparency: European countries generally have stronger judicial and parliamentary oversight of surveillance practices compared to the U.S., where many surveillance activities are conducted under classified programs with limited public scrutiny.

Public Attitudes: Europeans tend to be more skeptical of government surveillance and more protective of privacy rights, influenced by historical experiences with state surveillance under authoritarian regimes. In the U.S., public opinion is more divided, with some prioritizing security over privacy.

Further Reading and References

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on U.S. Surveillance: EFF – Surveillance Issues

European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on GDPR: EDPS – GDPR Overview

Council of Europe – European Court of Human Rights and Surveillance: Council of Europe – ECHR Surveillance Cases

Incentives to Incarcerate: One of the most significant criticisms of prison privatization is that it creates financial incentives to increase incarceration rates. Private prison companies are often paid based on the number of inmates they house, leading to concerns that these companies may lobby for policies that result in higher incarceration rates, such as longer sentences and more stringent laws.

Impact on Sentencing: Some studies have suggested that the existence of private prisons correlates with longer sentences and more punitive measures, especially in states where private prisons are a significant part of the prison system.

Private prison companies have spent significant amounts of money lobbying for policies that would increase the prison population, such as mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws, and stricter immigration enforcement. This has contributed to the U.S.’s status as having one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

Impact on Minority Communities: Privatization has disproportionately impacted minority communities, which are already overrepresented in the U.S. prison system. The focus on incarceration for profit rather than rehabilitation or prevention exacerbates existing social inequalities.

Some states have taken steps to phase out contracts with private prison companies, and in 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order directing the Department of Justice to phase out the use of private prisons for federal inmates.

Here are some references that discuss how prison privatization creates financial incentives to increase incarceration rates:

In the Public Interest – “How Private Prison Companies Increase Incarceration” (2016)

Summary: This report details how private prison companies have a financial interest in maintaining high incarceration rates and how they use lobbying and political contributions to influence policies that result in more people being incarcerated.

Link: In the Public Interest – Private Prisons Report

The Sentencing Project – “Capitalizing on Mass Incarceration: U.S. Growth in Private Prisons” (2018)

Summary: This report from The Sentencing Project examines the growth of private prisons in the U.S. and how these institutions create incentives to increase incarceration rates, including through lobbying for tougher sentencing laws.

Link: The Sentencing Project – Private Prisons Report

Justice Policy Institute – “Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies” (2011)

Summary: This report discusses how private prison companies use their political influence to promote policies that lead to higher incarceration rates, thus benefiting their financial bottom line.

Link: Justice Policy Institute – Gaming the System Report

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – “Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration” (2011)

Summary: The ACLU’s report examines how private prisons profit from mass incarceration and the ways in which these companies influence public policy to increase their profits, often at the expense of public safety and human rights.

Link: ACLU – Banking on Bondage Report

“The Business of Punishment: Economic Interests and the Prison Industrial Complex” by Ruth Wilson Gilmore (2007)

Summary: In her book, Ruth Wilson Gilmore discusses the economic and political forces that drive the expansion of the prison-industrial complex, including how private prisons and related industries benefit from increasing incarceration rates.

Link: The Business of Punishment – Google Books

These references provide a comprehensive overview of how the privatization of prisons in the United States has created financial incentives to maintain or increase incarceration rates, leading to significant social and ethical concerns.