Some Civics (Not Honda!)

First, let’s look briefly and superficially at what other democracies have for governments. Now remember, I said superficially. Most other nations have either an elected president or a hereditary monarch as “head of state.” These folks have many ceremonial functions, which may vary from country to country, but usually they have little real power, except that they have a certain not easily measured power to garner public attention to certain issues, if they so choose; after all, if he/she is a president, he/she has been elected by having their own name on the ballot and by a vote of the entire country. If he/she is a monarch, the prestige and tradition of the throne can be used as an asset, although in many cases, the monarch has the power to ask for new elections to the representative body of the nation.

These countries also have a “head of the government,” called variously a premier, prime minister, or chancellor, depending upon the country. This person is in charge of running the actual government on a day-to-day basis. “Usually” they are the head of a major political party, and they become the head of the government because their political party gained a majority of seats in their national legislature, or because their party and one or more other parties have formed a coalition giving this group a majority of seats in the legislative body. Technically, this “prime minister” (I’ll use that term, which is what is used in Britain) was not elected by a vote of the entire nation, as his/her name was not on the ballot for such a position, although in many, if not most, cases, the public is aware who will become prime minister depending upon which party wins a majority of the legislative seats.

So how are we different? Our president combines “head of state,” AND “head of the government.” Further, in a certain way, the president also carries a bit of a monarch with him, as he has the tradition of respect Americans show toward the presidency behind him. Like a typical prime minister, he is also the head of his political party, but unlike a prime minister, a president does not need his political party, or even some coalition, to have a majority of seats in either house of Congress, and it has not been uncommon for a president's party not to have a majority in one or both houses during a presidential term. (Notice I've used "he/him" in reference to presidents, since we have not yet had a woman president.)

In many other countries, there are a multitude of political parties on the ballot competing for seats in the national legislature, or for local offices. In America, we have tended to have two major political parties on the ballot, although other parties are not banned from offering candidates. On occasion, we even have candidates for a particular office calling themselves “independents;” with the implication being that they have no formal political party backing them. Most of our election laws vary somewhat from state to state, with the national law endeavoring to give each citizen access to vote. As such, how “minor” political parties get candidates on the ballot for just about any office depends on the state, and in many states, it can be difficult. That doesn’t mean it never happens, even with the presidency, as vibrant “third party”*** candidates have made appearances, if not always on a truly national basis; that is, on all fifty state ballots and D.C., at least on many state ballots. (See more below)

Our national legislature, Congress, is bicameral; that is, it has two branches, which we call “houses.” First, the House of Representatives is made up of 435 elected representatives, each representing “approximately” the same number of residents (determined by the Census). The Senate is made up of 100 senators, two from each of the fifty states. I dare say that many, if not most, Americans little realize that senators have only been elected by a vote of the people for about a hundred years. Previously, senators were appointed to office by the states.

Our presidential elections are more complicated than most Americans realize, I’m sure. Presidents are NOT directly elected by a vote of the people; that is, in your library club election, “Candidate A” received 100 votes and “Candidate B” received 90 votes, therefore, “Candidate A” is elected president of the library club. U.S. presidential candidates actually compete in fifty separate state elections, and in the District of Columbia, although there is NO requirement that they be on all fifty-one ballots. There are now some variations in states, but usually, if “Candidate A” gets more votes than “Candidate B” in Virginia, “Candidate A” gets all of Virginia’s electoral votes. ^^^ A state’s number of electoral votes is determined by the number of congressional representatives, plus the two senators; this is called “The Electoral College” in popular terminology (since the early 1800s), but the Constitution refers simply to "electors."@@@. Technically, when you go and vote for a president, you are voting for that candidate's electors. This is where candidates from other parties, other than Republican or Democratic, may have a more typical impact, at times. In a close election, minor party candidates can take enough votes from a major party candidate to give a state’s electoral votes to the other candidate, and on some occasions, a “third party” candidate may be so strong in a state, that THEY actually win the popular vote there, thus giving them the state’s electoral votes.

I suppose we all “get our backs up” at times, and we want our “views of the moment” represented by a candidate espousing the same or similar views. Now, here is some opinion: Our two party system has essentially been effective. When it falters, a major “third party” challenge usually scares the hell out of one party, or both parties, and the situation comes back into some balance, as the two major parties compete to get those “third party” votes in the next election. The key is, neither of the major parties becomes so rigid for very long in its beliefs that it commits political suicide by excluding Americans with contrary views on any given issue. Some small political parties and "candidates of the moment" have complained that getting onto many state ballots is too difficult, but in my opinion, it should be difficult, and here's why: other countries at times have so many different political parties on the ballot, and the vote is therefore so splintered, that governing the country becomes difficult, if not impossible, and the government falls and new elections take place. Since the end of World War Two, Italy, for instance, has had more governments formed than Elizabeth Taylor has had husbands…well, at last count, anyway! Our strength has been that our representatives often try to compromise. I didn’t say always!

*** While usually referred to as “third party” candidates in the media, actually there are usually far more than candidates from three parties represented on ballots for president. The “third party” tag is used to simplify things, usually based upon public opinion polls showing a candidate (not running as a Republican or a Democrat) getting more than just a percentage point or two.

@@@ This system of "electors" was formed by the Founding Fathers to give a balance between big states and small states. This was the same basic idea about giving each state two senators, it was based upon some kind of balance between the states, since large population states would have more representatives in the House of Representatives, which is based upon population, but each state would have equal representation in the Senate. Thus, if big states got things that benefited them through the House, the Senate was there to try to level the playing field. Remember, these ideas were developed in the late 1700s, when such matters were very significant. It seems to have worked, as this issue is seldom a major concern.

^^^ There is no requirement that “electors” must vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote, but it is relatively rare for deviation from this, and most electors pledge to vote for the candidate who wins their state's popular vote. Each state sets the rules for how electors are chosen, but essentially each "qualified" political party has a list of “electors,” so if a Republican wins state “XYZ,” only a very disgruntled Republican elector would not vote for the actual party candidate.

Word History:
Sullen-This word came into usage in English during the second half of the 1500s. It comes from a Middle English word "soleyn, which was derived from Anglo-Norman "solein," which came from Old French "soul/sol," which meant "single, alone." This came from Latin "solus," which had the same meaning. In English, the idea of being alone/solitary, led to "downhearted, morose due to being alone, or on one's own." Where Latin got "solus," is uncertain, but there seem to be strong feelings that it was derived from Latin "se," which meant "oneself/himself," which goes back to the Indo European root "so/swo."