History of elections The history of democracy traces back to Athens to its re-emergence and rise from the 17th

century to the present day. According to one definition, democracy is a political system in which all the members of the society have an equal share of formal political power. In modern representative democracy, this formal equality is embodied primarily in the right to vote.

Antiquity
[edit] Before-historic origins
Although it is generally believed that the concepts of democracy and constitution were created in one particular place and time identified as Ancient Athens circa 508 BCi[] there is evidence to suggest that democratic forms of government, in a broad sense, may have existed in several areas of the world well before the turn of the 5th century.[1] Within this broad sense it is plausible to assume that democracy in one form or another arises naturally in any well-bonded group, such as a tribe. This is tribalism or primitive democracy. A primitive democracy is identified in small communities or villages when the following take place: face-to-face discussion in the village council or a headman whose decisions are supported by village elders or other cooperative modes of government.[2] Nevertheless, on larger scale sharper contrasts arise when the village and the city are examined as political communities. In urban governments, all other forms of rule monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, and oligarchy have flourished.[1]

[edit] Proto-democratic societies

In recent decades scholars have explored the push that advancements toward democratic government occurred somewhere else (i.e. other than Greece) first, as Greece developed its complex social and political institutions long after the appearance of the earliest civilizations in Egypt and the Near East.[3] [edit] Mesopotamia

The tablet containing the epic of Gilgamesh.

Thorkild Jacobsen has studied the pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia and uses Sumerian epic, myth and historical records to identify what he calls primitive democracy. By this he means a government in which ultimate power rests with the mass of free male citizens, although "the various functions of government are as yet little specialized, the power structure is loose". In the early period of Sumer, kings such as Gilgamesh did not hold the autocratic power which later Mesopotamia rulers wielded. Rather, major city-states had a council of elders and a council of "young men" (likely to be comprised by free men bearing arms) that possessed the final political authority, and had to be consulted on all major issues such as war.[4][5] This pioneering work, while constantly cited, has invoked little serious discussion and less outright acceptance. The criticism from other scholars focuses on the use of the word "democracy", since the same evidence also can be interpreted convincingly to demonstrate a power struggle between primitive monarchs and the nobility, a struggle in which the common people act more as pawns than the sovereign authority.[6] Jacobsen concedes that the vagueness of the evidence prohibits the separation between the Mesopotamian democracy from a primitive oligarchy Antiquity [edit] Before-historic origins Although it is generally believed that the concepts of democracy and constitution were created in one particular place and time identified as Ancient Athens circa 508 BCi[] there is evidence to suggest that democratic forms of government, in a broad sense, may have existed in several areas of the world well before the turn of the 5th century.[1] Within this broad sense it is plausible to assume that democracy in one form or another arises naturally in any well-bonded group, such as a tribe. This is tribalism or primitive democracy. A primitive democracy is identified in small communities or villages when the following take place: face-to-face discussion in the village council or a headman whose decisions are supported by village elders or other cooperative modes of government.[2] Nevertheless, on larger scale sharper contrasts arise when the village and the city are examined as political communities. In urban governments, all other forms of rule monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, and oligarchy have flourished.[1] [edit] Proto-democratic societies In recent decades scholars have explored the push that advancements toward democratic government occurred somewhere else (i.e. other than Greece) first, as Greece developed its complex social and political institutions long after the appearance of the earliest civilizations in Egypt and the Near East.[3] [edit] Mesopotamia The tablet containing the epic of Gilgamesh.

Thorkild Jacobsen has studied the pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia and uses Sumerian epic, myth and historical records to identify what he calls primitive democracy. By this he means a government in which ultimate power rests with the mass of free male citizens, although "the various functions of government are as yet little specialized, the power structure is loose". In the early period of Sumer, kings such as Gilgamesh did not hold the autocratic power which later Mesopotamia rulers wielded. Rather, major city-states had a council of elders and a council of "young men" (likely to be comprised by free men bearing arms) that possessed the final political authority, and had to be consulted on all major issues such as war.[4][5] This pioneering work, while constantly cited, has invoked little serious discussion and less outright acceptance. The criticism from other scholars focuses on the use of the word "democracy", since the same evidence also can be interpreted convincingly to demonstrate a power struggle between primitive monarchs and the nobility, a struggle in which the common people act more as pawns than the sovereign authority.[6] Jacobsen concedes that the vagueness of the evidence prohibits the separation between the Mesopotamian democracy from a primitive oligarchy On this day in 1789, America's first presidential election is held. Voters cast ballots to choose state electors; only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. As expected, George Washington won the election and was sworn into office on April 30, 1789. As it did in 1789, the United States still uses the Electoral College system, established by the U.S. Constitution, which today gives all American citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote for electors, who in turn vote for the president. The president and vice president are the only elected federal officials chosen by the Electoral College instead of by direct popular vote. Today political parties usually nominate their slate of electors at their state conventions or by a vote of the party's central state committee, with party loyalists often being picked for the job. Members of the U.S. Congress, though, cant be electors. Each state is allowed to choose as many electors as it has senators and representatives in Congress. The District of Columbia has 3 electors. During a presidential election year, on Election Day (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November), the electors from the party that gets the most popular votes are elected in a winner-take-all-system, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, which allocate electors proportionally. In order to win the presidency, a candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes out of a possible 538. On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December of a presidential election year, each state's electors meet, usually in their state capitol, and simultaneously cast their ballots nationwide. This is largely ceremonial: Because electors nearly always vote with their party, presidential elections are essentially decided on Election Day. Although electors aren't constitutionally mandated to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state, it is demanded by tradition and required by law in 26 states and the District of Columbia (in some states, violating this rule is punishable by $1,000 fine). Historically, over 99 percent of all electors have cast their ballots in line with the voters. On January 6, as a formality, the electoral votes are counted before Congress and on January 20, the commander in chief is sworn into office. Critics of the Electoral College argue that the winner-take-all system makes it possible for a candidate to be elected president even if he gets fewer popular votes than his opponent. This happened in the elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000. However, supporters contend that if the

Electoral College were done away with, heavily populated states such as California and Texas might decide every election and issues important to voters in smaller states would be ignored.