(单词翻译:单击)
Hi, I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics,
大家好，我是克雷格，这里是政府与政治速成班。
and today I'm gonna talk about an aspect of American elections that is probably most familiar to you,
今天我要讲的是美国选举中你们可能最熟悉的一个方面，
at least if you're an American and you sometimes watch TV, or look at the internet, or read a newspaper, or breathe air.
至少如果你是美国人，你有时会看电视、上网、看报或呼吸空气。
I'm talking about elections, which get a lot of attention here in the US, and on Crash Course, possibly because they present a relatively straight forward narrative, and it's easy for the media to cover.
我说的是在美国得到很多关注的选举，在速成课上，可能是因为它们呈现的是相对直接的叙事，媒体很容易报道。
But we're not going to focus on media coverage today.
但我们今天不打算关注媒体报道。
No, instead, we're going to look at why we have elections in the first place, and the institutions and procedures that structure the way elections work in America.
不，相反，我们要看看我们为什么要举行选举，以及美国选举运作的体制和程序。
We might even compare them to elections in other places, but I can't make any promises.
我们甚至可以把他们和其他地方的选举进行比较，但是我不能做出任何承诺。
Before we get into the nitty-gritty of how elections work in the U.S., it might be a good time to ask a question that rarely gets asked,
在我们进入美国选举运作的实质之前，这可能是问一个很少被问到的问题的好时机，
“Why do we have elections in the first place?”
“我们为什么要选举？”
A simple answer is, “Complexity.”
一个简单的答案是“复杂性”。
America's too big and complex to hold public referendums on individual issues, although some states, like California, try to do it.
美国太大、太复杂，无法就个别问题进行公众公投，尽管一些州，比如加州，试图这样做。
So, instead, we choose representatives.
所以，我们选择了代表。
In other words, we vote for people, not policies.
换句话说，我们投票给人民，而不是政策。
Elections are as good a system holding these representatives accountable as any.
选举是一个让这些代表负起责任的良好制度。
Well, at least they're better than violence or public shaming.
至少它们比暴力或公开羞辱要好。
Political scientists and economists have a more complicated way of describing this in terms of “adverse selection.”
政治学家和经济学家有一种更复杂的方式来描述这一点，即2“逆向选择”。
Because why would we want a simple answer when we have political scientists and economists around?
因为当我们身边有政治学家和经济学家的时候，为什么我们想要一个简单的答案?
Well, they gotta do something.
他们得做点什么。
Adverse selection is a problem that can arise when we make a choice but do not necessarily have all the information we need to make that choice.
逆向选择是当我们做出一个选择时可能会出现的问题，但我们不一定拥有做出这个选择所需的所有信息。
Kind of like when you buy a used car.
就像你买二手车一样。
Elections help to solve this problem because they are ideally competitive.
选举有助于解决这个问题，因为它们是理想的竞争。
The competition creates incentives for candidates to provide information about themselves and to make most of that information accurate since their opponent will call them out for any statements that are less than truthful.
竞争让候选人有动力提供信息并让大部分信息准确，因为会因任何不真实的陈述而受到竞争对手的指责。
At least, that's what we hope will happen.
至少，这是我们希望发生的。
Elections also supposedly make candidates more accountable since they provide voters a chance to get rid of bad actors.
选举也应该使候选人更负责任，因为他们为选民提供了一个摆坏演员的机会。
Of course, this only works when elections are competitive, and, as we'll see in a later episode, many elections in the U.S. really aren't.
当然，这只适用于竞争激烈的选举，我们将在后面的章节中看到，美国的许多选举实际上并不是这样。
You might think that since elections are so important to our politics that they would be featured prominently in the Constitution, but yeah, no.
你可能会认为，既然选举对我们的政治如此重要，它们将在宪法中占据重要地位，但事实并非如此。
The Constitution does set up a few basic guidelines that structure American elections,
宪法确实为美国选举制定了一些基本准则，
but most of the important rules that define the way elections are carried out come out of state laws, legal decisions, and local administrative practices.
但是，定义选举方式的大多数重要规则来自州法律、法律决定和地方行政惯例。
So what does the Constitution say about elections?
那么宪法对选举有什么规定呢？
Not a lot, as it turns out, except when it comes to choosing the president.
事实证明，除了在选择总统的时候，并不是很多。
President just gets everything...
总统什么都有……
President's so important.
总统如此重要。
The Constitution does lay out the qualifications for running for federal office--which we already when over in our episodes on Congress and the President –
宪法确实规定了竞选联邦政府职位的条件——我们在国会和总统节目中已经提到过了
and it describes the number of Representatives and Senators.
它描述了众议员和参议员的人数。
But mostly the Constitution leaves elections up to the states.
但大多数情况下，宪法将选举留给各州。
Article 1, Section 4 says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof;
第1条第4款说：“参议员和众议员的选举时间、地点和方式由各州立法机关规定。
but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
但是，国会可以在任何时候通过法律制定或修改这些规定，但参议员的选举地点除外。”
And the Constitution was later changed to allow for direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, so that last clause doesn't matter so much anymore.
后来宪法被修改为允许参议员的直接选举通过了第十七修正案，所以最后一条已经不那么重要了。
The Constitution does say more about the way the President is chosen indirectly through the Electoral College,
宪法确实对总统是如何通过选举团间接选出的有更多的规定，
but the framers messed that up so badly that they had to amend the Constitution after the election of 1800.
但是制宪者把事情搞得一团糟，他们不得不在1800年选举后修改宪法。
The Twelfth Amendment, which basically means that the President and Vice-President come from the same political party -- although it doesn't actually say that -- fixed the electoral process.
第十二修正案，基本上意味着总统和副总统来自同一个政党——尽管它并没有这么说——修正了选举过程。
So now it's flawless.
所以现在它是完美的。
But it's still indirect and the qualifications for the electors who choose the president are still left up to the states.
但这仍然是间接的，选择总统的选举人的资格仍然取决于各州。
Some Constitutional amendments also help to structure American elections.
一些宪法修正案也有助于构建美国的选举。
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment outlawed poll taxes, which made it easier for poor people to vote, and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowered the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen.
第24修正案宣布人头税为非法，这使得穷人更容易投票，第26修正案将投票年龄从21岁降低到18岁。
In general, when Congress addresses voting issues, it's to try to expand the pool of voters.
一般来说，当国会处理投票问题时，是为了扩大选民的范围。
Although the Constitution doesn't specify when elections happen, it does give Congress the power to do so, and it requires that the day on which the electors choose the president has to be one single day.
虽然宪法没有明确规定什么时候举行选举，但它赋予国会这样做的权力，并要求选举人选择总统的日子必须是一天。
This is in Article Two: “The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes;
第二条规定:“大会可以决定选举选举人的时间和他们投票的日期;
which day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
这一天在全美国都是一样的。”
Congressional laws also help structure elections by making them more fair.
国会的法律也通过使选举更加公平来帮助组织选举。
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 set up a number of systems to increase voter participation by minority groups, especially African Americans.
1965年的《选举权法》建立了一系列制度，以增加少数群体，特别是非洲裔美国人的投票参与。
And Congress also set up the Federal Election Commission, which has some say over elections.
国会还成立了联邦选举委员会，对选举有一定的发言权。
I'll tell you who should never be allowed to vote: eagles!
我要告诉你谁永远不应该被允许投票:老鹰!
You're gerrymandered out of here.
你被不公正地划分出去了。
But generally, following the Constitution, most aspects of elections are under the control of the states.
但总的来说，根据宪法，选举的大多数方面都在各州的控制之下。
State laws define how candidates are nominated and get on the ballot, and they can influence the operation of political parties.
各州法律规定了候选人的提名和投票方式，它们可以影响政党的运作。
State laws also determine registration requirements for voting and set up the location and hours of polling places, which vary a lot from state to state.
州法律还规定了投票的登记要求，并规定了投票地点和时间，各州的情况各不相同。
Probably most important for federal elections, state decide the boundaries of Congressional election districts, although not the number of representatives each state has, which is determined by the state's population.
也许对联邦选举最重要的是，州决定国会选区的边界，尽管不是每个州有多少代表，而是由州的人口决定的。
We'll talk more about election districts in a future episode.
我们将在以后的章节中更多地讨论选区。
That's what gerrymandering has to do with.
这就是不公正划分选区的原因。
Remember when I gerrymandered the eagle?
还记得我不公正地给老鹰估价的时候吗?
Yeah, that's a preview for what's coming.
是的，这是对即将发生的事情的预演。
Although this is not always true in every case, as a general rule of thumb, the federal government is more likely to pass laws that expand voting,
虽然并非所有情况都是这样，但一般来说，联邦政府更有可能通过扩大投票的法律，
and states are the government that restrict voting, especially through registration requirements and taking the vote away from people convicted of felonies.
各州都是政府，限制投票，尤其是通过登记要求和剥夺重罪罪犯的投票权。
One important aspect of American elections that has been set up by state laws is the way that winners have been decided.
根据各州法律，美国选举的一个重要方面是决定获胜者的方式。
We like to say that in America, majority rules.
我们喜欢说，在美国，多数决定一切。
But for the most part, this isn't really true, at least as far as elections are concerned.
但在大多数情况下，这并不是真的，至少就选举而言是这样。
In most states, and in most elections, we follow the Plurality Rule, and this has important consequences for American politics.
在大多数州，在大多数选举中，我们遵循多数原则，这对美国政治有着重要的影响。
Let's go the Thought Bubble.
让我们进入思想泡泡。
Under the Plurality Rule, the candidate with the most votes wins.
根据简单多数原则，得票最多的候选人获胜。
The number does not have to be a majority, and the more candidates in the race, the less likely anyone will get the majority.
这个数字不一定是多数，而且参加竞选的候选人越多，获得多数的可能性就越小。
Suppose your election has four candidates: A, B, C, and D.
假设你的选举有四个候选人:A、B、C和D。
Candidate A gets 20% of the vote, Candidate B gets 30%, candidate C gets 25%, and Candidate D also gets 25%.
候选人A得到20%的选票，候选人B得到30%，候选人C得到25%，候选人D也得到25%。
That should add up to 100%.
加起来应该是100%。
It does? Thank goodness!
确实是吗？谢谢上帝！
Okay, so no one has a majority here, so who wins?
好吧，没人占多数，谁赢了?
Candidate B, of course, because she has the most votes, 30%.
候选人B，当然，因为她拥有最多的选票，30%。
Now you'll notice something about this election that may be a bit of a paradox: the significant majority of voters in this election, 70% in fact, have chosen Not B.
现在你会注意到关于这次选举的一些事情，这可能有点自相矛盾:在这次选举中，绝大多数选民，实际上是70%，选择的不是B。
Yet, B is that one that wins.
然而，B才是赢家。
This is why we need to be very careful when we say that majority rules, because in many cases, it doesn't.
这就是为什么当我们说多数决定原则的时候，我们需要非常小心，因为在很多情况下，它并没有。
But in some cases, it does.
但在某些情况下，确实如此。
Some states do have a majority rule in their elections.
有些州在选举中确实实行多数决定。
In these states, if no candidate gets more than 50% plus 1 of the vote, then the top two vote-getters go on to what's called a run-off election.
在这些州，如果没有候选人获得超过50%的选票加上1张选票，那么得票最多的两名候选人将进行决选。
In this second election, you almost always get a majority.
在第二次选举中，你几乎总是获得多数。
In many cases, we also say that American elections are “Winner take all.”
在许多情况下，我们也说美国的选举是“赢家通吃”。
This is the case in forty-eight out of fifty states when it comes to electoral votes.
在50个州中有48个州的选举人票就是这种情况。
What this means is that the winner of the election gets 100% of the state's electoral votes, even though it's likely they wouldn't have carried 100% of the votes.
这意味着选举的获胜者获得了全州100%的选举人票，即使他们很可能没有获得100%的选票。
It is possible for a state to decide to award its electoral delegates proportionately, based on the percentage of votes that a candidate receives,
一个州有可能根据候选人获得的选票的百分比，决定按比例授予其选举代表，
or even by electoral district, although the latter rule causes some problems, as we'll see in another episode.
甚至按选区划分，尽管后者的规则会引起一些问题，我们将在另一集中看到。
Thanks, Thought Bubble.
谢谢思想泡泡。
So, the Plurality Rule can result in the majority of people being represented by someone they voted against.
所以，简单多数原则可以导致大多数人由他们投票反对的人代表。
This seems like a bad system, so why do we have it?
这似乎是一个糟糕的系统，那么为什么我们会有它呢?
The main reason is efficiency.
主要原因是效率。
Under plurality rule, you get a definite winner that you might not have under a majority rule.
在多数原则下，你会得到一个明确的赢家，而在多数原则下你可能没有。
It also allows for a greater variety of candidates to win, at least potentially.
它还允许更多的候选人获胜，至少是潜在的。
And it has one key result for America's political system: it pretty much ensures that we will only have two viable political parties.
这对美国的政治体系有一个关键的结果:它几乎确保我们只有两个可行的政党。
The concept that plurality rules create two-party systems is explained by something called Duverger's Law.
多元化规则创造两党制的概念可以用杜瓦杰法则来解释。
Here's how it works.
它是这样工作的。
Imagine political parties on a continuum from extreme right to extreme left.
想象一下，政党处于从极右到极左的连续统一体。
Most voters will not fall into either extreme, so the masses of party followers will coalesce around the center-right and center-left.
大多数选民不会陷入任何一种极端，因此，该党的大批追随者将围绕中右翼和中左翼团结起来。
In these conditions, there's no incentive to form a third party because it's likely to take votes away from the centrist party, and thus throw the election to the other party.
在这种情况下，没有形成第三个政党的动机，因为它可能会从中间派政党那里夺走选票，从而把选举结果投给另一个政党。
Let's say that you're on the right of the political spectrum.
假设你在政治光谱的右边。
You like the ideas of the center right party, but you think they're a little bit weak, and you'd like to see someone speak up more for your right-most ideas.
你喜欢中右翼政党的观点，但你认为他们有点软弱，你希望看到有人为你最正确的观点大声疾呼。
You could vote for the candidate whose ideology and policies are more to your liking, but they're not likely to win.
你可以把票投给你更喜欢他的意识形态和政策的候选人，但他们不太可能赢。
Remember, most people prefer center-right ideas over extreme-right ideas.
记住，大多数人更喜欢中间偏右的观点，而不是极端偏右的观点。
That's why they're extreme.
这就是他们极端的原因。
So, the candidate you would most like to support isn't going to win,
所以，你最支持的候选人不会赢，
but what's worse for you is that by voting for them, you take away votes from the candidate you partially agree with.
但是，对你来说，更糟的是，把票投给他们，就等于把你部分同意的候选人的票拿走了。
Since people know that third-parties almost never win, we're left with only two parties in the U.S.
由于人们知道第三方政党几乎永远不会获胜，我们在美国只剩下两个政党
Now, Duverger's Law is important for political scientists, and it explains broadly why we have two parties,
现在，迪维尔热定律对政治学家很重要，它大致解释了为什么我们有两个政党，
but a look at American politics in the second decade of the twentieth century suggests that parties are more extreme than the model would lead us to believe.
但看看20世纪第二个十年的美国政治，就会发现，政党比我们想象的要极端得多。
The polarization of parties is the subject of another episode on the composition of parties and how they reflect political ideologies.
政党两极化是关于政党构成及其如何反映政治意识形态的另一章的主题。
But for now, it's still useful to understand how elections themselves work to shape the party system we have in the U.S.
但就目前而言，了解选举本身如何塑造我们美国的政党体系仍然是有用的
This is what we sometimes call a structural or institutional view of politics, and it's the kind of thing political scientists really, really like.
这就是我们有时所说的政治的结构性或制度性观点，这是政治学家非常非常喜欢的东西。
We'll look closely at the actual political parties and who votes for which one in other episodes.
我们将在其他章节中仔细研究实际的政党以及谁会投谁的票。
But I hope we've provided a little bit of insight into how elections work in the U.S.
但我希望我们已经提供了一些关于美国选举如何运作的见解。
Thanks for watching.
感谢观看。
See you next time.
下次见。
Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
政府与政治速成班是与PBS数字工作室联合制作的。
Support for Crash Course U.S. Government comes from Voqal.
对美国政府速成班的支持来自Voqal。
Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Voqal支持使用技术和媒体促进社会公平的非营利组织。
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at voqal.org.
更多关于他们的使命和倡议，请访问voqal.org。
Crash Course was made with the help of this plurality of people.
速成班是在这群人的帮助下完成的。
Thanks for watching!
谢谢收看！
