masterblaster72 0 #26 April 27, 2006 QuoteAnd with these cartograms, you see EXACTLY the reason for the electoral college. The founders of the Constitution believed that population centers could exert too much control over the vast spaces of America that were sparsely populated, but no less important. It was an attempt to equalize the mix to prevent the Wyomings and Dakotas of the nation from handng over all policy decisions to the New Yorks and Los Angeleses of the county. The maps show how an effort was made to make sure that the little piss-ant states still have some say. I think the founding fathers got it wrong here. I think having the Senate is enough -- two senators for Wyoming, and two senators for NY? Yes, there is the House, but nothing from the House gets effected without the Senate's approval. So in the end, a Wyoming podunk vote carries more weight than an urban vote. Then, on top of that, there's the electoral college which takes that same concept to the executive level. I think the founding fathers overdid it a bit on trying to get the rural areas represented "fairly." If it were up to me, I'd propose an amendment to the constitution and eliminate the electoral college for presidential elections. As far as red vs. blue states go, I think this is an entertaining read. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 April 27, 2006 QuoteWyoming podunk Certainly anyone not from a metro area of at least 5 million isn't even qualified to wipe their own ass. Let alone vote on issues that affect everybody in the country. Bunch of ignorant farmer wannabees.... Why don't they just sit in their houses and let the sophistimuhcated city folks do their thinking for them. That'll leave more time for the rural subhumans to muck about in the dirt sorting clods from lumps from rocks. stupid podunks ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #28 April 27, 2006 Wyoming podunk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Hey do they have a Turbine DZ there????? Lets get the IMPORTANT factors here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #29 April 27, 2006 Quotetwo senators for Wyoming, and two senators for NY? Yes, there is the House, but nothing from the House gets effected without the Senate's approval. So in the end, a Wyoming podunk vote carries more weight than an urban vote. Well, take a look at the electoral college votes. Wyoming has three - because it's got two Senators and only one respresentative. California has 55. To look at it this way, a candidate can win Alaska (3), Delaware (3), D.C. (3), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Vermont (3), Wyoming (3), Rhode Island (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), Idaho (4), Hawaii (4), Nebraska (5) and Nevada (5), and still have 4 less electoral votes than winning California would give. Now, how is that unfair? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #30 April 27, 2006 QuoteHey do they have a Turbine DZ there????? Lets get the IMPORTANT factors here. quiet you Washington doesn't have either New York nor LA nor Chicago in that state, therefore any opinions you have are just the ignorant ramblings of another 'podunk' from nowhere...... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #31 April 27, 2006 Quote Now, how is that unfair? "Fresno is the county seat of Fresno County in the U.S. State of California. Estimates by the California Department of Finance (2005) approximate a city population of 464,727 and a metropolitan area of 1,002,284" Fresno - Sorry, only 1 million people. Can't hear you. Go back to tending your hogs and dirt farms. Podunk little city. It's people like you, you know, with "opinions" based on pissy little rural values that are ruining the country for 'real' people from highly concentrated urbans areas. You should just take your rural religious zealot so-called 'values' and go live in New York or some place and learn about reality. (Sorry, is that over the top?) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #32 April 27, 2006 QuoteWell, take a look at the electoral college votes. Wyoming has three - because it's got two Senators and only one respresentative. California has 55. To look at it this way, a candidate can win Alaska (3), Delaware (3), D.C. (3), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Vermont (3), Wyoming (3), Rhode Island (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), Idaho (4), Hawaii (4), Nebraska (5) and Nevada (5), and still have 4 less electoral votes than winning California would give. Now, how is that unfair? Maybe because those states collectively have fewer people than California. And by what odd fiction would one say a count of STATES is more important than a count of PEOPLE? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #33 April 27, 2006 WE have the Whole Olympia to Everett Megopolis that contans Tacoma -Seattle. Rank is 14th in Population http://www.demographia.com/db-metmic2004.pdf Uh actually Blue Skies in Bremerton has a Turbine C-207.. Northwest Skydivers in Mt Vernon.. new.. has a kick ass FAST porter...that has -27 in it and a new one is on the way with a -34 and Kapowsin.. now at Shelton WA..... has a Super Otter with twin -34 Snohomish leases a caravan from Kapowsin in the summer.... And Davenport.. West Plains has a Caravan..... Not too bad for a podunk Blue State huh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #34 April 27, 2006 >And by what odd fiction would one say a count of STATES is more >important than a count of PEOPLE? By the same "fiction" the Senate uses, I suppose. Some ol' rag in a museum somewhere said that states, not people, get equal representation in that house of government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #35 April 27, 2006 QuoteNot too bad for a podunk Blue State huh Just another example of the podunk little states getting "uppity" If you know what I mean ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #36 April 27, 2006 Quote>And by what odd fiction would one say a count of STATES is more important than a count of PEOPLE? By the same "fiction" the Senate uses, I suppose. Some ol' rag in a museum somewhere said that states, not people, get equal representation in that house of government. I wasn't asking if the procedure is outlined in an old document. I was asking if it was WISE. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #37 April 27, 2006 Quote>And by what odd fiction would one say a count of STATES is more >important than a count of PEOPLE? By the same "fiction" the Senate uses, I suppose. Some ol' rag in a museum somewhere said that states, not people, get equal representation in that house of government. Historically, that's true. Of course The Rag is not perfect, and its imperfections can be addressed by the amendment process. For example, it's the same Rag that counted Black slaves as three-fifths of a person: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States . . . "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #38 April 27, 2006 >I wasn't asking if the procedure is outlined in an old document. Ah, sorry, I thought you were asking if it was based on a fiction, which it isn't. I think there are pluses and minuses to the system we have now. One plus is that it emphasizes the importance of states over people, and I think there is a lot to be said for moving power from the federal government to the state level. Your local government should be the most important factor in your life, then the state government, then the federal. Nowadays, sadly, that's reversed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterblaster72 0 #39 April 27, 2006 QuoteWell, take a look at the electoral college votes. Wyoming has three - because it's got two Senators and only one respresentative. California has 55. To look at it this way, a candidate can win Alaska (3), Delaware (3), D.C. (3), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Vermont (3), Wyoming (3), Rhode Island (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), Idaho (4), Hawaii (4), Nebraska (5) and Nevada (5), and still have 4 less electoral votes than winning California would give. Now, how is that unfair? Unfair because a candidate can receive the majority of popular votes and still lose, look at 2000. I don't want or care to get into a discussion about the 2000 election, just pointing out an example of where I think the electoral college idea goes wrong. My idea is that all votes should be equal, and in this system, some votes are apparently more equal than others. And rehmwa -- if it makes you feel better to twist my Wyoming podunk comment to make an urban elitist snob out of me (if you knew me in the least you'd realize I am not at all), then good for you. My point is that a rural vote carries more weight than an urban vote in respect to the 2000 election and Senate policymaking. Again, I think all votes should have equal weight, no matter where people are from. If anything, the system's design implies a certain superiority on the part of rural voters rather than urban. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #40 April 27, 2006 QuoteAnd by what odd fiction would one say a count of STATES is more important than a count of PEOPLE? A count of the PEOPLE would invoke a parliamentary system. Instead of Sentators representing states, the whole of the people could vote for a senate in a regular cucle by voting for a party. Then, the party hierarchy could appoint the Senators. A point that most people don't know is that "the People" didn't vote for Senators until 1913 - less than 100 years ago! Way back yonder before the days of "Progress," the US was considered a Union of States. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution said, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof)..." Now, that part in parentheses was superceded by the 17th Amendment, which took the power to select Senators from the legislatures OF THE STATES and gave that power to the people OF THE STATES. WHy not have the country elect senators or representatives? Maybe because Massachussetts pinkos don't want some mullet-headed trailer-living redneck having any say in who speaks for them. It turns out that the founders thought that in electing a president, what was best for "The Country" should be a primary consideration. Rather than find a President who is easily electable by the Northeast elite, perhaps we want somebody who can get some votes out there in the West. I mean, in New York in 1812, you'd want a guy who knew shipping. He'd be a great guy to protect the interests of the northeast. Screw those homesteading cowboys! But those homesteaders (yes, even the Mormons) should be able to hav SOME say in the election. It's a system designed to keep ALL interests represented, at least somewhat. The population centers have more say than those that are not populace. (A candidate could win the presidency by taking: 1) California (55); 2) Florida (27); 3) Texas (34); 4) New York (31); 5) Pennsylvania (21); 6) Ohio (20); 7) Illinois (21); 8) Michigan (17); 9) Georgia (15); 10) North Carolina (15); and 11) New Jersey (15). Thus, a president can LOSE 39 states and still WIN the election, because of the built-in bigotry against the less populace states. It's a compromise that gives the population centers MORE weight that the less populace places, but still gives the sparcely populated regions some say. As an aside, do you realize that Bush got 5.5 million votes in California in 2004? That was more than Bush got in Florida, which he won. That was more than Bush got in Texas, which he won. That was more than Kerry got in New York, which Kerry won. Therefore, Bush's 5.5 million California votes didn't count. It's the way the game was designed. I personally like the system. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #41 April 27, 2006 QuoteAnd rehmwa -- if it makes you feel better Nah, it's just good fun. You're alright. If a bit of an urbanite elitist centrist (but not a snob). And politics stills caters to the large urban areas, so even if the setup might support what you are saying in theory, in practice, I doubt it comes close to balancing out the real effect that the large urban areas get catered to the most in policy making. (Whoops, LawRocket said it better) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #42 April 27, 2006 QuoteUnfair because a candidate can receive the majority of popular votes and still lose, look at 2000. How is that unfair? It would be unfair if the system was set up to give the candidate winning the popular vote the presidency, except after the popular vote was tallied in 2000, they decided to do something different. The rules of the game were known. The campaigns strategized it that way. Bush didn't spend much time in Cali because he knew it was a lost cause - maybe he could have gotten an extra 500k votes in Cali had he been there more. But it wouldn't have helped him, so knowing the rules, he didn't bother with it. That's FAIR. He made his choice. Another example? In Super Bowl XL, the Seahawks led the Steelers in most staistical categories: 1) total yards; 2) passing was dominant; 3) turnovers; 4) Time of Possession; 5) First downs. That's not fair when a team that the stats showed kicked the other team's ass lost. The Steelers were outplayed that game. But the score was Seahawks 10, Steelers 21. A fairly convincing score. The rule has always been that the team that scores the most points win. In presidential elections, the rule has always been that the candidate with the most electoral votes wins. Popular vote is like first downs or total yards - it doesn't matter in the end. It's fair when everyone knows the rules, okay? If my goal is to get the most yards for my team, and I do it, I may not have won the game. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #43 April 27, 2006 QuoteThe last map might not have much relevance to today's world, but interestingly , what were once the slave states now vote Republican, and what were once the "free" states now vote Democrat. This is ironic, because in 1860 it was the Democratic party that was pro-slavery & represented the South, and it was the Republican part (under Lincoln) that represented the North (mostly). Upon first glance you'd think that the Union was very open and the south was racist. BS! BS then, BS now. The South was pro slave more for economics reasons than racial attitudes. The North was anything but a racial equal opportunity place. They were free states simply because their economics didn't depend on slave labor. They were/are as racist as anyone, with exception to abolitionist which resided in all states, free and slave IMHO steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterblaster72 0 #44 April 27, 2006 Quotethe large urban areas get catered to the most in policy making Not sure what you mean by getting catered to, but if you mean funding, then have a look at this. Seems to me that less populous areas get catered to quite well in regard to funding... Lawrocket, I see your points, but I'm defining fairness in terms of voting equality, not by whether the rules of the game are known. To me, the Senate solves the problem of potential unfair skewing in policymaking toward the urban population; I don't think the same idea should extend to the presidential elections. Again, I think the design of the electoral system weighs in favor of the rural vote. I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this -- QuoteIt would be unfair if the system was set up to give the candidate winning the popular vote the presidency How would a numerical majority of votes be unfair? In that case, should an electoral type of system be implemented in state-level elections? Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #45 April 27, 2006 QuoteI'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be unfair if the system was set up to give the candidate winning the popular vote the presidency -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did elaborate on it when the whole sentence is posted: QuoteIt would be unfair if the system was set up to give the candidate winning the popular vote the presidency, except after the popular vote was tallied in 2000, they decided to do something different. What I meant is it's unfair to change the rules. It's bitching and sniveling and pissing and moaning to say, "If the rules were different I would have won." The rules remained the same and were understood. That's fairness. QuoteTo me, the Senate solves the problem of potential unfair skewing in policymaking toward the urban population; Not any more. Now that they are elected by the populace of the state as a whole, obviously, a California Senator will cater to Los Angeles metro, the Bay area and San Diego, rather than the state as a whole. Back before the 18th Amendment, the Senators were selected by the state legislatures to represent the state as a whole, and not any particular constituency. It was the way you descirbed, but hasn't been that way for 75 years. QuoteHow would a numerical majority of votes be unfair? It wouldn't. But it may be more difficut, pragmatically. I'll put it this way - let's say that there is a replay of the 1960 election, where there was a total of about 110,000 votes separating Nixon and Kennedy out of 68 million. Nowadays, recounts would be done in every freaking state to find more votes. The electoral college actually took the battleground to one closely-contested state that could make the difference. Instead of recounting every California vote in the hopes that a few thousand will be picked up there, even 200,000 votes would make no difference to the electoral college. Sometimes, pragmatism is a better solution. No doubt that the electoral college has some benefits: 1) Recounts are easier; 2) Rural areas get more attention; 3) It's consistent with federalism; Obviously, the popular vote has some benefits: 1) It eliminates the voting power difference between voters of different states (I think my California vote is more powerful than an Alaska vote because of the huge electoral vote numbers coming from CA) 2) A more national campaing, instead of the focuses on Florida, Ohio, or other swing states; 3) Third parties are more advantaged (Nader ruined Gore, but didn't help the Greens at all). My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #46 April 27, 2006 Quote QuoteIt would be unfair if the system was set up to give the candidate winning the popular vote the presidency How would a numerical majority of votes be unfair? In that case, should an electoral type of system be implemented in state-level elections? the rest of his paragraph explained it quite well. Because of the winner take all nature, candidates don't expend any effort in states where they are 10pt dogs. Bush didn't campaign in CA or NY, Gore didn't in TX. With the general bias of the high population states towards the Democratic side, that likely accounts for the slim vote win by Gore. (going in, I expected the opposite result - Bush wins votes, Gore wins election). Changing to a straight up popular vote would be a mistake. Then it would be all about TV, and all about the population centers. Changing to an electoral college system on a district by district basis, otoh, would be an improvement. (state winner gets the 2 extra). And states are free to do so. Maybe they all should be directed to do so by the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #47 April 27, 2006 QuoteIt's fair when everyone knows the rules, okay? This bears repeating. It's fair when everyone knows the rules and also agrees to play by those rules. A change in position after the game is over or during the game is just whining. If someone doesn't like the rules and says that's 'unfair', well that's a subjective discussion and perhaps they can get the rules changed. Then, if everybody plays by the new rules, that would be 'fair'. I like the Senate concept and the electoral concept when balanced by the House, you can't have leadership if the structure is revised to only cater the large urban concentrated areas. You need to hear everybody, including the (regional or cultural) minorities. The founding fathers were dead on in this concept. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #48 April 27, 2006 Quote Obviously, the popular vote has some benefits: 2) A more national campaing, instead of the focuses on Florida, Ohio, or other swing states; totally disagree, candidates would only focus on high population density areas - the popular vote would be completely skewed to these areas' values and politics (which are very specific to high density areas and completely harmful to the other types of communities)..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #49 April 27, 2006 QuoteQuote Obviously, the popular vote has some benefits: 2) A more national campaing, instead of the focuses on Florida, Ohio, or other swing states; totally disagree, candidates would only focus on high population density areas - the popular vote would be completely skewed to these areas' values and politics (which are very specific to high density areas and completely harmful to the other types of communities)..... A valid point. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #50 April 27, 2006 I hate the entire concept of the Electoral College; I always have. To me, there's something fundamentally un-democratic, to the point of being immoral, about a candidate for office being able to lose the popular vote and still win the election. Also remember that in the case of a tie in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives elects the President. In other words, whichever party happens to be in the majority in the House, that's the party whose candidate becomes president, regardless of the outcome of the general election. The Electoral College is an arcane, archaic, obsolete relic of days gone by when the landed gentry didn't really trust the commoners with so noble and crucial a task as electing a President by direct ballot. It's a dinosaur that has no legitimate place in modern-day society, and should be relegated to the archives of history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 2 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
lawrocket 3 #29 April 27, 2006 Quotetwo senators for Wyoming, and two senators for NY? Yes, there is the House, but nothing from the House gets effected without the Senate's approval. So in the end, a Wyoming podunk vote carries more weight than an urban vote. Well, take a look at the electoral college votes. Wyoming has three - because it's got two Senators and only one respresentative. California has 55. To look at it this way, a candidate can win Alaska (3), Delaware (3), D.C. (3), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Vermont (3), Wyoming (3), Rhode Island (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), Idaho (4), Hawaii (4), Nebraska (5) and Nevada (5), and still have 4 less electoral votes than winning California would give. Now, how is that unfair? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 April 27, 2006 QuoteHey do they have a Turbine DZ there????? Lets get the IMPORTANT factors here. quiet you Washington doesn't have either New York nor LA nor Chicago in that state, therefore any opinions you have are just the ignorant ramblings of another 'podunk' from nowhere...... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 April 27, 2006 Quote Now, how is that unfair? "Fresno is the county seat of Fresno County in the U.S. State of California. Estimates by the California Department of Finance (2005) approximate a city population of 464,727 and a metropolitan area of 1,002,284" Fresno - Sorry, only 1 million people. Can't hear you. Go back to tending your hogs and dirt farms. Podunk little city. It's people like you, you know, with "opinions" based on pissy little rural values that are ruining the country for 'real' people from highly concentrated urbans areas. You should just take your rural religious zealot so-called 'values' and go live in New York or some place and learn about reality. (Sorry, is that over the top?) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #32 April 27, 2006 QuoteWell, take a look at the electoral college votes. Wyoming has three - because it's got two Senators and only one respresentative. California has 55. To look at it this way, a candidate can win Alaska (3), Delaware (3), D.C. (3), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Vermont (3), Wyoming (3), Rhode Island (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), Idaho (4), Hawaii (4), Nebraska (5) and Nevada (5), and still have 4 less electoral votes than winning California would give. Now, how is that unfair? Maybe because those states collectively have fewer people than California. And by what odd fiction would one say a count of STATES is more important than a count of PEOPLE? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #33 April 27, 2006 WE have the Whole Olympia to Everett Megopolis that contans Tacoma -Seattle. Rank is 14th in Population http://www.demographia.com/db-metmic2004.pdf Uh actually Blue Skies in Bremerton has a Turbine C-207.. Northwest Skydivers in Mt Vernon.. new.. has a kick ass FAST porter...that has -27 in it and a new one is on the way with a -34 and Kapowsin.. now at Shelton WA..... has a Super Otter with twin -34 Snohomish leases a caravan from Kapowsin in the summer.... And Davenport.. West Plains has a Caravan..... Not too bad for a podunk Blue State huh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #34 April 27, 2006 >And by what odd fiction would one say a count of STATES is more >important than a count of PEOPLE? By the same "fiction" the Senate uses, I suppose. Some ol' rag in a museum somewhere said that states, not people, get equal representation in that house of government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #35 April 27, 2006 QuoteNot too bad for a podunk Blue State huh Just another example of the podunk little states getting "uppity" If you know what I mean ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #36 April 27, 2006 Quote>And by what odd fiction would one say a count of STATES is more important than a count of PEOPLE? By the same "fiction" the Senate uses, I suppose. Some ol' rag in a museum somewhere said that states, not people, get equal representation in that house of government. I wasn't asking if the procedure is outlined in an old document. I was asking if it was WISE. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #37 April 27, 2006 Quote>And by what odd fiction would one say a count of STATES is more >important than a count of PEOPLE? By the same "fiction" the Senate uses, I suppose. Some ol' rag in a museum somewhere said that states, not people, get equal representation in that house of government. Historically, that's true. Of course The Rag is not perfect, and its imperfections can be addressed by the amendment process. For example, it's the same Rag that counted Black slaves as three-fifths of a person: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States . . . "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #38 April 27, 2006 >I wasn't asking if the procedure is outlined in an old document. Ah, sorry, I thought you were asking if it was based on a fiction, which it isn't. I think there are pluses and minuses to the system we have now. One plus is that it emphasizes the importance of states over people, and I think there is a lot to be said for moving power from the federal government to the state level. Your local government should be the most important factor in your life, then the state government, then the federal. Nowadays, sadly, that's reversed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #39 April 27, 2006 QuoteWell, take a look at the electoral college votes. Wyoming has three - because it's got two Senators and only one respresentative. California has 55. To look at it this way, a candidate can win Alaska (3), Delaware (3), D.C. (3), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Vermont (3), Wyoming (3), Rhode Island (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), Idaho (4), Hawaii (4), Nebraska (5) and Nevada (5), and still have 4 less electoral votes than winning California would give. Now, how is that unfair? Unfair because a candidate can receive the majority of popular votes and still lose, look at 2000. I don't want or care to get into a discussion about the 2000 election, just pointing out an example of where I think the electoral college idea goes wrong. My idea is that all votes should be equal, and in this system, some votes are apparently more equal than others. And rehmwa -- if it makes you feel better to twist my Wyoming podunk comment to make an urban elitist snob out of me (if you knew me in the least you'd realize I am not at all), then good for you. My point is that a rural vote carries more weight than an urban vote in respect to the 2000 election and Senate policymaking. Again, I think all votes should have equal weight, no matter where people are from. If anything, the system's design implies a certain superiority on the part of rural voters rather than urban. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #40 April 27, 2006 QuoteAnd by what odd fiction would one say a count of STATES is more important than a count of PEOPLE? A count of the PEOPLE would invoke a parliamentary system. Instead of Sentators representing states, the whole of the people could vote for a senate in a regular cucle by voting for a party. Then, the party hierarchy could appoint the Senators. A point that most people don't know is that "the People" didn't vote for Senators until 1913 - less than 100 years ago! Way back yonder before the days of "Progress," the US was considered a Union of States. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution said, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof)..." Now, that part in parentheses was superceded by the 17th Amendment, which took the power to select Senators from the legislatures OF THE STATES and gave that power to the people OF THE STATES. WHy not have the country elect senators or representatives? Maybe because Massachussetts pinkos don't want some mullet-headed trailer-living redneck having any say in who speaks for them. It turns out that the founders thought that in electing a president, what was best for "The Country" should be a primary consideration. Rather than find a President who is easily electable by the Northeast elite, perhaps we want somebody who can get some votes out there in the West. I mean, in New York in 1812, you'd want a guy who knew shipping. He'd be a great guy to protect the interests of the northeast. Screw those homesteading cowboys! But those homesteaders (yes, even the Mormons) should be able to hav SOME say in the election. It's a system designed to keep ALL interests represented, at least somewhat. The population centers have more say than those that are not populace. (A candidate could win the presidency by taking: 1) California (55); 2) Florida (27); 3) Texas (34); 4) New York (31); 5) Pennsylvania (21); 6) Ohio (20); 7) Illinois (21); 8) Michigan (17); 9) Georgia (15); 10) North Carolina (15); and 11) New Jersey (15). Thus, a president can LOSE 39 states and still WIN the election, because of the built-in bigotry against the less populace states. It's a compromise that gives the population centers MORE weight that the less populace places, but still gives the sparcely populated regions some say. As an aside, do you realize that Bush got 5.5 million votes in California in 2004? That was more than Bush got in Florida, which he won. That was more than Bush got in Texas, which he won. That was more than Kerry got in New York, which Kerry won. Therefore, Bush's 5.5 million California votes didn't count. It's the way the game was designed. I personally like the system. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #41 April 27, 2006 QuoteAnd rehmwa -- if it makes you feel better Nah, it's just good fun. You're alright. If a bit of an urbanite elitist centrist (but not a snob). And politics stills caters to the large urban areas, so even if the setup might support what you are saying in theory, in practice, I doubt it comes close to balancing out the real effect that the large urban areas get catered to the most in policy making. (Whoops, LawRocket said it better) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #42 April 27, 2006 QuoteUnfair because a candidate can receive the majority of popular votes and still lose, look at 2000. How is that unfair? It would be unfair if the system was set up to give the candidate winning the popular vote the presidency, except after the popular vote was tallied in 2000, they decided to do something different. The rules of the game were known. The campaigns strategized it that way. Bush didn't spend much time in Cali because he knew it was a lost cause - maybe he could have gotten an extra 500k votes in Cali had he been there more. But it wouldn't have helped him, so knowing the rules, he didn't bother with it. That's FAIR. He made his choice. Another example? In Super Bowl XL, the Seahawks led the Steelers in most staistical categories: 1) total yards; 2) passing was dominant; 3) turnovers; 4) Time of Possession; 5) First downs. That's not fair when a team that the stats showed kicked the other team's ass lost. The Steelers were outplayed that game. But the score was Seahawks 10, Steelers 21. A fairly convincing score. The rule has always been that the team that scores the most points win. In presidential elections, the rule has always been that the candidate with the most electoral votes wins. Popular vote is like first downs or total yards - it doesn't matter in the end. It's fair when everyone knows the rules, okay? If my goal is to get the most yards for my team, and I do it, I may not have won the game. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #43 April 27, 2006 QuoteThe last map might not have much relevance to today's world, but interestingly , what were once the slave states now vote Republican, and what were once the "free" states now vote Democrat. This is ironic, because in 1860 it was the Democratic party that was pro-slavery & represented the South, and it was the Republican part (under Lincoln) that represented the North (mostly). Upon first glance you'd think that the Union was very open and the south was racist. BS! BS then, BS now. The South was pro slave more for economics reasons than racial attitudes. The North was anything but a racial equal opportunity place. They were free states simply because their economics didn't depend on slave labor. They were/are as racist as anyone, with exception to abolitionist which resided in all states, free and slave IMHO steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #44 April 27, 2006 Quotethe large urban areas get catered to the most in policy making Not sure what you mean by getting catered to, but if you mean funding, then have a look at this. Seems to me that less populous areas get catered to quite well in regard to funding... Lawrocket, I see your points, but I'm defining fairness in terms of voting equality, not by whether the rules of the game are known. To me, the Senate solves the problem of potential unfair skewing in policymaking toward the urban population; I don't think the same idea should extend to the presidential elections. Again, I think the design of the electoral system weighs in favor of the rural vote. I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this -- QuoteIt would be unfair if the system was set up to give the candidate winning the popular vote the presidency How would a numerical majority of votes be unfair? In that case, should an electoral type of system be implemented in state-level elections? Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #45 April 27, 2006 QuoteI'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be unfair if the system was set up to give the candidate winning the popular vote the presidency -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did elaborate on it when the whole sentence is posted: QuoteIt would be unfair if the system was set up to give the candidate winning the popular vote the presidency, except after the popular vote was tallied in 2000, they decided to do something different. What I meant is it's unfair to change the rules. It's bitching and sniveling and pissing and moaning to say, "If the rules were different I would have won." The rules remained the same and were understood. That's fairness. QuoteTo me, the Senate solves the problem of potential unfair skewing in policymaking toward the urban population; Not any more. Now that they are elected by the populace of the state as a whole, obviously, a California Senator will cater to Los Angeles metro, the Bay area and San Diego, rather than the state as a whole. Back before the 18th Amendment, the Senators were selected by the state legislatures to represent the state as a whole, and not any particular constituency. It was the way you descirbed, but hasn't been that way for 75 years. QuoteHow would a numerical majority of votes be unfair? It wouldn't. But it may be more difficut, pragmatically. I'll put it this way - let's say that there is a replay of the 1960 election, where there was a total of about 110,000 votes separating Nixon and Kennedy out of 68 million. Nowadays, recounts would be done in every freaking state to find more votes. The electoral college actually took the battleground to one closely-contested state that could make the difference. Instead of recounting every California vote in the hopes that a few thousand will be picked up there, even 200,000 votes would make no difference to the electoral college. Sometimes, pragmatism is a better solution. No doubt that the electoral college has some benefits: 1) Recounts are easier; 2) Rural areas get more attention; 3) It's consistent with federalism; Obviously, the popular vote has some benefits: 1) It eliminates the voting power difference between voters of different states (I think my California vote is more powerful than an Alaska vote because of the huge electoral vote numbers coming from CA) 2) A more national campaing, instead of the focuses on Florida, Ohio, or other swing states; 3) Third parties are more advantaged (Nader ruined Gore, but didn't help the Greens at all). My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 April 27, 2006 Quote QuoteIt would be unfair if the system was set up to give the candidate winning the popular vote the presidency How would a numerical majority of votes be unfair? In that case, should an electoral type of system be implemented in state-level elections? the rest of his paragraph explained it quite well. Because of the winner take all nature, candidates don't expend any effort in states where they are 10pt dogs. Bush didn't campaign in CA or NY, Gore didn't in TX. With the general bias of the high population states towards the Democratic side, that likely accounts for the slim vote win by Gore. (going in, I expected the opposite result - Bush wins votes, Gore wins election). Changing to a straight up popular vote would be a mistake. Then it would be all about TV, and all about the population centers. Changing to an electoral college system on a district by district basis, otoh, would be an improvement. (state winner gets the 2 extra). And states are free to do so. Maybe they all should be directed to do so by the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #47 April 27, 2006 QuoteIt's fair when everyone knows the rules, okay? This bears repeating. It's fair when everyone knows the rules and also agrees to play by those rules. A change in position after the game is over or during the game is just whining. If someone doesn't like the rules and says that's 'unfair', well that's a subjective discussion and perhaps they can get the rules changed. Then, if everybody plays by the new rules, that would be 'fair'. I like the Senate concept and the electoral concept when balanced by the House, you can't have leadership if the structure is revised to only cater the large urban concentrated areas. You need to hear everybody, including the (regional or cultural) minorities. The founding fathers were dead on in this concept. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #48 April 27, 2006 Quote Obviously, the popular vote has some benefits: 2) A more national campaing, instead of the focuses on Florida, Ohio, or other swing states; totally disagree, candidates would only focus on high population density areas - the popular vote would be completely skewed to these areas' values and politics (which are very specific to high density areas and completely harmful to the other types of communities)..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #49 April 27, 2006 QuoteQuote Obviously, the popular vote has some benefits: 2) A more national campaing, instead of the focuses on Florida, Ohio, or other swing states; totally disagree, candidates would only focus on high population density areas - the popular vote would be completely skewed to these areas' values and politics (which are very specific to high density areas and completely harmful to the other types of communities)..... A valid point. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #50 April 27, 2006 I hate the entire concept of the Electoral College; I always have. To me, there's something fundamentally un-democratic, to the point of being immoral, about a candidate for office being able to lose the popular vote and still win the election. Also remember that in the case of a tie in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives elects the President. In other words, whichever party happens to be in the majority in the House, that's the party whose candidate becomes president, regardless of the outcome of the general election. The Electoral College is an arcane, archaic, obsolete relic of days gone by when the landed gentry didn't really trust the commoners with so noble and crucial a task as electing a President by direct ballot. It's a dinosaur that has no legitimate place in modern-day society, and should be relegated to the archives of history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
