Electoral College

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The POTUS, in order to win, MUST consider an issue like agricultural water to get the votes to win. IN a popular vote, he couldn't give a rat's ass.

In a country not hung up on Dancing with the Stars... or American Idol.. perhaps more people would give a shit about what is good for the country... and water that grows food for everyone... should make a difference and be important.... but alas.. too many are tuned out because they just dont give a shit.

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

If its about getting the message out to the people, well the platform is there. Everyone has the opportunity to watch televised debates and campaigning, even in Nebraska. Not to mention the internet again

There is an issue of agricultural water in most of the non-populous states. Even in the populous states, but not in the population centers.

There are some issues that affect everyone, like gas prices, health care, etc. That's nice, but what matters in the breadbasket is WATER. What the hell does megamart shopper care about whether the water supply is problematic? What about the electric grid?

You'll find Giuliani announcing his candidacy at the World Agricultural Expo in Tulare, California with an EC (which he did). In the popular vote, he'd announce his candidacy at the Academ Awards.

The population centers care not about blight. 50 percent of the country (not by population) DOES care. And the population centers WILL care if the fit hits the shan.

The POTUS, in order to win, MUST consider an issue like agricultural water to get the votes to win. IN a popular vote, he couldn't give a rat's ass.

In Texas the EC has insured the Rep get my vote whether I like it or not. I do not see how in the age of technology and ease of communication the EC is a good idea. It makes my vote not matter...and if this is the case, then I do not live in a democratic country.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I have lived in 2 states in the USA. They are Texas and California. I also had a chance to vote in both. However, no matter who I personally voted for we all know what the outcome is for those 2 states. Kinda sucks to feel like my vote doesnt count.

Wrong - just because your guy didn't get the most votes does NOT mean that "your vote didn't count". This is a common misperception of those that don't understand how the electoral college works.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>I don't think Fresno OR Wyoming should have a vote in our Presidential election.

That's what it comes down to. If we are the united _people_ of america, then a vote per person makes more sense. If we are the united _states_ of america, then the electoral college makes more sense.

Why does every state allow its people to vote in Presidential elections?

Blues,
Dave

What else would you propose?

I propose that we give the people the vote and let every one of them count. We, as a nation, have layers of government: federal, state, county (or parrish), and city. I propose that we elect our politicians in similar layers. The framework is already there. Within cities, we generally elect our own mayors and city councilmen (and perhaps DA's, coroners, etc). In counties, we elect sheriffs, judges, county commissioners, etc. In states, we usually elect governors and a couple of legislative branches, and in at least some cases, state supreme court justices. At the federal level, small areas (congressional districts) elect US Representatives, larger areas (states) elect US Senators, and the largest area (nation) supposedly elects the President. But we do so in a convoluted manner that defers the election back to the "states", disregards all minority voters, and leaves the final ballot in the hands of unelected officials. If we would simply follow the pattern, each level of represented population, from smallest to largest, would have an election they could call their own, with the largest (national) only voting collectively in one election. The Republicans in California and the Democrats in Wyoming would have their voices heard, and one branch of our federal government would represent "We, the people", rather than "We, the states".

The electoral college was necessary in the environment of the founding fathers. Advances in infrastructure, technology, and literacy have rendered it obsolete. As things stand, a Republican in California shouldn't even bother voting in the Presidential election, as his vote will not be counted. The Republican in Texas...well, his vote will count, but not as much as the Democrat's in Hawaii.

The doom and gloom is all fine and dandy, but in reality, how many Presidential elections would have a different outcome using the people's votes rather than the electoral votes? Two in the last couple centuries? I'm just thinking that philosophically, there ought to be one election in which we are considered collectively rather than divided on the basis of which state we live in. If Congress and the Supreme Court would do their jobs and quit conceding more and more power from the states and legislature to the executive branch, it wouldn't even be that significant of a difference. The primary function of the President should be matters of foreign relation. He shouldn't be declaring domestic wars on drugs, poverty, etc...that should be states' domain. He shouldn't be issuing (many) substantive executive orders...legislature should be the domain of congress. Despite your and my political differences, he should be representing both of us internationally in matters of state, commerce, war, etc. Given that, he should be elected by both of us, regardless of which color state we live in.

Blues,
Dave

I see your point but I do not think you have taken the time to understand the EC and why the smartest framers of a document on the planet to date, saw fit to build things the way they did. You and I will have to disagree on the EC. It keeps the states power in the perspective the founders intended. It works, it works as it should and it will continue to work.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

I have lived in 2 states in the USA. They are Texas and California. I also had a chance to vote in both. However, no matter who I personally voted for we all know what the outcome is for those 2 states. Kinda sucks to feel like my vote doesnt count.

Wrong - just because your guy didn't get the most votes does NOT mean that "your vote didn't count". This is a common misperception of those that don't understand how the electoral college works.

Recewntl California proposed to change the way they dish out the EC votes, and I completely agree wih this way of thinking, but only if EVERY state did this. California proposed the following. If for example 60% of the CA population votes Rep. then 60% of EC votes go to the Rep's. This is the fair way to do it...but every state has to do it that way.

And yes I do not beleive in most sates my vote would count. In the 2008 election even if I vote for Purple Barney, the Rep. will still get that vote. So how does my vote count again in Texas?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

I see your point but I do not think you have taken the time to understand the EC and why the smartest framers of a document on the planet to date, saw fit to build things the way they did. .

If you read the Federalist papers you will see that the framers' reasons are NOT the same as yours.

Besides, like you, they had not done a proper mathematical analysis of what the EC system means in terms of voting power. They can be excused, you can not.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Wrong. You didn't read the article, did you? The mathematics does not lie, nor is it a matter of opinion.

Your math can be countered with my math.

3/population of Alaska versus 54/population of California.

If it takes that much text to disprove the simple truths, it's questionable.

"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong." - H.L. Mencken

Ignorance is bliss. The article I linked is the most thorough analysis of block voting systems that has been done.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I see your point but I do not think you have taken the time to understand the EC and why the smartest framers of a document on the planet to date, saw fit to build things the way they did. .

If you read the Federalist papers you will see that the framers' reasons are NOT the same as yours.

Besides, like you, they had not done a proper mathematical analysis of what the EC system. They can be excused, you can not.

Hey Mr all knowing. What are MY reasons??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see your point but I do not think you have taken the time to understand the EC and why the smartest framers of a document on the planet to date, saw fit to build things the way they did. .

If you read the Federalist papers you will see that the framers' reasons are NOT the same as yours.

Besides, like you, they had not done a proper mathematical analysis of what the EC system. They can be excused, you can not.

Hey Mr all knowing. What are MY reasons??

Bad memory?
See posts 21, 31, 32 and 54 of this thread.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Recewntl California proposed to change the way they dish out the EC votes, and I completely agree wih this way of thinking, but only if EVERY state did this. California proposed the following. If for example 60% of the CA population votes Rep. then 60% of EC votes go to the Rep's. This is the fair way to do it...but every state has to do it that way.

And yes I do not beleive in most sates my vote would count. In the 2008 election even if I vote for Purple Barney, the Rep. will still get that vote. So how does my vote count again in Texas?

The split EC vote *MAY* be a reasonable solution (not that I think the *current* EC is 'broken'), but I haven't looked into it that closely to give an opinion.

Abolishing the EC entirely would result in the scenario Lawrocket described above - the votes from the big cities would overpower the rest of the country (a VERY attractive prospect, I'm sure, for the Dems, as that is where their voting power lies).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see your point but I do not think you have taken the time to understand the EC and why the smartest framers of a document on the planet to date, saw fit to build things the way they did. .

If you read the Federalist papers you will see that the framers' reasons are NOT the same as yours.

Besides, like you, they had not done a proper mathematical analysis of what the EC system. They can be excused, you can not.

Hey Mr all knowing. What are MY reasons??

Bad memory?
See posts 21, 31, 32 and 54 of this thread.

I will take this as a "you don't know" admission

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=545

I think I see some of the point you were trying to make so, OK, maybe it does not work today as completely intended but, it is still better than a popular vote senario

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The split EC vote *MAY* be a reasonable solution.

By definition, if a specific state chooses to do a split EC vote, that is their right. It's perfectly reasonable.

It's not their right to force the other, independent, states to follow suit. Forcing all 50 states to do that is perfectly unreasonable.

As Billvon noted - if we want to change the entire basis of our government to reflect the united people of america instead of the united states, the we should do a lot more than just change how voting is done.

I'd be very wary of allowing the laws and policies of the country to be driven only by the culture of the mega-urban areas. The clear disdain shown by those people of any other culture/regions is so apparent.

...
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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'd be very wary of allowing the laws and policies of the country to be driven only by the culture of the mega-urban areas. The clear disdain shown by those people of any other culture/regions is so apparent.

Agreed - as I said above, while I don't think the current EC is broken, I think a split EC is a better solution than no EC at all.

After all, our system of government is a representative republic, NOT a democracy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[BIGUN 1,440]

Quote

then I do not live in a democratic country.

And, therein lies the root of the problem. Which form of democracy are you discussing?
Some of the discussions are rooted in representative democracy, others direct, others liberal, others a republic, etc.
The professor has proposed a true form of democracy using a mathematical model whereby representation _could_ be; of the individuals, by the individuals - which however, would require a constitutional admendment. As stated, we are the United _States_, not the United _Individuals_. That is the cornerstone of our government. And, while I undertand the tenets of the professor's mathematical reference,.. Constitutional amendments are not to be taken lightly.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

I'd be very wary of allowing the laws and policies of the country to be driven only by the culture of the mega-urban areas. The clear disdain shown by those people of any other culture/regions is so apparent.

Did you read the article I linked, on the **actual** ramifications of block voting schemes?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

As Billvon noted - if we want to change the entire basis of our government to reflect the united people of america instead of the united states, the we should do a lot more than just change how voting is done.

How and why do you think that electing the President on the basis of 50 small races versus one big race constitutes the entire basis of our government?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How and why do you think that electing the President on the basis of 50 small races versus one big race constitutes the entire basis of our government?

You got it written backwards - the basis of our government is the reason the EC is structured as it is. Not the other way around like you wrote - that's sophmoric to the extreme. Or just a goofy strawman.

How and why do you people not understand this and continue to make arguments like "I feel........"?

I we choose to change the intended structure of the country, let's do that and then things like the EC will change along with it. You can't just pick and choose certain areas because you don't understand the purpose underpinning it and it doesn't 'feel' right.

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Did you read the article I linked, on the **actual** ramifications of block voting schemes?

no

edit: maybe later

...
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

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

Wrong. It's where the popular vote would fail. What happens when the popular vote is involved? You focus your campaign on states with ports - the population centers. You neglect "fly over country."

New York, Cali, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Florida. THose are the big dogs, bro. That's where all the people are. You campaign not in Nebraska, where people are spread out. You campaign in Manhattan, Long Island, LA, San Jose, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago. THOSE are where you can get your message across efficiently to a large group of people.

So you lose 100k votes in Montana by never campaigning there. BIG FREAKING DEAL. Maybe you'll take four hours to stop in St. Louis between campaigns in LA and Philly/NYC. Maybe a swing up to Chicago. But you'll never consider a stop by Minot. It just isn't worth it.

And all of your pograms will be for the benefit of the coasts and ports, at the expense of "middle America." Afer all, "middle America" won't get you elected.

But here you're assuming that a candidate will win the coasts by a big enough margin to make flyover country irrelevant. If the candidates are reasonably closely matched on the coasts then middle america would be the swing - if one guy goes there and the other doesn't...

Also, doesn't the age of instant mass media diminish the importance of whether or not a candidate actually physically visits a place?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Wrong. It's where the popular vote would fail. What happens when the popular vote is involved? You focus your campaign on states with ports - the population centers. You neglect "fly over country."

New York, Cali, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Florida. THose are the big dogs, bro. That's where all the people are. You campaign not in Nebraska, where people are spread out. You campaign in Manhattan, Long Island, LA, San Jose, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago. THOSE are where you can get your message across efficiently to a large group of people.

So you lose 100k votes in Montana by never campaigning there. BIG FREAKING DEAL. Maybe you'll take four hours to stop in St. Louis between campaigns in LA and Philly/NYC. Maybe a swing up to Chicago. But you'll never consider a stop by Minot. It just isn't worth it.

And all of your pograms will be for the benefit of the coasts and ports, at the expense of "middle America." Afer all, "middle America" won't get you elected.

But here you're assuming that a candidate will win the coasts by a big enough margin to make flyover country irrelevant. If the candidates are reasonably closely matched on the coasts then middle america would be the swing - if one guy goes there and the other doesn't...

Also, doesn't the age of instant mass media diminish the importance of whether or not a candidate actually physically visits a place?

Look at it this way. If you were going to develop your policy promises and actions to get elected, where would you go?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

Look at it this way. If you were going to develop your policy promises and actions to get elected, where would you go?

To develop my policies? Probably to the office. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

But here you're assuming that a candidate will win the coasts by a big enough margin to make flyover country irrelevant. If the candidates are reasonably closely matched on the coasts then middle america would be the swing - if one guy goes there and the other doesn't...

Also, doesn't the age of instant mass media diminish the importance of whether or not a candidate actually physically visits a place?

No, he is assuming that on the margin his campaign dollar is more productively spent directed at voters on the coast than in fly-over country. The candidate will talk about crime and pollution standards rather than agricultural water policy. This will be the case during the term as well, not just on the hustings.
Yes electronic media does diminish the importance of physical presence; it does not eliminate it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Look at it this way. If you were going to develop your policy promises and actions to get elected, where would you go?

To develop my policies? Probably to the office. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

You would go to the population centers now wouldnt you?

I bring this as an example as if you were the canidate

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

No, he is assuming that on the margin his campaign dollar is more productively spent directed at voters on the coast than in fly-over country.

All the dollar? Are you saying that if everyones vote was equal candidates would completely ignore mid america altogether? I simply don't think that's true.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?