Electoral College

[jm951 0]

If the EC was abolished, it would mean that only CA and NY basically run the country and dictate who gets into office. The current EC elected government is about representative concepts. I think the FF got this one right on the money.

[livendive 8]

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

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

[rushmc 23]

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?

"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]

It is a common misconception that the electoral college gives more clout to the smaller population states than "one person one vote". A proper analysis of voting power shows that it does not do this at all.

See, for example, www.cs.unc.edu/~livingst/Banzhaf/

...

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

[billvon 3,090]

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

Because the people make up the states; the states make up the USA. This country was originally founded on the theory that it would be a loose union of independent states, not that it would be a federal government that replaced the states. Since then we've drifted a bit from that, but the original intent is right there in the declaration of independence and the constitution.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America . . .do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States."

Note they didn't say we were a free country. They said we were a union of free and independent states.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

If the EC was abolished, it would mean that only CA and NY basically run the country and dictate who gets into office. The current EC elected government is about representative concepts. I think the FF got this one right on the money.

I agree

"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]

Quote

It is a common misconception that the electoral college gives more clout to the smaller population states than "one person one vote". A proper analysis of voting power shows that it does not do this at all.

See, for example, www.cs.unc.edu/~livingst/Banzhaf/

I dont think anyone is saying it "gives" them more clout but, it does keep them from being insignificant

"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

It is a common misconception that the electoral college gives more clout to the smaller population states than "one person one vote". A proper analysis of voting power shows that it does not do this at all.

See, for example, www.cs.unc.edu/~livingst/Banzhaf/

I dont think anyone is saying it "gives" them more clout but, it does keep them from being insignificant

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

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is a common misconception that the electoral college gives more clout to the smaller population states than "one person one vote". A proper analysis of voting power shows that it does not do this at all.

See, for example, www.cs.unc.edu/~livingst/Banzhaf/

I dont think anyone is saying it "gives" them more clout but, it does keep them from being insignificant

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

The article is irrelavant. I do not agree with your premise to begin with. As for numbers? How fricking much time do you think someone should spend in that article you link to?

As for mathmaics not lieing? Come sir, are you saying numbers can not be worked? I know you know better than that.

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

[airdvr 210]

Why do you support disenfranchising Californians of a full 3rd of their vote relative to residents of those states?

I support disenfranchising Californians from voting on anything important


Why does a guy who owns a farm deserve more of a vote than a guy who lives in an apartment?

Don't get me started.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Andy9o8 2]

It is completely idiotic to not have direct election of the President in modern times.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

It is completely idiotic to not have direct election of the President in modern times.

I completly disagree. I think it is idiotic to change it

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

[kelpdiver 2]

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What this says is that the EC voter gets to vote for anyone they please no matter even if the majority of people voted opposite of his/her final vote.

I'd like to see real democracy in this country where we get to vote for the person in office, rather than voting for the person who might vote the way you want them to.

So your concern here is that the Electors may disregard their state's election?

Technically this is possible. However, each party picks these electors and it's not a random drawing. The people they pick are quite unlikely to diverge. The only times it has happened has been to make little political statements while not changing the end result one bit.

While criticism of the EC was natural after 2000, a false election due to Elector rebellion would certainly end the mechanism. I think it pretty unlikely, unless next year's winner were to go shooting people the next morning in broad daylight.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I am stunned by the article. I took a quick look at the math and from that it is obvious that,... Ok, my eyes glazed over at the math, but the explanation was very good. I do wish he would have produced a comparative number for an individual voter in a unitary first past the post system.

Edited to add: I guess I could just run the numbers myself.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Why do you support disenfranchising Californians of a full 3rd of their vote relative to residents of those states?

The EC does that, admittedly. And disenfranchises me, who didn't vote for Gore or Clinton, yet my vote went to them. Still, for the country AS A WHOLE, I think it's a good system.

What would you think of a modified EC where it works on a fractional basis, i.e., 40-14 Gore/Bush, is the ratio was 38 votes for Gore for every 14 for Bush (the additional two being the 2 Senators going to the state winner?)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

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

[Amazon 7]

Not going to Happen..

The power elite will not allow it.

[pop 0]

Quote

But an electoral college FORCES that candidate to appeal to Wyoming.

In a national election its not about Wyoming, or Texas, or Rhode Island. Its about the people of United States of America...the wholle country as one. It's about what happens nationally, and this is where the EC fails.

When it does become about individual states, then we hold state elections.

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

[Amazon 7]

Are you sure you are really from Texas...... you sure do not fit the stereotype... thats for sure

[pop 0]

Quote

And disenfranchises me, who didn't vote for Gore or Clinton, yet my vote went to them.

It's no suprise we cant get more than half the country to vote. Our vote doesnt count. Yours didnt. And neither did mine while I lived in Texas, but it did while living in California. How weird.

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

[pop 0]

Quote

Are you sure you are really from Texas...... you sure do not fit the stereotype... thats for sure

Well, I am incredibly politically incorrect. That makes me somewhat Texan:).

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In a national election its not about Wyoming, or Texas, or Rhode Island. Its about the people of United States of America...the wholle country as one. It's about what happens nationally,

Correct!

Quote

and this is where the EC fails.

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.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

In a national election its not about Wyoming, or Texas, or Rhode Island. Its about the people of United States of America...the wholle country as one. It's about what happens nationally,

Correct!

Quote

and this is where the EC fails.

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.

If its about campaigning then I say this. We live in the age of newspapers, magazines, home phones, cell phones, computers, internet, satellite, TV, email, slow mail...etc. 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.....they now have that in every state (thanks to Al Gore )

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

[lawrocket 3]

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.

My wife is hotter than your wife.