PDA

View Full Version : Electoral Collage/Debate the Pros and Cons


Calcountry
10-14-2004, 01:35 PM
After last nights debate, I noticed Jessie Hi-Jackson in the spin room saying that the Electoral College should be abolished. I snorted at the scream and said, "of course you would because then the big cities would rule federal elections with no voice going to those who have issues in the "flyover" areas or Suburbs in America.

You may think that I am for the EC merely because it worked in the Reps favor last election, but you would be wrong. It is an ingenious method that protects each states rights within the union to select a federal leader who will be balanced in his viewpoint toward the whole country, not just a favorite son from an area like NY/NE.

It also incorporates the "Geat compromise" which was a deal at the beginning of this country to balance representation between Big States and small states by giving all states 2 Senators, but allowing the Big States to have as many congressional House Reps as the census apportioned to them.

Do you think this is a good system, or do you think we should just count all the votes nationwide and the one with the most wins?

Early in my life, I thought it was silly to have an EC. Now, after learning about how our government works, the fact that we have a representative Republic, and not a Democracy, where individual States govern to their interests I have come to appreciate the value of the EC system.

I would love to discuss the pros and cons of this system if you are interested. :)

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 01:46 PM
I like Collages, but prefer the 3D effect of Paper Mache

KCN
10-14-2004, 01:48 PM
I will also add to your question the thought of what Colorado is proposing and splitting EC's based on % vote, or a Nebraska/Maine situation where congressional districts get their own EV. To be honest I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I do know that abolishing the EC altogether is a bad idea for the precise reasons stated.

As I think out loud, maybe the Colorado proposal isn't such a bad idea. Your vote still carries the same weight, but is not meaningless if in a strong blue or red state. Whereas the Maine/Nebraska way would still make voting pointless if you lived in a heavy republican or democratic congressional district.

unlurking
10-14-2004, 01:59 PM
Admittedly, I am ambivalent on the subject. I do however agree that it works in the "representative republic" as you state, if, and ONLY if, states are left with the ability to vote for themselves.

I bring this up mainly due to my belief that the federal government is wrong in interfereing with states decisions regarding homosexuality and medical marijuana. One seems I feel to be discrimination, the other is a relic from out most recently failed war, the war on drugs.

I don't mean to steer this off-topic, but just kind of point out my opinion. If the federal government allowed more lee-way in state governing, then I would agree with you in regards to the EC being appropriate. At this point however, I would prefer more votes leaned towards those people who have learned to live in closer quarters together, which you (I believe from your remarks) disagree with.

I guess I would have to say that at this time, I am against the EC because I would have preferred the outcome of Bush not being in office. Do the Dems believe in the difference between local and federal governments? From what I have seen, probably not.

I guess you can call me a waffle on this one, because I truly don't know which is better. I understand the premise, but I don't believe our country really fits in that glove anymore.

go bowe
10-14-2004, 02:05 PM
I will also add to your question the thought of what Colorado is proposing and splitting EC's based on % vote, or a Nebraska/Maine situation where congressional districts get their own EV. To be honest I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I do know that abolishing the EC altogether is a bad idea for the precise reasons stated.

As I think out loud, maybe the Colorado proposal isn't such a bad idea. Your vote still carries the same weight, but is not meaningless if in a strong blue or red state. Whereas the Maine/Nebraska way would still make voting pointless if you lived in a heavy republican or democratic congressional district.the colorado alternative is attractive in that it preserves the "extra" ec votes of the smaller states, while moving closer to making every vote truly "count"...

i like it...

Amnorix
10-14-2004, 02:13 PM
I think the EC system is, by and large, silly. The intent of the system was roughly as Bunntrdr described. The reality, however, is that it's not really accomplishing this.

What the EC system is doing is shifting the focus of Presidential campaigns NOT to small states or whatever, but to "battleground" states, especially ones with alot of EC votes. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Florida and some other BIG states by nearly every measure get a ton of love from the campaigns. Other states, both big and small in terms of both geographical size and population (New York to Wyoming) get completely IGNORED because it's not worth it to spend the dollars when it's a foregone conclusion whether the state will show up red or blue on the big board in November. The system is NOT achieving it's primary goals. It's merely arbitrarily refocusing the system.

I agree that a bunch of underpopulated states have somewhat more influence over the selection of the President than they would otherwise, but in reality I don't see much of any practical benefit from this fact. Note that California or Texas or New York are worth like 10 or more of the smallest states. Note that you could win the Presidency, in theory, JUST by winning 51% of the vote in the 12 biggest EC voting states. Note that the minority votes in any state which is 55% or 60% or more in one party's camp or the other are going to be completely ignored throughout the presidential campaigning process. Note that the votes of EVERYONE on the losing side in any state are, essentially, UTTERLY worthless -- not one drop more worthwhile or effective than it would have been if they didn't show up at all.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, the system does not accomplish it's original objective, and really doesn't accomplish much of anything that is "positive" that I can think of. I just don't see what the benefit is of having it work the way it currently does.

ZepSinger
10-14-2004, 02:21 PM
I like Collages, but prefer the 3D effect of Paper Mache

It's OK, I got it. :clap:

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 02:29 PM
Thanks, Zep...I was starting to worry.

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 02:46 PM
I will also add to your question the thought of what Colorado is proposing and splitting EC's based on % vote, or a Nebraska/Maine situation where congressional districts get their own EV. To be honest I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I do know that abolishing the EC altogether is a bad idea for the precise reasons stated.

As I think out loud, maybe the Colorado proposal isn't such a bad idea. Your vote still carries the same weight, but is not meaningless if in a strong blue or red state. Whereas the Maine/Nebraska way would still make voting pointless if you lived in a heavy republican or democratic congressional district.
Of course, each state can choose how to select its electors, it is their right. The winner take all system has been adopted by all, precisely so they get FULL attention for ALL of their electoral votes come election day. Think about this scenario. Suppose California was closely divided(I know that currently it is not), do you think that either candidate would spend a dime trying to woo, sway, or supply pork to the state if they knew they could count on close to half the EV's?

Just how would they run a national campaign that was governed by popular vote only? Do you think anyone would give a rats behind about places like Davenport Iowa, or the Burbs in Wisconsin? They would not. In fact, they probably would make large television buys in the largest TV markets in the country and do very little grass roots campaigning. Why should they? They know that it is the popular vote that counts, so why bother to condescend to the level of the voter?

unlurking
10-14-2004, 03:11 PM
Of course, each state can choose how to select its electors, it is their right. The winner take all system has been adopted by all, precisely so they get FULL attention for ALL of their electoral votes come election day. Think about this scenario. Suppose California was closely divided(I know that currently it is not), do you think that either candidate would spend a dime trying to woo, sway, or supply pork to the state if they knew they could count on close to half the EV's?

Just how would they run a national campaign that was governed by popular vote only? Do you think anyone would give a rats behind about places like Davenport Iowa, or the Burbs in Wisconsin? They would not. In fact, they probably would make large television buys in the largest TV markets in the country and do very little grass roots campaigning. Why should they? They know that it is the popular vote that counts, so why bother to condescend to the level of the voter?

Edit:
Forgot to mention, this is in reference to the "splitting" of EVs. I don't really believe much benefit would be derived from a "popular vote" methodology if we can stick with the separation of federal and local governments (which unfortunately seems to be dwindling).

I guess maybe I don't understand the "condescend to the level of the voter" part. I assume you're saying that no more local "pep rally's".

Personally, that's fine by me. I'd rather see more debates and such.

Then again, maybe it will cause MORE local campaigning as there will no longer be "swing states". Now EVERY state is a swing state. Then again, I may be wrong, guess I just look at it differently.

Also, the Colorado platform would allow other parties to entertain the thought of actually getting media exposure by earning an electoral vote. I think this would be a benefit to Colorado as no Dem/Repub parties would spend a lot of time catering to state.

Overall, I think it would help define a better, more customized political landscape for any state willing to take the jump.

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 03:13 PM
Anyone living in the Midwest would be a fool to abolish the EC. I do not want LA and NY deciding who is to be POTUS every 4 years.'


And honestly, if you want to abolish the EC, you may as well abolish the Senate for the exact same reason.

HolmeZz
10-14-2004, 03:14 PM
My reason for being against the electoral college is that not everyone's vote is equal. The state of Connecticut, my residence, is more or less a heavily Democratic state. If I ever wanted to vote for a Republican canidate for President, my vote would get drowned out in a sea of blue votes. If that was to happen on a national level, I could deal with it, as everyone's vote would count the same. But I don't like the notion that someone's vote in Florida or Ohio means more than mine. It's not a conversative/liberal issue. I know people on both sides of the fence who feel the same way.

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 03:17 PM
My reason for being against the electoral college is that not everyone's vote is equal. The state of Connecticut, my residence, is more or less a heavily Democratic state. If I ever wanted to vote for a Republican canidate for President, my vote would get drowned out in a sea of blue votes. If that was to happen on a national level, I could deal with it, as everyone's vote would count the same. But I don't like the notion that someone's vote in Florida or Ohio means more than mine. It's not a conversative/liberal issue. I know people on both sides of the fence who feel the same way.
So, do you feel the same about the Senate? After all, the votes of the constituents are not displayed equally in congress as Ted Kennedy has a much larger powerbase than Daschle.

Amnorix
10-14-2004, 03:23 PM
Anyone living in the Midwest would be a fool to abolish the EC. I do not want LA and NY deciding who is to be POTUS every 4 years.'

That may be true, I don't know, but I doubt that some states in the mid-west get much play to the extent they aren't battleground states.

It's ridiculous to say that LA and NY would decide who is POTUS every time. CA and NY have, between them, 86 of the 538 electoral votes. That's 16%.

The population of the US is currently just shy of 300 million. 16% of 300 million is 48 million. I don't think LA and NY have 48 million people between them.

FURTHER, not to be insulting, but I would venture to say that voting turnout in NY and LA is probably somewhat lower than that of many other areas of the country.

And honestly, if you want to abolish the EC, you may as well abolish the Senate for the exact same reason.

Unlike the EC (see my prior post), the Senate DOES accomplish what it's supposed to. By giving all states the exact same number of votes, each state has proportionately the same power as each other state within that one chamber of Congress.

unlurking
10-14-2004, 03:34 PM
That may be true, I don't know, but I doubt that some states in the mid-west get much play to the extent they aren't battleground states.

It's ridiculous to say that LA and NY would decide who is POTUS every time. CA and NY have, between them, 86 of the 538 electoral votes. That's 16%.

The population of the US is currently just shy of 300 million. 16% of 300 million is 48 million. I don't think LA and NY have 48 million people between them.

FURTHER, not to be insulting, but I would venture to say that voting turnout in NY and LA is probably somewhat lower than that of many other areas of the country.



Unlike the EC (see my prior post), the Senate DOES accomplish what it's supposed to. By giving all states the exact same number of votes, each state has proportionately the same power as each other state within that one chamber of Congress.
According to July 1, 2003 Census report, CA is about 35.3 M and New York about 19.2 M.

So overestimating currents to be about 46 M, it looks like CA and NY should be the ones opposed as they currently have a higher percentage of EVs.

HolmeZz
10-14-2004, 03:38 PM
So, do you feel the same about the Senate? After all, the votes of the constituents are not displayed equally in congress as Ted Kennedy has a much larger powerbase than Daschle.

Explain further.

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 03:39 PM
Admittedly, I am ambivalent on the subject. I do however agree that it works in the "representative republic" as you state, if, and ONLY if, states are left with the ability to vote for themselves.

I bring this up mainly due to my belief that the federal government is wrong in interfereing with states decisions regarding homosexuality and medical marijuana. One seems I feel to be discrimination, the other is a relic from out most recently failed war, the war on drugs.

I don't mean to steer this off-topic, but just kind of point out my opinion. If the federal government allowed more lee-way in state governing, then I would agree with you in regards to the EC being appropriate. At this point however, I would prefer more votes leaned towards those people who have learned to live in closer quarters together, which you (I believe from your remarks) disagree with.

I guess I would have to say that at this time, I am against the EC because I would have preferred the outcome of Bush not being in office. Do the Dems believe in the difference between local and federal governments? From what I have seen, probably not.

I guess you can call me a waffle on this one, because I truly don't know which is better. I understand the premise, but I don't believe our country really fits in that glove anymore.
Thats an excellent post, because I believe you to be sincere. But consider this. America is ONE country, not a country of special interests. The framers devised the EC for the express purpose of insuring that the President would be beholden to a majority of Americans interests, sea to shining sea. Not just a majority opinion, but majority of "interests". Really, do you think that the farmers in the midwest would be given the attention that they are afforded now if it was just a popular vote?

unlurking
10-14-2004, 03:50 PM
Thats an excellent post, because I believe you to be sincere. But consider this. America is ONE country, not a country of special interests. The framers devised the EC for the express purpose of insuring that the President would be beholden to a majority of Americans interests, sea to shining sea. Not just a majority opinion, but majority of "interests". Really, do you think that the farmers in the midwest would be given the attention that they are afforded now if it was just a popular vote?
Honestly? I don't know. I know very little about agricultural economics in this country other than the sound-bites I hear such "farmers being paid not to grow food". I don't put any stock in those sound-bites, because I really don't know anything about it.

My understanding of the EC (and please correct me if I'm wrong), was that the number of EC votes per state was based on population numbers, much the same way the number of House seats.

If that's the case (and it may not be, been a long time since school), then I don't think it would be that damaging.

As Amnorix pointed out, CA and NY combine for about 16% of the EC votes. They also combine for about the same percentage of national population. So in respect to THEM (I don't know mid-west stats), there would be little if any change that I could see.

I must admit though, the more I think about the Colorado initiative 36A, the more I believe it to be an appropriate solution as it does not do away with the EC votes, but divies them up based on the local populations efforts. As I said in an earlier post, this could be a very beneficial windfall for early adopters (although I may be missing any downside).

Iowanian
10-14-2004, 03:51 PM
I like the electoral college system......It gives the smaller, rural states an actual tool, so they aren't dominated by the hippy urbanites and liberal girly men.

Rural economies need all of their decisions made by people in NYC about as bad as Bostonites need me to give them the only recipe for clam Chaaowdah.

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 03:59 PM
Anyone living in the Midwest would be a fool to abolish the EC. I do not want LA and NY deciding who is to be POTUS every 4 years.'


And honestly, if you want to abolish the EC, you may as well abolish the Senate for the exact same reason.
The only vote splitting that could be done, is that if you win a congressional district, then you get 1 EV, and if you win statewide, you get the 2 EV's.

That is just how it is set up.

The EC also mittigates the effect of fraudulant votes. Oh yeah, they do occur in places like Cook County Illinois, or San Francisco, California. What I am positing with this, is the constitution has no problem with a state casting its votes the way that state sees fit, but your individual votes do not overide an honest vote cast in another state.

Conclusion, if you are going to abolish the EC, then you should dissolve the united "STATES" into a single federal State.

unlurking
10-14-2004, 04:06 PM
I was going to edit my last post and add this, but it just seemed to grow a little too much as I wrote it:

Trying to wrap my head around what the one country vs. special interests really means in this day since it seems we have special interest lobbies popping up like weeds now adays. It's hard to imagine this country being united in much of anything.

Towards that goal however, I would think the Colorado 36A initiative would benefit our nation towards that goal in this manner:

1. Smaller parties could grow based on their actions and by listening to the wants and needs of their local constituents.
2. By doing so, smaller parties would be able to earn NATIONAL recognition for efforts in the political field by earning an EC vote now and then.
3. As growth continued, the major political parties would HAVE to take them into consideration, and the views of the voting base that supports them.

To me, that means we would likely see less extremes, although the nation would still likely sway it's votes between 3 parties rather than two.

For someone like me, I could vote based on issues (I believe in privatized SS, "narrowing" our borders, fiscally conservative spending, some social programs, minimalizing our foreign involvement, etc.) which seem to swing through multiple parties. Honestly, I don't really seem to agree with either of the current candidates, but I believe more choice would allow me to find someone I disagree with less.

unlurking
10-14-2004, 04:08 PM
The only vote splitting that could be done, is that if you win a congressional district, then you get 1 EV, and if you win statewide, you get the 2 EV's.

That is just how it is set up.

The EC also mittigates the effect of fraudulant votes. Oh yeah, they do occur in places like Cook County Illinois, or San Francisco, California. What I am positing with this, is the constitution has no problem with a state casting its votes the way that state sees fit, but your individual votes do not overide an honest vote cast in another state.

Conclusion, if you are going to abolish the EC, then you should dissolve the united "STATES" into a single federal State.

I agree with this. That's why I think the "modified" distribution of votes within a state is an appealing option.

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 04:10 PM
That may be true, I don't know, but I doubt that some states in the mid-west get much play to the extent they aren't battleground states.

It's ridiculous to say that LA and NY would decide who is POTUS every time. CA and NY have, between them, 86 of the 538 electoral votes. That's 16%.

The population of the US is currently just shy of 300 million. 16% of 300 million is 48 million. I don't think LA and NY have 48 million people between them.

FURTHER, not to be insulting, but I would venture to say that voting turnout in NY and LA is probably somewhat lower than that of many other areas of the country.



Unlike the EC (see my prior post), the Senate DOES accomplish what it's supposed to. By giving all states the exact same number of votes, each state has proportionately the same power as each other state within that one chamber of Congress.
NY, and LA do not, but the state of NY and California DO have that many people in them, and those cities are well represented electorally and should not gripe about it.


Is it fair, for the leader of the Senate to be from a state that only has about a million voters as was the case when Tommy Daschle was the leader. Sorry SDChiefsfan, no disrespect is intended to SD, but the leader of the Senate has broad parliamentary powers to control what issues come up for debate etc. Why should such a little state be afforded so much representation? To argue the insanity of the EC is to agree that SD has no business sending not one but TWO fillibustering Senators to Washington.

As I said, this was a result of the founders "Great Comprimise" and it is inherent within the EC system. KC Wolfman correctly points out that the Senate should also be abolished if EC is done away with.

A little aside here, the odds of the Constitution being amended to abolish the EC are less than a prohibition of Gay marriage being passed due to the fact that small states like the EC. It takes 3/4ths of the states to ratify any ammendment and there are at least 13 states that consider themselves small. So dream on if you think it is going away within the current constitutional construct. The only plausible way of it being done away with is for a new constitutional convention to be convened. Oh how the liberals dream of that day, God forbid it.

unlurking
10-14-2004, 04:12 PM
Hmmm

Here I was thinking Colorado was being new and creative.

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].

From:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

I guess I'd be curious to know how Nebraska and Maine came about this difference and why. As well as whether it benefits or hurts them.

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 04:17 PM
I was going to edit my last post and add this, but it just seemed to grow a little too much as I wrote it:

Trying to wrap my head around what the one country vs. special interests really means in this day since it seems we have special interest lobbies popping up like weeds now adays. It's hard to imagine this country being united in much of anything.

Towards that goal however, I would think the Colorado 36A initiative would benefit our nation towards that goal in this manner:

1. Smaller parties could grow based on their actions and by listening to the wants and needs of their local constituents.
2. By doing so, smaller parties would be able to earn NATIONAL recognition for efforts in the political field by earning an EC vote now and then.
3. As growth continued, the major political parties would HAVE to take them into consideration, and the views of the voting base that supports them.

To me, that means we would likely see less extremes, although the nation would still likely sway it's votes between 3 parties rather than two.

For someone like me, I could vote based on issues (I believe in privatized SS, "narrowing" our borders, fiscally conservative spending, some social programs, minimalizing our foreign involvement, etc.) which seem to swing through multiple parties. Honestly, I don't really seem to agree with either of the current candidates, but I believe more choice would allow me to find someone I disagree with less.
Would you like to see the Congress deciding who the President is? If a 3rd party gleaned enough EV's off and prevented either of the top two from garnering a majority, then the HR state delegations would caucus to each cast a vote for President.

The EC prevents 3rd parties from emerging unless they are near a majority view. The EC also moderates more extreme candidtates. If you don't believe this, just look at some of the positions that Kerry is now taking after living his entire political life left of Ted Kennedy.

Look at Bush's "compassionate"(code for liberal) conservatism.

They must moderate in order to preside. The EC guarantees this.

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 04:21 PM
I agree with this. That's why I think the "modified" distribution of votes within a state is an appealing option.
Colorado is proposing to apply a percentage of the popular vote towards their EV's which is problematic.

Suppose that 45% are one way and 55% are the other, they have 9 votes.

.45 x 9=4.05 EV's .55 x 9 = 4.95 EV's. How are you going to round? YOu cannot have fractional votes, the votes must actually be people who cast them called electors.

Nebraska and Main does it as I have stated, by district and by state, that is not what Colorado is proposing. Correct me if I am wrong. Where is Taco when you need him. :p

redbrian
10-14-2004, 04:21 PM
America is ONE country, not a country of special interests.

The US is “one country” that is made up of 50 separate states.
The federal government already pokes its nose into way to many things. It should only be involved in national issues and interstate issues.
All intrastate issues need to remain hands off to the fed’s.

Amnorix
10-14-2004, 04:24 PM
The US is “one country” that is made up of 50 separate states.
The federal government already pokes its nose into way to many things. It should only be involved in national issues and interstate issues.
All intrastate issues need to remain hands off to the fed’s.

What does this have to do with the EC?

unlurking
10-14-2004, 04:24 PM
Would you like to see the Congress deciding who the President is? If a 3rd party gleaned enough EV's off and prevented either of the top two from garnering a majority, then the HR state delegations would caucus to each cast a vote for President.

The EC prevents 3rd parties from emerging unless they are near a majority view. The EC also moderates more extreme candidtates. If you don't believe this, just look at some of the positions that Kerry is now taking after living his entire political life left of Ted Kennedy.

Look at Bush's "compassionate"(code for liberal) conservatism.

They must moderate in order to preside. The EC guarantees this.
We only need one vote above a 50/50 draw now to prevent the House from voting. I don't see this as being anymore difficult with 3 or 4 parties.

I agree with you that the EC prevents the emergence of third parties. This is my point completely. Someone already mentioned the chicken/egg concept for third parties in the thread about third parties being allowed to debate.

I want more choices beyond the two available. Neither fits my "profile" (to steal from DV) for a president. I will likely give my vote to Badnarik this year, in hopes that maybe enough people will do so to bring non Dem/Repub parties more to the mainstream.

Amnorix
10-14-2004, 04:27 PM
Responding specifically to Bunnytrdr -- I understand all of your points, but I seriously disagree that the electoral college accomplishes any of the things that you think it does.

All it does is shift marketing dollars of the presidential campaigns, and for short periods of time the political power, of certain states which (1) have more than a very small number of EVs, and (2) are "battlegrond" states.

Do you seriously think that Wyoming or New Hampshire or Montana have more political power because of the EC system than they would without it? I don't see it.

With regard to the Senate and Tom Daschle -- that system clearly DOES give more power to small states, and therefore I don't disagree with it. The Senate DOES accomplish what the framers intended, so no problem.

The EC doesn't accomplish a thing other than to skew the system towards a small number of battelground states, which was NOT the framers intent.

unlurking
10-14-2004, 04:33 PM
Colorado is proposing to apply a percentage of the popular vote towards their EV's which is problematic.

Suppose that 45% are one way and 55% are the other, they have 9 votes.

.45 x 9=4.05 EV's .55 x 9 = 4.95 EV's. How are you going to round? YOu cannot have fractional votes, the votes must actually be people who cast them called electors.

Nebraska and Main does it as I have stated, by district and by state, that is not what Colorado is proposing. Correct me if I am wrong. Where is Taco when you need him. :p
So far I haven't found a link to an article that provides the actual formula, but yes, that is an important difference to note, and I will comment on as soon as I see the formula.

I think a big factor is that this will apply to THIS ELECTION if passed, which would likely be a big loss to Bush as Colorado is a more Republican state.

Raiderhader
10-14-2004, 04:36 PM
Pros - Jesse Jackson is against it

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 04:38 PM
So far I haven't found a link to an article that provides the actual formula, but yes, that is an important difference to note, and I will comment on as soon as I see the formula.

I think a big factor is that this will apply to THIS ELECTION if passed, which would likely be a big loss to Bush as Colorado is a more Republican state.
Bush could stand to get the 45 % of Californias EV's this election, it wouldn't even be close if California, and only California changed its selection to the above model.

Which is why they will never do it. Each state wants to cast ALL its votes a certain way, because if they didn't, there wouldn't be as much interest in the state if the Candidate could count on the conseletion prize of EV's.

They would spend more time running on "National Issues" and less time talking about steel tariffs in Pennsylvania, Orange Juice in Florida, and off shore drilling in California.

Donger
10-14-2004, 04:39 PM
I think a big factor is that this will apply to THIS ELECTION if passed,

And the law suit is already written.

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 04:42 PM
Pros - Jesse Jackson is against it
ROFL But WHY is he against it? Do you dare tackle that one for fear of being branded a racist?

Big cities are dominated by African Americans. EC favors, ever so slightly rural states so its abolishment would skew the power to the big cities. Presidents would hop from one big city to the next pandering to the whims of the city bosses, virtually ignoring the needs of the rest of the country. Is this the kind of Presidency you would want?

Raiderhader
10-14-2004, 04:45 PM
ROFL But WHY is he against it? Do you dare tackle that one for fear of being branded a racist?

Big cities are dominated by African Americans. EC favors, ever so slightly rural states so its abolishment would skew the power to the big cities. Presidents would hop from one big city to the next pandering to the whims of the city bosses, virtually ignoring the needs of the rest of the country. Is this the kind of Presidency you would want?


So what you are saying is that you don't want blacks choosing our President? Racist.

redbrian
10-14-2004, 04:47 PM
What does this have to do with the EC?

The EC is a means of maintaining the individuality of the states, adopting a popular vote moves us one step closer to the elimination of the individual state.

unlurking
10-14-2004, 04:54 PM
ROFL But WHY is he against it? Do you dare tackle that one for fear of being branded a racist?

Big cities are dominated by African Americans. EC favors, ever so slightly rural states so its abolishment would skew the power to the big cities. Presidents would hop from one big city to the next pandering to the whims of the city bosses, virtually ignoring the needs of the rest of the country. Is this the kind of Presidency you would want?
I still don't see how this is true since the number of EC votes is based on population. Maybe I'm missing the connection?

Please enlighten me on HOW the EC benefits different states over others. Isn't a separation of state and federal government where the true benefit lies?

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 05:10 PM
I still don't see how this is true since the number of EC votes is based on population. Maybe I'm missing the connection?

Please enlighten me on HOW the EC benefits different states over others. Isn't a separation of state and federal government where the true benefit lies?
EV's that a state is entitled to cast are determined by the number of Representatives that their state has, plus 2 EV's for the Senators.

This Benefits a state that has 500 K people in it, because they get 2 EV's plus a minimum of one HR. If you divide out how many voters per EV the quotient is less in a small state than in a big state.

Their vote counts for more EV's than a voter in a big state. It is the great comromise. All that flyover dirt that each of the citizens controls actually contributes to an EV or two lol.

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 05:13 PM
So what you are saying is that you don't want blacks choosing our President? Racist.
What I DONT want is Big City Machine politics being the main factor of who our president is.

Don't worry, they have their representation within the EC system.

BTW, I have multi racial children and have already instructed them that they are free of any moral ingignity to choose whatever box is necessary to garner an advantage as they move through life.

Raiderhader
10-14-2004, 05:19 PM
What I DONT want is Big City Machine politics being the main factor of who our president is.

Don't worry, they have their representation within the EC system.

BTW, I have multi racial children and have already instructed them that they are free of any moral ingignity to choose whatever box is necessary to garner an advantage as they move through life.


Whatever, you're one of those KKK members that old bag is always talking about.


I was joking, dude. You asked if I was willing to tackle the question and be branded a racist, I was going to say yes, but you went ahead and answered the question yourself. So I got to brand you a racist instead of me getting hit with the label.

unlurking
10-14-2004, 05:19 PM
Ahh, so it is the population +2 that gives them the benefit.

I see how this changes a "pure" popular vote method. But it sounds like you would be amiable towards a solution similar to Maine/Nebraska or even Colorado if the formula were appropriate (wish I could find that)?

That is what I would be a proponent of. I also would not support a "pure" popular vote. Especially not with E-Voting being in the sad state it is.

RINGLEADER
10-14-2004, 05:32 PM
The Electoral College currently works, although I could see one side or the other (the Dems are pushing it in Colorado this time, but there's no reason Republicans couldn't do it in other states) gaming it by making some states winner-take-all and other states proportioned.

If California, New York and Illinois were all proportioned, for example, it would make it close to impossible for a Democrat to win the White House because even if the GOP candidate only won 35% of the vote he'd still end up with 36 EVs while the Democrat would receive 71 EVs (essentially it would be like the Republican winning New York in this kind of scenario). Same thing the other way too.

I think the system gives smaller states a better standing in the whole make-up of the election. It's worked for two centuries...why change now?

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 05:35 PM
Whatever, you're one of those KKK members that old bag is always talking about.


I was joking, dude. You asked if I was willing to tackle the question and be branded a racist, I was going to say yes, but you went ahead and answered the question yourself. So I got to brand you a racist instead of me getting hit with the label.
I thought you were joking man, but I couldn't resist the bait. :p

Oh yeah, I am a real white sheet.

ROFL

Raiderhader
10-14-2004, 05:41 PM
I thought you were joking man, but I couldn't resist the bait. :p

Oh yeah, I am a real white sheet.

ROFL


Well I'm glad I didn't get to feeling all bad and everything, jerk. :D

DanT
10-14-2004, 05:44 PM
Which scoring system is best?

1) Ping-pong, where the first player to 21 wins.

2) Tennis, where you have to win games to win sets to win the match and it doesn't matter how much you win the games or the matches by.

DanT
10-14-2004, 05:46 PM
Here's a scholarly article on the mathematical analysis of voting power and the electoral college, in case anyone's interested:


http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/Seminars/Seminars-Spring2004/STS027.pdf
Statistical Science
2002, Vol. 17, No. 4, 420–435
© Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2002
The Mathematics and Statistics of
Voting Power
Andrew Gelman, Jonathan N. Katz and Francis Tuerlinckx

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 05:47 PM
Ahh, so it is the population +2 that gives them the benefit.

I see how this changes a "pure" popular vote method. But it sounds like you would be amiable towards a solution similar to Maine/Nebraska or even Colorado if the formula were appropriate (wish I could find that)?

That is what I would be a proponent of. I also would not support a "pure" popular vote. Especially not with E-Voting being in the sad state it is.
Heck, I am for the state legislature getting together to vote for a slate of electors and not even having an election in November. It is their right under the costitution to choose their electors in any way their legislatures sees fit. Do you see why it has evolved into winner take all?

If for instance, California had 40 state legislatures and 22 of them were Democrat, then they caucused and had a parliamentary vote on the issue, "All electors shall vote for the Democrat", it would pass 22 to 18 and all EV's would be Democrat.

It is a system that has served us well. If we get tired of the Dems, then we only have to overturn 3 seats and we get the EV's. Both parties have agreed that it is pointless to hold this caucus and have pre arranged for the winner to get the whole slate.

Raiderhader
10-14-2004, 05:48 PM
Which scoring system is best?

1) Ping-pong, where the first player to 21 wins.

2) Tennis, where you have to win games to win sets to win the match and it doesn't matter how much you win the games or the matches by.


That depends on wether or not you are the first person to reach 21. ;)

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 05:49 PM
Well I'm glad I didn't get to feeling all bad and everything, jerk. :D
Hey, keep this chit in the Daily weenie roast thread. :p

How does Gaz put it.

If Bunny wants to roast, he knows where the roast thread is.

x~0~X~0

Raiderhader
10-14-2004, 05:51 PM
Hey, keep this chit in the Daily weenie roast thread. :p

How does Gaz put it.

If Bunny wants to roast, he knows where the roast thread is.

x~0~X~0


Whatever, da' trd.

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 05:58 PM
Here's a scholarly article on the mathematical analysis of voting power and the electoral college, in case anyone's interested:


http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/Seminars/Seminars-Spring2004/STS027.pdf
Statistical Science
2002, Vol. 17, No. 4, 420–435
© Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2002
The Mathematics and Statistics of
Voting Power
Andrew Gelman, Jonathan N. Katz and Francis Tuerlinckx
I just skimmed the article, fascinating chit though.

Thanks for posting it. :thumb:

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 06:05 PM
That depends on wether or not you are the first person to reach 21. ;)
Dang that was teh funny.

Calcountry
10-14-2004, 06:32 PM
The Electoral College currently works, although I could see one side or the other (the Dems are pushing it in Colorado this time, but there's no reason Republicans couldn't do it in other states) gaming it by making some states winner-take-all and other states proportioned.

If California, New York and Illinois were all proportioned, for example, it would make it close to impossible for a Democrat to win the White House because even if the GOP candidate only won 35% of the vote he'd still end up with 36 EVs while the Democrat would receive 71 EVs (essentially it would be like the Republican winning New York in this kind of scenario). Same thing the other way too.

I think the system gives smaller states a better standing in the whole make-up of the election. It's worked for two centuries...why change now?
I think that a lot of people forget we are the United STATES

Amnorix
10-15-2004, 08:15 AM
I think that a lot of people forget we are the United STATES

Yes, but we are a federation, not a confederation. And the fight over how power would be apportioned was fought about 150 years ago now...

State legislators used to directly select their state's senators to the US Senate, completely removing voters from that process. Changing that process did not destroy our federalist system.

Neither would changing the EC process for selecting a POTUS. The EC process do NOT empower the states, or empower state governments. IMHO the EC does NOT (as you claim) shift power away from urban areas and into rural areas. It merely shifts the focus of the presidential campaigns and increases the power of so-called battleground states.

KCTitus
10-15-2004, 08:31 AM
IMHO the EC does NOT (as you claim) shift power away from urban areas and into rural areas.

I think it does.

Democracy begins to fail when a majority of people realize they can vote themselves a financial windfall.

The EC prevents that to a degree.

Amnorix
10-15-2004, 08:57 AM
I think it does.

Democracy begins to fail when a majority of people realize they can vote themselves a financial windfall.

The EC prevents that to a degree.

In what way? Seriously, I have no idea how changing teh system would have that much of an impact.

In truth, I'm nto all that fussed about keeping the EC. In my mind, however, the EC is a worthless system that does not have the benefit the Founder intended or envisioned. It DOES, however, create the potential for a massive injustice where Person A wins by a landslide but not in the right combination of states or whatever.

I'm not talking about Gore/Bush, which was won/lost by the narrowest of margins, and everyone knew the ground rules before, so TFB. I'm talking about where the overall voting is something like 60/40 and yet the one who only gets 40% of the vote wins the Presidency. While I agree that's unlikely, it's far from impossible.

KCTitus
10-15-2004, 09:04 AM
In what way? Seriously, I have no idea how changing teh system would have that much of an impact.

In truth, I'm nto all that fussed about keeping the EC. In my mind, however, the EC is a worthless system that does not have the benefit the Founder intended or envisioned. It DOES, however, create the potential for a massive injustice where Person A wins by a landslide but not in the right combination of states or whatever.

I'm not talking about Gore/Bush, which was won/lost by the narrowest of margins, and everyone knew the ground rules before, so TFB. I'm talking about where the overall voting is something like 60/40 and yet the one who only gets 40% of the vote wins the Presidency. While I agree that's unlikely, it's far from impossible.

Im not sure if it's even mathematically possible to win 60% of the popular vote and not win the EC. If it was, Im sure it would have made news by now...

Lightning Rod
10-15-2004, 09:11 AM
I have not read all the responses so if I am repeating I apologize.

Basically is you don’t like the E.C. You should loath the Senate. Rhode Island and California are equal there. They are both a throw-back to the time where a strong central Government was not desired and States Rights were supposed to be unlimited as long as the laws they passes did not violate the Constitution. Actually is still “supposed” to be that way.

Amnorix
10-15-2004, 09:27 AM
Im not sure if it's even mathematically possible to win 60% of the popular vote and not win the EC. If it was, Im sure it would have made news by now...

Of course it is, at least in theory. You could win 100% of the vote in the 38 states with the smallest number of EVs, and 49% of the vote in the 12 states with the most EVs, and the other guy would win the election.

Amnorix
10-15-2004, 09:28 AM
I have not read all the responses so if I am repeating I apologize.

Basically is you don’t like the E.C. You should loath the Senate. Rhode Island and California are equal there. They are both a throw-back to the time where a strong central Government was not desired and States Rights were supposed to be unlimited as long as the laws they passes did not violate the Constitution. Actually is still “supposed” to be that way.

My assertion is that the Ec, unlike the Senate, accomplishes nothing. It is merely a different and pointless set of rules.

The 2 senators per state rule empowers small states. The EV empowers battleground states, which may or may not be small.

Or do you contend that Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and New Hampshire are in some way "helped" by the EC system?

KCTitus
10-15-2004, 09:46 AM
Of course it is, at least in theory. You could win 100% of the vote in the 38 states with the smallest number of EVs, and 49% of the vote in the 12 states with the most EVs, and the other guy would win the election.

Sorry, I was thinking of the political landscape as it actually exists not as it could theoretically exist to bring about the desired result.

Lightning Rod
10-15-2004, 09:48 AM
My thought on the EC is that it gives a "slightly" larger voice to the less populated states. Yet I really don’t think it makes much of a difference. I would not object to electoral votes being split by districts within each state with the two extra going to the winner. That might be fairer than the current system. Not that I really have a problem with the system as it is. Actually being from a small population state it is (in theory) in my best interest to stay with the status quo.

Hoover
10-15-2004, 09:53 AM
I think instead of the winner of the state getting all the electorial votes, I think it should go by congressional district, and the person who wins the most congressional districts in the state gets the two state wide electorial votes.

For example in Iowa

The state have 7 Electorial votes (5 districts)

Lets say Bush wins 4 of the 5, he would then get 6 electorial votes, and Kerry 1.

The only way I like this is if its this way in every state, this crap in Colorado is BS if you ask me

Amnorix
10-15-2004, 09:55 AM
My thought on the EC is that it gives a "slightly" larger voice to the less populated states. Yet I really don’t think it makes much of a difference. I would not object to electoral votes being split by districts within each state with the two extra going to the winner. That might be fairer than the current system.

Other than being completely arbitrary and handing the Republicans a huge advantage, that sounds like a great plan... :shake: :shake: :shake:

Amnorix
10-15-2004, 10:00 AM
I think instead of the winner of the state getting all the electorial votes, I think it should go by congressional district, and the person who wins the most congressional districts in the state gets the two state wide electorial votes.

For example in Iowa

The state have 7 Electorial votes (5 districts)

Lets say Bush wins 4 of the 5, he would then get 6 electorial votes, and Kerry 1.

The only way I like this is if its this way in every state, this crap in Colorado is BS if you ask me
Repeat: Other than being completely arbitrary and handing the Republicans a huge advantage, that sounds like a great plan... :shake: :shake: :shake:

I honestly don't really give a crap about the EC system, other than the fact that I think it is generally nonsensical, arbitrary and useless. It doesn't really offend me in any meaningful way.

You propose shifting to a new system which is at least as arbitrary and useless, which provides no improvement or additional benefit that I can see. Why?

Direct voting of the POTUS, IMHO, makes more sense than a system which skews political power not to rural states or small, otherwise politically weak states, but to "battleground states", including such UNsmall, UNweak states as Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio and Florida.

If we want to keep it, I'm not overly offended, but I honestly can't imagine supporting a shift from our current, relatively stupid system, to another even more stupid system which is focused not on states but on congressional districts. What the heck is the benefit of that?

Edit: Heck -- save the $$ and political engineering and just have the House and Senate elect the President directly. That's damn near the same thing as what you're suggesting.

Lightning Rod
10-15-2004, 10:06 AM
Other than being completely arbitrary and handing the Republicans a huge advantage, that sounds like a great plan... :shake: :shake: :shake:


So I’m assuming you would prefer to ditch the current system to one more advantageous to the Democratic Party?

Amnorix
10-15-2004, 10:28 AM
So I’m assuming you would prefer to ditch the current system to one more advantageous to the Democratic Party?

No, I prefer to ditch it for the one that makes the most sense -- direct voting. I honestly don't know, or even much care, whether that would be advantageous to Democrats or not. It would have been in 2000, but I have no idea about "in general", so to speak.

Again, I'm really not that fussed about the current system. I do think it completely fails to achieve the goals that it was originally designed to accomplish, but it's hardly the stupidest thing in the world, or anything like that.

Lightning Rod
10-15-2004, 10:35 AM
No, I prefer to ditch it for the one that makes the most sense -- direct voting. I honestly don't know, or even much care, whether that would be advantageous to Democrats or not. It would have been in 2000, but I have no idea about "in general", so to speak.

Again, I'm really not that fussed about the current system. I do think it completely fails to achieve the goals that it was originally designed to accomplish, but it's hardly the stupidest thing in the world, or anything like that.

LOL

I really don' much care either. Most of the time it would not make a difference.