Support NeoGAF

[videogamer]

In the lead up to the Republican Party Convention in New York next week, George W Bush is criss-crossing the US, drumming up support.

One place you will not find him though is Georgia.

This state and many others in the South are seen as already being won for the Republicans.

On a sweltering day in Cartersville, Georgia, Danny Duvall stood by the old factory where he used to work. He is a big man with a big motorbike.

But his tough-guy face melted away as he described how the factory closed down last year. "There were folks been there forever, didn't know what to do when they couldn't come to work."

But Danny refuses to blame the present administration for his troubles.

"Don't matter if it's George Bush or Thomas Jefferson in charge. They're sending manufacturing work abroad, and everything's done by computer now. You ain't got computer skills, you might as well give up."

Besides, Danny likes George Bush. "Down here in the South, you'll find folks will back a man who's not afraid to fight."

When Bill Clinton came out with the phrase "it's the economy stupid", it became one of the most oft-repeated election slogans of all times.

The suggestion was that people will always vote for the person they trust to keep a steady and competent hand on their nation's purse strings.

And certainly, that is what John Kerry is hoping will help propel him into the White House. Forget arguments about who did what in Vietnam.

The Democrats claim that George Bush is the first president since the depression to see a net loss of jobs while in office. This, they believe, is a winning point.

Three Gs

They should come to Cartersville. This week, a trade union was meeting to discuss the announcement of another massive redundancy programme at another local factory. Yet even here, there were plenty who remained unconvinced by John Kerry.

"There's one issue that's very important to me, and that's gun control," one union member tells me. "John Kerry seems to be in favour of it," says Danny.

He is also worried that John Kerry would support gay marriage, even though Mr Kerry voted against it in his own state of Massachusetts.

Opinions like this exasperate Lynne Baker, a full-time trade union worker who had come along to the meeting.

"I try to tell people about the economy," she explains, "but all they care about are the 'three Gs' - Guns, God and Gays.

"I tell them if they don't have a job, they won't be able to afford a gun. But they say they'll vote for Bush, because they think he's moral."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3606634.stm

 

[Socreges]

I like how the podium at the RNC strongly resembled that of a Church's. God damn those Republicans are sneaky.

 

[Catchpenny]

Every presidential candidate does this. As long as the electoral college is around, there will be 20 or so states in play, maybe half a dozen of which are really important. Every four years, a couple of states will enter battleground status and a couple others will leave battleground status.

It's one more reason why the current electoral college system sucks. People say small states will be ignored if we get rid of it. But any small state that votes reliably for one party is completely ignored now, and would likely receive at least a little attention even in an unweighted popular vote system.

 

[DJ_Tet]

Church's. God damn

.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

People say small states will be ignored if we get rid of it.

And to small states I say "So?" If we went to a direct election system, the state boundaries would cease to have any meaning in this context.

Of course, yeah, in reality it would be a huuuuge hurdle to getting any amendment passed.

 

[DJ_Tet]

Small states deserve a say in electing a President. The electoral college has a part in politics.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

A) Why should an Alaskan's vote count for more towards the Presidential race than a Californian's?

B) With the electoral college, many people in the state get NO say. As I often say in such discussions, my vote for Anybody But Bush means Jack Squat in Indiana.


Some reform that would at least evenly split a state's electoral votes (down to the nitty-gritty decimals) would be a compromise, but I still don't like A.


EDIT: Interestingly enough, looking at this page which compares a state's % of population with % of electoral total, I see Indiana is the closest to being perfectly matched.

 

[DJ_Tet]

A) Why should an Alaskan's vote count for more towards the Presidential race than a Californian's?

It doesn't. It counts more towards their actual state's leaning, but it doesn't count more towards the actual Presidential race. An Alaskan has a relatively huge part in deciding his state's vote, but he has little actual say in the overall election.

The outcome of California counts for a hell of a lot more than the outcome of Alaska, but you already knew that. I don't see your point.

In my opinion, the vote of the inconsequential Californian has a bigger impact than the vote of the Alaskan who controls a tiny state.

Why should the Alaskan's votes, and all they care about, mean shit, which would be the case without the Electoral College? States have vastly different needs. The EC does a decent job of representing each state's needs. A popular vote doesn't necessarily represent that.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It doesn't. It counts more towards their actual state's leaning, but it doesn't count more towards the actual Presidential race. An Alaskan has a relatively huge part in deciding his state's vote, but he has little actual say in the overall election.

I don't get how you mean. In every state every person's vote is going to be equal with every other person's vote in the state. It's when comparing it to other states that things become unequal. Alaska has 3 electors, and a population of about 550,000. So the average electors per person is 5.45x10^-6. California has 54 electors and about 29.8 million people (these numbers from the 1990 census and 2000 election). So the average electors per person in California is 1.81x10^-6.

Each Alaskan voter has an elector share greater than 3 Californians combined.

The outcome of California counts for a hell of a lot more than the outcome of Alaska, but you already knew that. I don't see your point.

Theoretically let's say California were split into chunks with about the population of Alaska. This would bring a shitload of senators to the people of Baby Californias, and the number of electors representing the combined populations of Baby Californias would nearly triple. But why does that make good sense?

In my opinion, the vote of the inconsequential Californian has a bigger impact than the vote of the Alaskan who controls a tiny state.

Why should the Alaskan's votes, and all they care about, mean shit, which would be the case without the Electoral College? States have vastly different needs. The EC does a decent job of representing each state's needs. A popular vote doesn't necessarily represent that.

Well, you tell me. Why should the Alaskan's votes mean shit? They're a really tiny portion of the country's population, so to me it only makes sense to count their votes as such.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

To put it another way: (Assuming ~50% voter turnout), if you want California's 54 electoral votes you've got to get about 7.45 mllion people to vote for you.

If you were to get 54 electoral votes from magical copies of Alaska, you'd only need 2.48 million votes. Why does that make sense?

 

[DJ_Tet]

Theoretically let's say California were split into chunks with about the population of Alaska. This would bring a shitload of senators to the people of Baby Californias, and the number of electors representing the combined populations of Baby Californias would nearly triple. But why does that make good sense?

It doesn't make good sense, and that's why the theoretical situation you mentioned isn't real.

The point is, the overall vote of California means a LOT more than the overall vote of Alaska. If the EC was disreguarded however, the overall vote of Alaska wouldn't mean anything. Their vote should count though. States have different goals, different agendas. In your world, the 550,000 votes wouldn't really count for anything, but in the real world, they count for at least a tiny bit.

 

[Ecrofirt]

There would be chaos without the electoral college.

Plain and simple. And I'm off to college.

 

[heavy liquid]

There would be chaos without the electoral college.

Plain and simple. And I'm off to college.

I disagree.

I think it's crazy that 16 Preidents have been elected without winning the popular vote.

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/problems.htm

Concerns:

Disproportionate Voting Power Given to Different States

The Winner-Take-All Method of Distributing Electoral Votes

Legally Unbound Electors

House of Representatives Can Choose the President

Enforcement of a Two Party System

Presidency Can Be Won Without a Majority of the Popular Vote

There was also a good discussion on this very subject on NPR a few weeks ago:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3857269

 

[heavy liquid]

It's one more reason why the current electoral college system sucks. People say small states will be ignored if we get rid of it. But any small state that votes reliably for one party is completely ignored now, and would likely receive at least a little attention even in an unweighted popular vote system.

Exactly.

http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/ec-faq.html

Does the Electoral College protect small states? Would campaigns ignore small states if we abolish the Electoral College?

In a word: no. To begin with, the Electoral College does not force candidates to focus on small states. The best example of this is the 2000 election. How much attention did either major-party candidate pay to small states? With a few exceptions (New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas, Maine, Iowa), the answer is: very little.

Instead, Gore and Bush focused almost exclusively on "toss-up" states, regardless of their size. This is a by-product of the Electoral College's winner-take-all system (which is actually a matter of state laws). There is no reason for a candidate to focus on a state where one candidate already has a significant lead. Even if states like Texas (which was obviously "safe" for Bush) or Massachusetts (clearly "safe" for Gore) have millions of undecided voters, it is inefficient for candidates to spend time or money in these states because Gore will not win a plurality in Texas, and Bush will not win a plurality in Massachusetts.

The result is that between 10 and 15 "swing" states received 95 percent of the attention -- including TV and radio ads, candidate visits, and well-organized local campaigns -- in the last two months of the campaign. This is grossly unfair to the vast majority of people that live in big and small states alike.

A system of direct presidential elections, as advocated by Citizens for True Democracy, would solve this problem. Especially in relatively close elections, no candidate or party would ignore any region, not even sparsely populated ones. Direct presidential elections would render current campaigns obsolete. Instead of launching national media campaigns every four years, parties would have an overwhelming incentive to develop PERMANENT local campaign infrastructures, and to play integral roles in local and state politics. Such a revitalized system would reinforce the important connection between national politics and people's everyday lives.

 

[maharg]

It seems to me that in the American system, where you vote on three more or less distinct levels, the president could easily be elected by popular vote while leaving the Senate and the House as being first past the post. That would, imo, properly balance the concerns of the two systems. As it is, all that really seems to happen due to the three levels is the staggering of popular opinion's effect on government policy.

 

[videogamer]

Exactly.

http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/ec-faq.html

Yeah, and this has been going on for quite a long time too.... IIRC, Clinton never visited some state, ever. My history teacher in high school actually blamed Nixon's close loss to Kennedy on part of his pledge to visit all the states. Another example is the Cuban community, which is able to have a lot of influence because of its location in Florida.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It doesn't make good sense, and that's why the theoretical situation you mentioned isn't real.

The point is, the overall vote of California means a LOT more than the overall vote of Alaska. If the EC was disreguarded however, the overall vote of Alaska wouldn't mean anything. Their vote should count though. States have different goals, different agendas. In your world, the 550,000 votes wouldn't really count for anything, but in the real world, they count for at least a tiny bit.

The 550,000 Alaskans would count for just as much as 550,000 Californians or 550,000 Hoosiers, or 550,000 Pennsylvanians. If this were to come by, I imagine any real change in focus of candidate sucking-up would be to go more urban, since then all populated areas would be equally valuable, rather than needing to get more than half of a state.


As well, the "Enforcement of a Two Party System" bit heavy liquid posted. I guess that just slipped my mind, since yeah, increasing the power of third parties is one of my biggest political wants.