Support NeoGAF

[borghe]

see my above added information. The problem is that your seats in congress are STILL determined by population size. So if all californians came out and voted one way, that still will account for over 10% of the vote. Not to mention if 800M people moved to california, they would get even MORE seats in the house and thuse would account for even MORE than there already 10%+ of electoral votes.

The bottom line is that when the electoral college was implemented, pockets of civiliation were VERY spread out, information poorly disseminated, presidential nominees refused to campaign for office, and without the electoral college most americans wouldn't even know who they were voting for.

As I said, archaic. Chow me one american who doesn't know who George Bush or John Kerry are. Show me one American who has no idea of where to get information on them if they so chose to take an interest in either candidate.

The college is broke. It was instated to help a fledgling country and is continued because hey, California gets 10% of the votes for president, and if we ever tried to get rid of that law they also get 10% of the votes in the house to shoot down that bill.

The system is broke and needs to be fixed. We aren't 13 colonies scattered over vast areas of unpopulated land any more with presidential candidates who refuse to campaign for office.

 

[maharg]

"-- believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry
St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not
downright evil"

Hah oh how things change.

 

[Seth C]

..

 

[Phoenix]

see my above added information. The problem is that your seats in congress are STILL determined by population size. So if all californians came out and voted one way, that still will account for over 10% of the vote. Not to mention if 800M people moved to california, they would get even MORE seats in the house and thuse would account for even MORE than there already 10%+ of electoral votes.

The bottom line is that when the electoral college was implemented, pockets of civiliation were VERY spread out, information poorly disseminated, presidential nominees refused to campaign for office, and without the electoral college most americans wouldn't even know who they were voting for.

As I said, archaic. Chow me one american who doesn't know who George Bush or John Kerry are. Show me one American who has no idea of where to get information on them if they so chose to take an interest in either candidate.

The college is broke. It was instated to help a fledgling country and is continued because hey, California gets 10% of the votes for president, and if we ever tried to get rid of that law they also get 10% of the votes in the house to shoot down that bill.

The system is broke and needs to be fixed. We aren't 13 colonies scattered over vast areas of unpopulated land any more with presidential candidates who refuse to campaign for office.

In everything you've said, you've not come up with a single compelling reason to abolish the electoral college... just that its old.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

My key problem with the electoral college is that it causes a very small fraction of the population to have the only votes that count.

 

[akascream]

The could leave it how it is, but make the ammendment JUST for Arnold. He'd have my vote.

 

[fennec fox]

The could leave it how it is, but make the ammendment JUST for Arnold. He'd have my vote.

But what if Arnold declares himself Fuhrer for life?

 

[Socreges]

"Schwarzenegger ain't got nothing on me."

 

[akascream]

But what if Arnold declares himself Fuhrer for life?

Yeah, fuckin nazis!

 

[borghe]

In everything you've said, you've not come up with a single compelling reason to abolish the electoral college... just that its old.

as for the electoral college, when you can have a presidential candidate be voted for BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE VOTING POPULATION and STILL LOSE, there is something wrong with your system. The voters spoke, they wanted Gore, but Bush still won. Explain that one away.

and I am more conservative and even I think it was fucked up that GW won. the electoral college is broke and native-born american politicians are taking this country to hell.. we need to adapt the laws to our modern fucked up society.

I said it like 4 hours ago. the electoral college is broken. it no longer accurately represents the voice of the people. people in today's age are making up their minds and voting and at the end of the day the person they choose is not the president. It can't be any clearer than that. With as close as this election is I whole heartedly expect it to happen again. Mark my words, the next president (whichever it may be) will win the electoral votes but not the popular vote. In today's day and age that is ineccusable. Voted for by the people my ass.

The electoral college was put into place so that California didn't get an unnecessarily louder vote than Rhode Island. However today California gets around 10% of the electoral votes and rhode island gets about .7% of the electoral votes. By contrast, California has about 12% of the US population and and RI has about .3%. So yes, things are evened out VERY slightly.

The breakage of the electoral college is VERY easy to pinpoint, and that slight evening you see going on now only happened after a lame attempt to fix it.

The breakage happened because as states grew, they kept getting more representatives. So when california boomed, they got a ton more, as states like montana didn't, they got fewer ones. So the entire point of the college at that point was defeated.

They attempted to fix it by stopping the creation of new electoral votes and instead just shifting total electors between states. Unfortunately, somewhere around the time when new electors were no longer created, the population of the US basically stabilized.

So what we are now left with is an electoral college that closely mirrors the population anyway, making that part of its creation pointless.

The other part of it's creation that is meaningless is the lack of campaigning and information avaiable. Some would argue there is too much of both right now.

So the main reasons are currently pointless, and in the meantime we have now had one recent election with the popular winner losing and likely this year most analysts believe we will have a second popular winner losing.

If that isn't a need for change than I don't know what is.

 

[UltimateMarioMan]

Is Jesse Ventura still in politics? He could be Vice President! Schwarzenegger/Ventura 2008! It'd be like Predator only in politics!!

 

[borghe]

Is Jesse Ventura still in politics? He could be Vice President! Schwarzenegger/Ventura 2008! It'd be like Predator only in politics!!

lol.. no, he left. he was literally sick of it. he couldn't stand the shit he had to deal with just to try and make a change in this country.

 

[UltimateMarioMan]

Think Stallone could be talked into politics? Just so Schwarzenegger/whatever 2008 sounds like an action movie!

 

[Dan]

So the main reasons are currently pointless, and in the meantime we have now had one recent election with the popular winner losing and likely this year most analysts believe we will have a second popular winner losing.

Your argument is all over the place. You are simultaneously saying that the electoral college is flawed because it doesn't correspond with the popular vote, while also saying it's flawed because it doesn't even out each state's respective voting power enough. Can you not see how these two views are anything but complementary? The fact that you think it could/should go in either direction seems to indicate it's at a pretty happy medium right now.

"This room's temperature isn't right. It needs to be warmer... and colder."

 

[Ghost]

Meh, if he can convince the (somewhat slanted due to the system) majority of the country that he's better than the other guy i say let Arnie be president, it'll be like Clinton ^10 in the sex scandal fun stakes.


Id also like to see an all action 'hero' billing with Arnie & Danny Glover Vs Stallone & Charlie Sheen.

That'd be a heck of a campaign.

 

[Dilbert]

It's in there to prevent a foreign power from usurping control of our government.

Where the clause in the Constitution which prevents our Presidency from being bought by corporate interests? I fear that far more than, say, undue influence from Japan.

Yes, that part of the Constitution is probably useless in present-day America. That still doesn't qualify Schwartzenegger to be President. When he actually accomplishes anything in California, wake me up.

Doesn't it frighten anyone else that the cult of celebrity in this country is so strong that I bet a ticket of Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson might have a good chance of scoring more votes than some of the current third parties?

 

[Ghost]

Doesn't it frighten anyone else that the cult of celebrity in this country is so strong that I bet a ticket of Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson might have a good chance of scoring more votes than some of the current third parties?

Well what do you really need to be a good president? You dont need to be smart, you have advisors to think for you, write your speeches for you, perform CPR when you fail to chew food properly etc...all you really need is to appear as a strong effective leader, just about any actor is capable of that, and if they have half a brain cell (as arnie must to have gotten where he has from what he started with) then all the better.

 

[Loki]

Doesn't it frighten anyone else that the cult of celebrity in this country is so strong that I bet a ticket of Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson might have a good chance of scoring more votes than some of the current third parties?

YES! Holy shit, yes. I was going to post this, but didn't want to get involved in yet another debate. I always tell people what an absolute JOKE (and a sad commentary on our society, as you noted) it is that The Terminator is actually leading a state, nevermind his aspirations for the presidency. This country's a farce in countless ways. So now I can say it, and, if anybody takes issue with it, you'll have to do the arguing.


I abhor the emphasis on and concern with celebrity in this country; it's repugnant and pointless. I forget which comedian said it, but it was funny-- he said, "you know things have gotten out of hand in this country when you have people whose entire existence revolves around watching and talking about other people" (referring to gossip columnists and other celeb-watchers). Very true.


I also agree with the point that the government being run by corporate interests is very frightening.

 

[Dilbert]

Well what do you really need to be a good president? You dont need to be smart, you have advisors to think for you, write your speeches for you, perform CPR when you fail to chew food properly etc...all you really need is to appear as a strong effective leader, just about any actor is capable of that, and if they have half a brain cell (as arnie must to have gotten where he has from what he started with) then all the better.

If that is all that we demand of our presidents, that they look good on camera and can be led by people behind the scenes...then I can only say that we must have fallen into Bizarro World when I wasn't looking.

Do you think that ALL leaders are like that? That every CEO of a major corporation is a figurehead with no actual thought or responsibility? I've met CEOs, and I can guarantee that they DO something. Their support staff exists to implement his/her vision, and provide a counterpoint to their ideas when needed. But the leader LEADS, and it's on his/her shoulders at the end of the day.

Look, Plato had a lot of wacky ideas, but I think I'm on board with the idea that the best and brightest ought to be in charge. Being the President of the United States must be an unfathomably hard job, and since it would require all of your personal skills and talents to succeed...you'd better damn well have personal skills and talents.

Appearance is not reality, and we ought be demanding substance.

 

[Loki]

If that is all that we demand of our presidents, that they look good on camera and can be led by people behind the scenes...then I can only say that we must have falled into Bizarro World when I wasn't looking.

Do you think that ALL leaders are like that? That every CEO of a major corporation is a figurehead with no actual thought or responsibility? I've met CEOs, and I can guarantee that they DO something. Their support staff exists to implement his/her vision, and provide a counterpoint to their ideas when needed. But the leader LEADS, and it's on his/her shoulders at the end of the day.

Look, Plato had a lot of wacky ideas, but I think I'm on board with the idea that the best and brightest ought to be in charge. Being the President of the United States must be an unfathomably hard job, and since it would require all of your personal skills and talents to succeed...you'd better damn well have personal skills and talents.

Appearance is not reality, and we ought be demanding substance.

<claps and hoots from the sidelines>

Preach it, brother!

 

[Dan]

Doesn't it frighten anyone else that the cult of celebrity in this country is so strong that I bet a ticket of Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson might have a good chance of scoring more votes than some of the current third parties?

I don't think it's just us.

I was in Scotland when Schwarzenegger declared his candidacy for governor, and I followed the campaign by reading Scotland's daily papers. They all had numerous articles, every single day about what was going on out in California. I think it says a lot when Scotland is suddenly covering California's politics (minus the obvious way that US news permeates the world to begin with). The only story for them was Schwarzenegger's presence. The governor of California has no impact on them, it was only news because of his celebrity status.

And yes, it's scary.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Your argument is all over the place. You are simultaneously saying that the electoral college is flawed because it doesn't correspond with the popular vote, while also saying it's flawed because it doesn't even out each state's respective voting power enough. Can you not see how these two views are anything but complementary? The fact that you think it could/should go in either direction seems to indicate it's at a pretty happy medium right now.

If I could be so bold as to rephrase him, it would go something like "A favorite reason that defenders of the electoral college bring up is that it helps even out the influence of small states and large states. But it doesn't do a very good job, since California still has a massive massive say and small states still have a tiny say. That being the case, we might as well go with the more precise popular vote."

I happen to disagree with that view and think that small states get too big a say with the electoral college, but hey.

 

[xexex]

I will be leader!

 

[borghe]

thank you joshua.. that is exactly my point.

the electoral college was instated for two reasons. To give states an equal voting power and to account for the fact that there was little campaigning through the original 13 states and thus most consituents didn't even know who was running let alone their platform they were running on.

With the way the college progressed though the the states eventually moved towards uneven voting power anyway and now EVERYONE knows or is capable of knowing every last detail about the candidates running.

So what does the college do now then? Oh, it means 10% of california can vote (3.5M) and 100% of Rhode Island can vote (1M) and those 3.5M Californians will count 14x more in the election than those 1M Rhode Islanders

 

[Phoenix]

I said it like 4 hours ago. the electoral college is broken. it no longer accurately represents the voice of the people. people in today's age are making up their minds and voting and at the end of the day the person they choose is not the president. It can't be any clearer than that. With as close as this election is I whole heartedly expect it to happen again. Mark my words, the next president (whichever it may be) will win the electoral votes but not the popular vote. In today's day and age that is ineccusable. Voted for by the people my ass.

Right, so you support a system where people just run out and vote and have a voice despite the fact that the vast majority of them don't even know what the hell they are voting for. You think that the voting system should become one nice popularity contest. The vast majority of voting campaigns just encourage people to vote for whomever recruits them. So you have these nice parties and people on TV and radio encouraging people to make a decision and you know what - not a damn one of them really understands what the hell is going on.

That's about as intelligent as the "vote or die" stuff on south park.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Right, so you support a system where people just run out and vote and have a voice despite the fact that the vast majority of them don't even know what the hell they are voting for. You think that the voting system should become one nice popularity contest. The vast majority of voting campaigns just encourage people to vote for whomever recruits them. So you have these nice parties and people on TV and radio encouraging people to make a decision and you know what - not a damn one of them really understands what the hell is going on.

And the electoral college makes this different how? All it does is make some peoples votes count as 0 and some people's votes count as 5.

 

[Dan]

So what does the college do now then? Oh, it means 10% of california can vote (3.5M) and 100% of Rhode Island can vote (1M) and those 3.5M Californians will count 14x more in the election than those 1M Rhode Islanders

*sigh*

I'm gonna back out of this one. You aren't arguing your point well at all, and I'm not going to tell you what the best line of attack is on the electoral college since I think it's a hell of a lot better than the straight-up national popular vote that you seem to think is in everyone's best interest. Is the electoral college perfect? No. Is a popular vote system worse? Yes.

Suffice to say, you might want to really consider SyNapSe said above about different states having different interests. You seem to think that the needs of Alaska, Vermont and Hawaii are all identical. Your promotion of a straight popular vote is only the promotion of the disregard of minority interests.

Oh and for the record...

see my above added information. The problem is that your seats in congress are STILL determined by population size. So if all californians came out and voted one way, that still will account for over 10% of the vote. Not to mention if 800M people moved to california, they would get even MORE seats in the house and thuse would account for even MORE than there already 10%+ of electoral votes.

Your popular vote idea doesn't solve this wild hypothetical problem. In fact, it makes it far, far worse, giving Californians even more respective control over the country. So even if one were to take the side of your position, you haven't offered a better alternative. You yourself have pointed out numerous times that the electoral college does indeed help even things out.

You're just so stuck on this notion that the electoral college is supposed to make individuals' votes equal that you're missing the blatant intention of protecting states' interests, which was the true reason for the system. Yeah, it's hip nowadays to run around trying to make sure everyone is equal in everyway, but fact is, that's not necessarily best for anyone, least of all the United States of America.

And the electoral college makes this different how? All it does is make some peoples votes count as 0 and some people's votes count as 5.

The system wasn't designed to make people's votes equal, and maybe, just maybe, you should consider the idea that it shouldn't, and should instead support the inclusion of minority interests in relation to issues of states in the election of the highest position this nation has to offer.

And if you're going to try and say that the electoral college and popular voting are equally bad, then you really aren't making a point.

 

[Triumph]

You do release that the president isn't a dictator and there are checks and balances in the House and Senate to prevent something like that from happening right? Clinton got thrown out for lying about a blow job man.

And can you describe WTF usurping control of our government actually means?

SEE: BUSH, GEORGE W.

 

[nfreakct]

Slavery is actually implicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Free people count as one person. The rest (i.e. slaves) count as 3/5ths.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Suffice to say, you might want to really consider SyNapSe said above about different states having different interests. You seem to think that the needs of Alaska, Vermont and Hawaii are all identical. Your promotion of a straight popular vote is only the promotion of the disregard of minority interests.

The current system disregards the Indiana Democratic minority, the California Republican minority, the Alaska Democratic minority, the Hawaiian Republican minority, the third-party minority everywhere, etc.

My personal favorite reform (because I feel it would have a shade of a chance of being approved by the states that benefit from the electoral college) is basically dropping the integers, and perhaps allocating the "House" portion of the vote more fair. For instance, if a state currently has 5 Representatives and thus 7 electoral votes, but in a bizarro math world would really deserve 5.2 Representatives, then they'd have 7.2 electoral votes. Then if a candidate got 39% of the vote in that state they'd get 7.2 x 0.39 = 2.808 electoral votes. This would retain the advantage for small states, and still make each individual person's vote matter.

 

[Boogie9IGN]

In case you hadn't noticed, Arnold is a terrible governor.

Uhm, what?

 

[bjork]

2008!

What. That's when we get Jesse Ventura

 

[Zaptruder]

If that is all that we demand of our presidents, that they look good on camera and can be led by people behind the scenes...then I can only say that we must have fallen into Bizarro World when I wasn't looking.

Do you think that ALL leaders are like that? That every CEO of a major corporation is a figurehead with no actual thought or responsibility? I've met CEOs, and I can guarantee that they DO something. Their support staff exists to implement his/her vision, and provide a counterpoint to their ideas when needed. But the leader LEADS, and it's on his/her shoulders at the end of the day.

Look, Plato had a lot of wacky ideas, but I think I'm on board with the idea that the best and brightest ought to be in charge. Being the President of the United States must be an unfathomably hard job, and since it would require all of your personal skills and talents to succeed...you'd better damn well have personal skills and talents.

Appearance is not reality, and we ought be demanding substance.

The meritocracy. It'll bring us as close to Utopia as is humanly possible.

 

[Teddman]

Yes, that part of the Constitution is probably useless in present-day America. That still doesn't qualify Schwartzenegger to be President. When he actually accomplishes anything in California, wake me up.

DING DONG

L.A. Daily News: Even Critics Give Rave Reviews

SACRAMENTO -- A year after his stunning victory in the recall election, Arnold Schwarzenegger has proved himself to be an effective and engaging chief executive after the lackluster Gov. Gray Davis, political experts, critics and even Democratic partisans say.

In the recall campaign, Schwarzenegger faced sharp attacks that he was nothing more than a movie actor and bodybuilder, a political neophyte who would find Sacramento far more difficult than the world of Hollywood make-believe.

But with the first anniversary of his election coming Thursday, he wins plaudits for having built healthier relations with legislative leaders of both parties than Davis ever had, while making inroads in easing partisan gridlock and special-interest politics.

A year after his election, experts and even critics who disagree with his policies say Schwarzenegger has been a more effective governor than the more-experienced Gov. Gray Davis, who had frosty relations even with members of his own party in the Legislature and who was blamed for partisan gridlock and special-interest politics...

Among the highlights of Schwarzenegger's term since taking office Nov. 17:

Rolled back the car tax.

Passed a spending-limit constitutional amendment, although he allowed it to be watered down from his original, tougher plan.

Passed a $15 billion borrowing measure.

Passed a workers' compensation reform package.

Passed a $105 billion budget -- 31 days late.

Launched a state government overhaul called the California Performance Review.

Maintained approval ratings above 60 percent.

Repealed a law giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and vetoed a bill to grant them licenses with new security measures.

 

[Spectral Glider]

Is Jesse Ventura still in politics? He could be Vice President! Schwarzenegger/Ventura 2008! It'd be like Predator only in politics!!

I'd prolly vote for them. Actually, if Ventura was running for pres I'd certainly vote for him.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

A year after his election, experts and even critics who disagree with his policies say Schwarzenegger has been a more effective governor than the more-experienced Gov. Gray Davis, who had frosty relations even with members of his own party in the Legislature and who was blamed for partisan gridlock and special-interest politics...

Well, I should hope he's better than a guy they deemed awful enough to kick out of office.

In case you hadn't noticed, Arnold is a terrible governor.

Uhm, what?

He made a similar comment in the last President Arnold thread,so let me retrieve that...

College/University kids, around here at least, hate him because he keeps cutting our financial aid and raising tuition costs.

 

[Phoenix]

And the electoral college makes this different how? All it does is make some peoples votes count as 0 and some people's votes count as 5.

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[borghe]

Suffice to say, you might want to really consider SyNapSe said above about different states having different interests. You seem to think that the needs of Alaska, Vermont and Hawaii are all identical. Your promotion of a straight popular vote is only the promotion of the disregard of minority interests.

How is it disregard of minority interests. Even if 100% of the population voted it still wouldn't be that more drastically off than the electoral vote because of the way the electoral college became unbalanced over the years (remember, the college was instated with MUCH closer votes between the states than we have now). And by comparison, the minority interests are unhread of now. 49% of a state is against a candidate by by electoral count the entire state is for him?

Your popular vote idea doesn't solve this wild hypothetical problem. In fact, it makes it far, far worse, giving Californians even more respective control over the country.

Umm. how? Californians, even if 100% came to vote, would only have a 2% advantage, and that is IF 100% came out to vote when in reality the number is significantly lower.

You're just so stuck on this notion that the electoral college is supposed to make individuals' votes equal that you're missing the blatant intention of protecting states' interests, which was the true reason for the system.

Except that YOU gloss over the fact that when the system went into effect, NY didn't get 55 votes while NC only got 4. The system was much more balanced upon inception. You seem to think I am against the concept of an electoral college at all. The truth is in concept an electoral college is great. But in pracitce and allowing electors to grow per state mirroring population booms in a growing country is horrible. You end up with the same inequal proportioning that you were trying to avoid in the first place.

The system wasn't designed to make people's votes equal, and maybe, just maybe, you should consider the idea that it shouldn't, and should instead support the inclusion of minority interests in relation to issues of states in the election of the highest position this nation has to offer.

Technically this is incorrect. Actually, the system WAS designed to make people's votes equal. It was designed so that no greater state got more of an advantage into getting a president into office than any other state. You talk about state interests. Let me ask you, does California have more of a say than anyone else as to who is in office? Yes. But why should they. Because they have more people? Does that make them a more important state? More importantly, does that make Wisconsin's issues less important. Does that mean Rhode Islanders have less of a right to be heard?

Arguably you have made one compelling argument to continue with the college. You say it protects state interests, but fail to mention how. You say that people don't know who to vote for and make it a popularity contest. How can they NOT know who they are voting for? We are innundated with radio ads, urls, TV spots, billboards and magazine articles on our candidates.

And how are state interests not taken into account? When I vote am I not taking my states interests into account? Does my voice not deserve to be heard in regards to MY quality of living.

The college AS INSTATED was fine. It did what it needed to in a young nation. But because electors were added closely mirroring population booms during expansionism, the major part of the college that was designed to equalize ended up failing. No California, Illionois, and NY (among others) have more say in who is president than the bottom 20+ states combined. If you feel that is fair there is no further point in arguing with you.

We elect senators to office despite communities having different agendas. We elect governors to office despite communities and regions having different interests. Every elected office in this country is obtained through a popular vote, yet you are really going to sit there and say the one office where everyone's voice SHOULD be heard, arguably the most important vote in the country, should be governed in such a way that everyone's voice isn't equal, and the larger states' agendas and motives should be more important than the smaller states.

and for the record synapses' theory didn't take into account that there AREN'T any major population shifts in america, nor have their been for almost 100 years. So in theory 800M people could move to California and vote under a popular vote, but it wouldn't happen. And even if it did happen to what effect? Those 800M people would come from somewhere thus raising the electors in CA and dropping it from whereever they came from.

As for my solutions there are really two quite simple ones. Either do away with the electoral college or shift it back to a closer quantity of votes for states. But as it is now, having one state basically having the ability to cancel out up to 14 other states voting power hardly seems like it makes sense, let alone is at all fair.

 

[borghe]

What the heck are you talking about?

Easy, someone voting in california has 5.5 times the voting rights as someone in Wisconsin.

if 50% of the people in CA vote and 60% of the people in WI vote, and the vote is a two vote majority, WI for Rebulican and CA for Democrat:

WI 1,641,687 votes democrat 1,641,691 Republican
CA 8,871,114 votes democrat 8,871,112 republican

Under the electoral college CA would then cast 55 votes for the democrat and WI would cast 10 votes for the republican. The democrat would win between the two states

However, there would have been a total of 10,512,801 votes for the democrat and 10,512,803 for the republican.

So under the electoral college the democrat would have won by a 550% margin while under the popular system the republican would have won by a 50.1% margin.

and so far not one of you have said WHY a popular vote is bad for the system aside from that Wisconsin doesn't have the same goal as California. So what the hell does that have to do with it? California STILL has 5.5 times the votes as Wisconsin and STILL doesn't care about WI's issues. I fail to see how tha tis so much better than a popular vote... :\

 

[Dilbert]

The system was much more balanced upon inception. ... But in pracitce and allowing electors to grow per state mirroring population booms in a growing country is horrible. You end up with the same inequal proportioning that you were trying to avoid in the first place.

Actually, the system WAS designed to make people's votes equal. It was designed so that no greater state got more of an advantage into getting a president into office than any other state.

...

No California, Illionois, and NY (among others) have more say in who is president than the bottom 20+ states combined. If you feel that is fair there is no further point in arguing with you.

...

As for my solutions there are really two quite simple ones. Either do away with the electoral college or shift it back to a closer quantity of votes for states. But as it is now, having one state basically having the ability to cancel out up to 14 other states voting power hardly seems like it makes sense, let alone is at all fair.

You need to go back to your history books, or just drop this topic since you're overmatched.

The original intent of the electoral college was to balance the interests of large states AND small states. The same intent is why we have a bicameral legislature with different numbers of representatives in each, by the way, and this is also why the electoral vote numbers per state are tied to the number of representatives and senators per state. There was a serious concern in the early days of this country that states with more population could dominate a purely popular vote. At the same time, it is a fact that states with fewer people simply don't have as much impact on the nation as larger states. I'm sorry, but if you think that Rhode Island has as much impact on this nation as California, you're completely nuts. What percentage of the GDP is Rhode Island, anyway?

In any event, there was no mathematical design to make each individual vote "equal" via the electoral college. That is simply a wrong statement, and I don't understand why you insist on repeating it. The intent was to balance those two interests, and even though it CURRENTLY isn't the best system, you certainly can't fault the Founding Fathers for recognizing the problem and trying to do something about it.

If you want to bitch about votes not counting, then you should support either an entirely different system of voting (Condorcet, instant runoff, etc.), or you should support a federal law which forces ALL states to divide their electoral votes proportionally according to the percentage of the popular vote each presidential candidate receives in the state. Out here in "liberal" California, we've been ignored for the whole election because Kerry and Bush already know who is going to win the state, so the margin doesn't matter. With all due respect to Pennsylvania, Ohio, and so on -- don't you think that it's fairly fucked up that the most populous state in the nation is sitting on the sideline for this election? Who is concerned about OUR interests?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

(With many past quotes for context.)

Right, so you support a system where people just run out and vote and have a voice despite the fact that the vast majority of them don't even know what the hell they are voting for. You think that the voting system should become one nice popularity contest. The vast majority of voting campaigns just encourage people to vote for whomever recruits them. So you have these nice parties and people on TV and radio encouraging people to make a decision and you know what - not a damn one of them really understands what the hell is going on.

And the electoral college makes this different how? All it does is make some peoples votes count as 0 and some people's votes count as 5.

What the heck are you talking about?

By my understanding, you were saying popular vote isn't a good idea because then we'd be at the whims of a popularity contest, when many voters are uninformed. I don't see that the electoral college changes anything about that, it's just that the votes are counted in a different way. Such that my non-Republican vote in Indiana counts as 0, but a Republican vote in Alaska counts as several times an average vote, since not only does it help cancel out all non-Republican Alaskan votes, but counts more than other state's citizens votes due to the way electors are distributed.


My personal favorite thought exercise against the electoral college remains to be: If California split into several different states (North California, South California, East California, West California say), does it makes sense that all of a sudden the same group of people now has a larger number of electors due to each new state having 2 senators?

In any event, there was no mathematical design to make each individual vote "equal" via the electoral college. That is simply a wrong statement, and I don't understand why you insist on repeating it. The intent was to balance those two interests, and even though it CURRENTLY isn't the best system, you certainly can't fault the Founding Fathers for recognizing the problem and trying to do something about it.

We don't fault the Founding Fathers for what they did at the time regarding the electoral college. We fault the fact that their system is still in use CURRENTLY.

If you want to bitch about votes not counting, then you should support either an entirely different system of voting (Condorcet, instant runoff, etc.), or you should support a federal law which forces ALL states to divide their electoral votes proportionally according to the percentage of the popular vote each presidential candidate receives in the state. Out here in "liberal" California, we've been ignored for the whole election because Kerry and Bush already know who is going to win the state, so the margin doesn't matter. With all due respect to Pennsylvania, Ohio, and so on -- don't you think that it's fairly fucked up that the most populous state in the nation is sitting on the sideline for this election? Who is concerned about OUR interests?

100% agreed.

 

[borghe]

In any event, there was no mathematical design to make each individual vote "equal" via the electoral college.

I never said equal, I said "more equal". Their were 4 million people in the US spread all along the atlantic coast when the country was formed. the fact of the matter is that they were generally located in larger communities and smaller communities. HOWEVER, there were still fewer electors and fewer constituents per elector, hence, the voting was CONSIDERABLY more equal than it is now. It wasn't decided by any form of mathematic equation, however it was still done to, as you say, make sure that the larger areas don't decimate the smaller areas.

So tell me, you don't think that today, with it's 55 electoral votes and 12% of the total votes that California decimates the smaller states?

Yes I get tha tCalifornia (only as an example) is from an economic standpoint more important to this country than say Rhode Island, but the bottom line is that Rhode Island's interests are moot, as there vote and like 14 other states as well is effectiovely cancelled out by california. The fact is that many states don't even matter in the vote.

or you should support a federal law which forces ALL states to divide their electoral votes proportionally according to the percentage of the popular vote each presidential candidate receives in the state.

so again 25% of californians could come out to vote but because the state itself holds so many people that 25% gets its voice heard that much larger.

Out here in "liberal" California, we've been ignored for the whole election because Kerry and Bush already know who is going to win the state, so the margin doesn't matter. With all due respect to Pennsylvania, Ohio, and so on -- don't you think that it's fairly fucked up that the most populous state in the nation is sitting on the sideline for this election? Who is concerned about OUR interests?

and there you have it. THAT is fucked up. but don't you think if the electoral college was done with and they actually had to fight for each and everyone of your votes that they would be MORE inclined to try to win you over? but know, they know how the majority of you will vote and don't care what the minority will.

You just made my case a lot more than yours. A popular vote would assure that each and every californian would be appealed to for a vote. Instead you are all just written off because of what a majority thinks.

 

[Phoenix]

Easy, someone voting in california has 5.5 times the voting rights as someone in Wisconsin.

Follows the same mistaken perception that the popular vote in a state must dictate the electorate vote which isn't the case. There are MANY cases in which electors vote against the popular vote or their own party. If the electoral college was just parroting the popular vote, we would have long ago automated that process.

and so far not one of you have said WHY a popular vote is bad for the system aside from that Wisconsin doesn't have the same goal as California. So what the hell does that have to do with it? California STILL has 5.5 times the votes as Wisconsin and STILL doesn't care about WI's issues. I fail to see how tha tis so much better than a popular vote... :\

Simple - because it is far easier to throw one big ass party and 'rock the vote' to get people to vote however you want them to and that is not the case with the electoral college system. The average voters are sheep and reducing the election to a 'who can get the biggest turnout' is a mistake beyond reason.

 

[yoshifumi]

it's probably a little irresponsible, but i'd vote for arnold just because he's arnold.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

The average voters are sheep and reducing the election to a 'who can get the biggest turnout' is a mistake beyond reason.

But our current system still does this, just on a state-by-state basis.

 

[Phoenix]

But our current system still does this, just on a state-by-state basis.

No it doesn't. The electorate are actually not obligated to vote as the popular vote dictates. If a criminal ran for office and was very popular and received the popular vote, the electorate could, in effect, ignore the popular vote.

Faithless electors

On numerous occasions, presidential electors have cast their vote in a different manner than that prescribed by the popular election results for the state or district they represent. These have included:

2000 election: D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast no electoral votes, protesting what she described as the federal district's "colonial status."
1988 election: West Virginia elector Margaret Leach, pledged for Democrats Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen, instead of casting her votes for the candidates in their positions on the national ticket, cast her presidential vote for Bentsen and her vice-presidential vote for Dukakis.
1976 election: Washington state elector Mike Padden, pledged for Republican Gerald Ford and Bob Dole, cast his presidential electoral vote for Ronald Reagan, who had challenged Ford for the Republican nomination. He cast his vice-presidential vote, as pledged, for Dole.
1972 election: Virginia elector Roger MacBride, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his electoral votes for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Theodora Nathan. MacBride's vote for Nathan was the first electoral vote cast for a woman in U.S. history.
1968 election: North Carolina elector Lloyd W. Bailey, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his votes for American Independent Party candidates George Wallace and Curtis LeMay
1960 election: Oklahoma elector Henry D. Irwin, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, cast his presidential electoral vote for independent candidate Harry Flood Byrd (also supported by 15 "unpledged" Democratic delegates). Unlike other delegates who voted for Byrd for president, Irwin cast his vice-presidential electoral vote for Barry Goldwater.
1956 election: Alabama elector W. F. Turner, pledged for Democrats Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver, cast his votes for Walter Burgwyn Jones and Herman Talmadge.
1948 election: Tennessee elector Preston Parks, pledged for Democrats Harry Truman and Alben Barkley, cast his votes for States' Rights Democratic Party candidates Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
In most case, the faithless electors were pledged to vote for candidates who lost the electoral college vote (exceptions being the 1972 and 1968 elections). In none of the case listed above did the faithless electors play a critical role in deciding the election.

Nevertheless the idea of pushing a system that allows the president to be chosen by the 10 largest states disgusts me greatly and leads to a system where a president and special interest need only appease the large population centers of the country and win the election.

The ONLY problem with the electoral system is that of awarding an entire state to a candidate (something that is being resolved in a growing number of states) such that no state will be either entirely red or blue.

I would never support any system where citizens from the largest cities (despite being from one) were so instrumental in deciding the presidency that they other states need not even matter in deciding the election.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

No it doesn't. The electorate are actually not obligated to vote as the popular vote dictates. If a criminal ran for office and was very popular and received the popular vote, the electorate could, in effect, ignore the popular vote.

But they would be the electors of the criminal's group or party. Unless they were planted there they almost certainly wouldn't do such a thing. At least if it would actually mean their party switching from a win to a loss. As your quoted section says, In none of the case listed above did the faithless electors play a critical role in deciding the election.

The ONLY problem with the electoral system is that of awarding an entire state to a candidate (something that is being resolved in a growing number of states) such that no state will be either entirely red or blue.

But that is a GODDAMNED HUGE problem.

 

[Phoenix]

But they would be the electors of the criminal's group or party. Unless they were planted there they almost certainly wouldn't do such a thing. At least if it would actually mean their party switching from a win to a loss.

Electors can vote however they want. The vast majority of people are likely going to vote along their party line, but they are in no way required to nor obligated to do so. We have yet to have a reason for a mass exodus of electorate to vote contrary to their party and we likely never will just the same that most people historically vote democratic or republican and don't vary their voting patterns (which is why most states are easy to call).

As your quoted section says, In none of the case listed above did the faithless electors play a critical role in deciding the election.

What's your point? Clearly the majority of electors will determine the election just like your single vote won't play a critical role in deciding an election in a pure popular vote system.

But that is a GODDAMNED HUGE problem.

Why is it such a large problem? I don't see it. The system works fine. It can stand for some tweaks but is a much better model than an upright popular vote for a variety of reasons that I've already liseted.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

What's your point? Clearly the majority of electors will determine the election just like your single vote won't play a critical role in deciding an election in a pure popular vote system.

My point is, you mention the possibility of faithless electors as a positive for our current system. But it's never truly had an effect, and you yourself think it likely that it never will. So it becomes an irrelevant point.

Why is it such a large problem? I don't see it.

In almost all cases the plurality of the state's voters get to have the say for the entire 100%. I don't see how that can be called anything but a large problem. I've just looked at the numbers from 2000 that I have in a spreadsheet. I see that there were 105.3 million voters. But if you add up those who voted for the person who won their state, it was 56.9 million. 48.4 million people had no effect. That's 46% of the voters that may as well have left their choice for President blank, since their say never escaped their state borders.

If I take it one step further, and only consider the states where the winner won... 27.9 million people voted for George W. Bush in states he eventually won. So even though 47.9% of the voters picked George W. Bush, it only mattered that this 26.5% did. That's just a mess of a system we have.

 

[borghe]

The ONLY problem with the electoral system is that of awarding an entire state to a candidate (something that is being resolved in a growing number of states) such that no state will be either entirely red or blue.

THIS IS ALL I AM SAYING!!! Seriously, this is ALL I am saying. Although I certainly wouldn't say that those eight examples within the last ~60 years dictate that change is on the horizon, but it has to be.

I would STILL like to see a popular vote because I still feel that an electoral vote caters to discounting lay voters. A popular vote would possibly get more voters out feeling that their actual vote is out to make a difference.

As for the largest cities making the biggest difference, etc... I have already shown that the electoral college pretty much lines up with population distribution give or take a percentage. Taking into account actual voting runouts the numbers would probably be even closer.

I hate to disillusion you, but that is far from true. If we're talking about states not being heard in elections, look no further than the Democratic primaries. People forget that John Kerry wasn't always the Democratic candidate for president. He only became that after we chose him... or perhaps I should say, he only became that after Iowa, New Hampshire, and several other states chose him, since we Californians had essentially no say at all in the matter.

While the largest states have the largest say in who becomes president between Bush and Kerry, they did not get to "choose the president." The two possibilities for president were in fact chosen by the small puny states.

The problem with this is the OTHER problem with our system, the bipartisan system. The bipartisan system makes it either virtually impossible for independents to make any real change or get elected, forces independents to adopt a "closest idea" party and run under it, and just all around does an even greater job of forcing everything to the center.

If I wer to want to run for a state office, without the backing of the DNC or GOP or a significant amount of personal money, I would have a damn near impossible time competing.

Now I'm not saying we should do away with the DNC or GOP, but I am saying that we should "do away" with the bipartisan system we are running. I don't know WHAT the hell the answer is to that, but maybe it has to do something with so many politicians not looking to fall under one of the national umbrellas and actually running on their own without the support of a party. This one I am far less researched on than the electoral college, but as long as you essentially have so many americans who are not republican or democrats, americans who are left unrepresented because they don't fully or even mostly subscribe to the ideas of either of those parties, our political system will continue to go on and misrepresent millions, maybe even tens of millions, of americans.