Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-30-2004, 05:07 AM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

From the editorial page of the NYT today:

It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president. * * *

The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, are of enormous interest to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote. * * *

The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of small states. A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than making every vote count.


Seems like a no brainer, really.

(If you find the electoral college debate tedious, there is a decent Rosie Perez nipple shot in the GOP convention protest slide show on the front page.)
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-30-2004, 05:26 AM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

California(D), New York(D),Florida (D or R) and Texas(R) are the 1st,2nd and 3rd, and 4th largest states by population. Combined they would control the elections and the other 46 states could just stay home if we didn't have an electoral college.

The US doesn't function as a single nation, but a union of states. Those who wish to abolish the electoral college seem to forget this. Some will object that the US doesn't function as a union of states, but as a single nation headed by a central government located in Washingnton. Get rid of the electoral college and I suspect you will see how quickly we revert to a union of states(or a nonunion).

If you thought disenfranchising a few Florida blacks was bad, just try disenfranchising 46 states and see what happens.
__________________
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others --- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-30-2004, 05:42 AM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Like it says though, the states are still well represented in Congress, each having two senators. The Electoral College only votes for president, which is a national office. Furthermore the office of the presidency has acquired an enormous amount of power since 1787, far more than Madison and Washington ever dreamed of (although Alexander Hamilton probably did).
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-30-2004, 05:53 AM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMMMDCXLII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Hey, dantonac, you don't mind if I just follow you around the internet and argue with you all the live long day, do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
California(D), New York(D),Florida (D or R) and Texas(R) are the 1st,2nd and 3rd, and 4th largest states by population. Combined they would control the elections and the other 46 states could just stay home if we didn't have an electoral college.
How is this different, though, from the problems with the way the elections are run now? Unless you're in a swing state, you really don't get much attention as it is. If your state is in the bag, the minority opinion doesn't matter anymore. And if your state is densely populated, your vote counts for less--sometimes much less--than the hillbillies in those big boring states nobody else wants to live in. In national elections, we should really be voting nationally. My vote should count as much as those bastiches just a few miles north on 1-25, but it's not worth even half.

The states should still be represented in Washington, of course, but I don't understand why it follows that people are represented unequally, and states vote as big monochrome blocs (except for the two--I forget which--that do the quasi-proportional thing).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-30-2004, 06:03 AM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisarea
... the hillbillies in those big boring states nobody else wants to live in.
Hey I represent that. Hey dere hey?
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-30-2004, 07:09 AM
Nil Desperandum's Avatar
Nil Desperandum Nil Desperandum is offline
Resurrected!
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Central Phoenix. It's hot as fuck here!
Gender: Male
Posts: CCLI
Images: 5
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Here in Colorado, a resolution is going to be on the ballot in November to have the electoral votes doled out by proportional representation!
Hell yeah.
__________________
It could be said that what's said needs saying;
Or at least this is what I'm told.
I'm not satisfied to be sold a cold tale told twice on diseased lover's borrowed time.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-31-2004, 05:08 PM
Dingfod's Avatar
Dingfod Dingfod is offline
A fellow sophisticate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cowtown, Kansas
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 21
Images: 92
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
If you thought disenfranchising a few Florida blacks was bad, just try disenfranchising 46 states and see what happens.
Whereas disenfranchising the majority of voters in an election is just hunky-dory?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-31-2004, 05:43 PM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenly
Whereas disenfranchising the majority of voters in an election is just hunky-dory?
No, but there are solutions such as instant run off voting that are easy to implement (if the political will existed) that can work with the electoral college and not require a constitutional amendment.

The issue of one's vote being meaningless if your choice isn't the majority candidate in the state is a seperate issue from the electoral college.

The electoral college helps avoid a few populous states from dictating to the more numerous, but less populous states.

Or if you prefer, it helps prevent the rich from dictating to the poor.
__________________
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others --- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-31-2004, 05:51 PM
Dingfod's Avatar
Dingfod Dingfod is offline
A fellow sophisticate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cowtown, Kansas
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 21
Images: 92
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

You see, where we differ is in the opinion that states really matter any more. It is completely understandable how 200 odd years ago that states were important to an individual citizen, even 100 years ago, it made sense when it took two weeks horseback ride to reach the capitol. But, now, in the age of instant communications, what is the purpose of these arbitrary and obstructive lines we draw between ourselves?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-31-2004, 05:58 PM
viscousmemories's Avatar
viscousmemories viscousmemories is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ypsilanti, Mi
Gender: Male
Posts: XXXDCCXLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 9
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
The electoral college helps avoid a few populous states from dictating to the more numerous, but less populous states.
As Scarlatti said, there is balance in that each state has two Senators representing them in Congress. Why shouldn't every American's vote count equally toward the election of the President regardless of their home state?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-31-2004, 06:53 PM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by viscousmemories
As Scarlatti said, there is balance in that each state has two Senators representing them in Congress. Why shouldn't every American's vote count equally toward the election of the President regardless of their home state?
I don't see how the electoral college results in one person's vote not counting equally with someone else's vote. The electoral college system isn't incompatible with a more proportionally represented system such as IRV or splitting electors according to vote percentages.

It looks to me like we may be confusing some of the significant weaknesses in our electoral system with the electoral college itself.
__________________
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others --- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-31-2004, 07:02 PM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenly
You see, where we differ is in the opinion that states really matter any more.
Yes, we do differ here. The idea of states is to impose a limitation on federal/centralized power. It is to allow for different subcultures to peacefully and cooperatively coexist under the protection of a federal government.

The trend has certainly been toward an increased centralization of decision making authority and I don't think it has been all bad, but I am not quite ready to just say to heck with it and say goodbye to the republic.

I also don't see how a land mass/population as large as the US could function without states. We could stop calling them states, but they would still be more managably sized chunks of land and people with a political structure of some sort. Now, we could argue that some of the NE states are so small that they ought to be merged into one, but that's my Wisconsin perspective, folks from the states that are just little dots on my map might feel differently.

Besides it's fun to make fun of the wacky liburul ideas coming from California (and ahnold) and making fun of the big hat/belt buckle wearing pseudo cowboys from Texas. And let's not forget the land of cheese and beer and Harleys, my homestate of Wisconsin.

Don't want to lose all that now do you? :D

Editted to add: Think of the current gay marriage debate, pot decrim/legalization and past national debates. To a large extent the momentum for social change has come from just a handful (or less) of states. A state resists the federal policy and the issue comes to a head with some sort of resolution following. How much of that would we lose if we got rid of states?
__________________
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others --- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-31-2004, 07:21 PM
viscousmemories's Avatar
viscousmemories viscousmemories is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ypsilanti, Mi
Gender: Male
Posts: XXXDCCXLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 9
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
I don't see how the electoral college results in one person's vote not counting equally with someone else's vote. The electoral college system isn't incompatible with a more proportionally represented system such as IRV or splitting electors according to vote percentages.

It looks to me like we may be confusing some of the significant weaknesses in our electoral system with the electoral college itself.
Yeah okay, you caught me not knowing what I'm talking about. :D

I just read (roughly 3 times) this explanation of how the Electoral College works, and I have no better understanding of it than I did an hour ago. And I'm a pretty bright guy, so if anyone wonders why Americans feel disenfranchised this might be a clue. This also helps me understand why there is so much contention in these political discussions. There are so many nuances it seems eminently possible that two perfectly reasonable people might come to diametrically opposite conclusions.

I'll just go back to waiting for Lisa to fill out my ballot sheet so I can throw away my vote with action instead of inaction this election.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-31-2004, 08:01 PM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I just read (roughly 3 times) this explanation of how the Electoral College works, and I have no better understanding of it than I did an hour ago.
I don't claim to be the expert, but I will explain it as simply as I can.

Electing the president and vice president is done on a state by state basis, not on a national basis. Each state has a certain number of electors who do the actual voting for president and vice president, the citizens do not, directly, elect them. What citizens do is determine which party's electors get to do the voting via the popular vote.

Who the electors will be is determined by the popular vote. Each party has electors sworn to vote for their party's nominee. If the popular vote in California says candidate A wins, then the electors for the party of candidate A go vote for their person.

I don't see any significant problems with this approach that exist out of necessity. I do see some inherent advantages of this system over a direct vote that I touched upon previously.

Some actual problems with our current implementation of the electoral college system is that in order for the president and vice president to actually win the election they require an absolute majority (51%) of the elector's votes. If there is no absolute majority then Congress chooses the president from among the top 3 contenders. Effectively this means a third party candidate would have to win 51% of the electors to ever win the presidency because the dem/repub controlled Congress isn't likely to give a 3rd party with 34% of the electors the win over the dem and repub tied at 33% each.

Another problem is the winner takes all system wherein whomever get's the simple majority of the popular vote in a state gets all of that state's electors.

So the electoral college isn't much of a problem, it is the current implementation of it that effectively prevents 3rd parties from any real chance of winning as well as the lack of more proportional representation.

Solutions are state level solutions, oddly enough. IRV voting, ballot access laws, and choosing electors are all state matters with the feds having no (legitimate) say.

Anyone who feels passionately about this issue I would encourage getting involved at your state level to seek election reform. Many states already have fully functioning organizations you can help and some of these reforms have already been passed in some states so it's an issue with some momentum although not yet enough.
__________________
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others --- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-31-2004, 08:35 PM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
I don't see how the electoral college results in one person's vote not counting equally with someone else's vote.
When people talk about some votes not 'counting' as much as others, what they mean is they don't make as much of a difference. I think the editorial makes this point by analogy with the Cubans in Florida and the Puerto Ricans in New York. The Cuban vote 'counts' for more than the Puerto Rican, because both political parties consider New York a foregone conclusion, and its electoral votes pretty much already cast, whereas in a swing state like Florida the Cubans are a far more important, read determinative, constituency.

I think the electoral college is a relic of the framers' belief that the public couldn't be trusted to directly elect its own representatives. After all, prior to the amendments, citizens of the United States didn't directly elect their senators either. All they got to elect was the House of Representatives, which the framers expected would be such a crowd of bozos there should be an opportunity to turf them out every two years, rather than four or six, and they really weren't allowed to do anything without Senate approval, in essence.

The consitutional crisis comes about when the Supreme Court, which really has no constitutional authority in adjudicating such a blatantly political question, steps in to justify its appointing the president. In the latest instance the Court was so out of its element it had to reach back to the 19th century to dig up some the most obscure precedent in order to justify its unconstitutional behavior.

The suggestions toward proportional representation are well taken, and would certainly encourage the growth and success of third parties. But I don't see that happening in our lifetime.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-31-2004, 08:48 PM
Penni's Avatar
Penni Penni is offline
Like the coin
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: CLXXIX
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Dantonac,
Sorry if I am asking you to be repetitive, but there are some things you've said with which I just don't agree/understand. First, you said if we abolished the electoral college:

Quote:
you will see how quickly we revert to a union of states(or a nonunion).
However, I think it is just the opposite. If we abolished the electoral college, voting for the president would be irrelevant of the union of states. In fact, no one would know anything about how a particular state "feels."

Secondly, why do you think the smaller states would be underrepresented? Since the states aren't involved in any way, per se, I don't see how any state is being railroaded. It is easy to say, for instance, that the four states you mentioned are "controlling" the outcome and the other 46 can stay home because of their relative population, but what I think you are overlloking here is that in a direct election, the internal diversity of those states would be much better represented. California is not actually purley liberal. If you look county by county, or city by city, or house by house (which a direct election would do), you'll see a lot of red. There is some blue in Texas and of course, Florida wouldn't decide anything, what with all the people making such different decisions. Therefore, the rest of the population (who happen to live in the other 46 states) would still be impactful. The only way in which those state's voters would not be impactful would be if those top 4 states were really filled with people that were totally homogenous. And then, that would only be the case because such a majority of people feel exactly the same way. Why do we care about representing LAND (i.e. the smaller states), when we should be representing people (a majority of whom happen to live in 4 more dense states).

Also, one other way that abolishing the electoral college could, as you say, harm the interests of the smaller states is if there was still a college system but the electoral votes were distributed purley on a population system, rather than the way it is now, which gives small states more electoral votes per person, in other words, more influence per person, than people in larger states. I see no good reason why my vote should count for 0.45 of a vote just because I live in California, while if I decided to move to Wyoming tomorrow, my opinions would suddenly become much more important and should be counted more than others in the country.

Frankly, I was damned disappointed when I found out "one person one vote" was a big lie.

P.S. A huge thanks :super: to lisarea for posting that site about the relative worth of votes. I was just asking at IIDB the other day if anyone knew if relative votes have been quantified, and no one responded. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-31-2004, 09:33 PM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Penni,

I have to concede that while I do not see the electoral college system as being a necessarily problematic thing, I can't really make an effective argument against direct election.

As you pointed out all states have red and blue and this would be better represented via direct elections. However, assigning electors based upon voting percentages does the same thing.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they had a very dim view of people. I agree with them, people are idiots, including me. I still remember the vote in 2000 where the lines were so long I stood in the line of folks having to register not realizing the line for those already registered was way up further. As I stood there I listened to people discussing their vote with those around them. One lady stated she was voting for Gore because he had a better smile. A group of college age folks showed up with no clue who they were going to actually vote for until one of them suggested Nader because 'it would be cool'. Things like this don't lead me to have much faith in the citizens voting wisely either. Don't care *who* they vote for, but I do get bothered that people actually vote without having put any apparent thought into that vote.

So while I do share the founders dim view of the people, I don't really understand how the electoral college actually insulates the office of the president from the intellectual laziness of the people.

The electoral college also acts as a reinforcement of the seperation of powers. The seperation between state and federal powers that is. I think that state/federal powers have really become blurred and that's unfortunate.

So in response to your post I would say that while I don't have any good argument against direct elections I do see value in a reformed electoral college system and view it as preferable to direct elections.

From a purely practical standpoint the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment to remove and that doesn't seem likely. GWB's victory fueled the fires of discontent for awhile, but amending the constitution to remove the electoral college hasn't appeared to gain significant traction.

Reforming the electoral system to increase proportional representation is far easier since it doesn't require amendments and it achieves nearly the same end result while still respecting the division of powers.

If those persons devoting energy to getting rid of the electoral college would direct that energy into IRV, ballot access laws and things of this nature I think we would get somewhere.
__________________
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others --- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-31-2004, 10:34 PM
Dingfod's Avatar
Dingfod Dingfod is offline
A fellow sophisticate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cowtown, Kansas
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 21
Images: 92
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

I'm trying to imagine the Oklahoma political scene if it's statewide political offices were chosen by an electoral college type system in it's 77 counties, county-by-county, rather than by one person, one vote. Oklahoma might not even be the best example of this because, despite a majority of Republican voters state-wide, it still gets an inordinate number of Democrats elected to state-wide offices, but... our Democrats are mostly just Republicans in all but party affiliation. But, just for kicks, I imagine if the national Electoral College electors were chosen by an electoral-type vote of the counties, and given that the vast majority of the Republican voters are in the cities, and the majority of Democrats live in rural counties (the two major cities comprise about half the state's population), it is entirely possible that Kerry could win the most county electors while losing the total popular vote by a considerable margin. IRL, this hillbilly hick state is going to throw all 7 of its electoral votes to Bush by 65 to 30 percent. So, which is more representative of the will of the people (the standard I believe we should be governed by), electors chosen by the counties, or electors chosen by the people? Is that just clear as mud?


Also, doesn't proportional electoral college representation as proposed in Colorado pretty much negate the electoral college? No, now that I think about it, the small states still have disproportionate influence in the outcome, just not by as big a margin.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-01-2004, 01:09 AM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMMMDCXLII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
I don't see how the electoral college results in one person's vote not counting equally with someone else's vote. The electoral college system isn't incompatible with a more proportionally represented system such as IRV or splitting electors according to vote percentages.
Not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but if you're asking what I think you're asking:

Each state gets two electors for their senators, plus one elector for their representative, regardless of the number of people in the state. After that, the remaining available electors are proportioned based on the states' population, just like the remaining representatives.

So if I kicked everyone else out of Wyoming and went to live there all by myself, I would still have two votes in the electoral college, equivalent to my senators. I also get one for my representative, even though it's just me there. That gives me and me alone three electoral votes out of a total of 538.

The way this plays out currently is illustrated by the link I posted earlier.

The state with the most valuable votes is Wyoming, with a population of 147,947, divided by its three electoral votes, so each electoral vote represents 49,315.67 actual voters. (147947/3 = 49315.666666666...)

The state with the least valuable votes is Massachusetts. They get twelve electoral votes to represent 1,616,487 voters. 1616487/12 = 134,707.25, so each electoral vote represents 134,707.25 voters.

49315.67/134707.25 = .36609514335716897197441117682975%

So each Massachusetts vote counts about 37% of what a Wyoming vote counts.

And that number will be even more appalling once I do that thing with Wyoming. Which I will just as soon as I figure out how to hire cheap Indian labor to represent me.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-01-2004, 04:12 AM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisarea
So if I kicked everyone else out of Wyoming and went to live there all by myself, I would still have two votes in the electoral college, equivalent to my senators. I also get one for my representative, even though it's just me there. That gives me and me alone three electoral votes out of a total of 538.

The way this plays out currently is illustrated by the link I posted earlier.
The math is misleading here. Aside from the 3 guaranteed electors, the system is population based. It isn't true that a vote in one state counts more than a vote in another because each electoral vote is based upon population other than the first 3 and all states have those 3.

States with only 3 electoral votes are low population states that would otherwise have no say in any practical manner.

While the math works out that one electoral vote and the absolute number of people represented by that vote has a margin of variance that doesn't imply that a vote counts less than a vote from another state in any meaningful way because under a proportional electoral system it requires the same percentage of voters to gain one elector. Under the current system it doesn't work that way though.

The way I see it basing things upon percentages within a state rather than individual numbers somewhat nullifies the nutjob or idiot voter factor.
__________________
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others --- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-01-2004, 04:55 AM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMMMDCXLII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
The math is misleading here. Aside from the 3 guaranteed electors, the system is population based. It isn't true that a vote in one state counts more than a vote in another because each electoral vote is based upon population other than the first 3 and all states have those 3.
You can argue that there's reason to maintain state representation in national elections with the three default electoral votes, but the math is not misleading. I would prefer to establish a baseline based on the average population that determined electoral vote apportionment in 2000, and I'll give it a shot if I get a chance. But, again, the numbers are entirely accurate, as far as I know. What precisely did you find misleading about the numbers?

Now, I could accept the argument that, in the interests of representing each state as an individual entity, unequal representation in congress is a lesser of two inequities. I don't accept that this same formula is somehow necessary to represent the people in a national election.

Note too that it is up to the individual states to determine how they cast their electoral votes, and currently two states do divvy up the representative portion of their electoral votes based on the percentages of the popular vote.

Quote:
States with only 3 electoral votes are low population states that would otherwise have no say in any practical manner.
They do, though. They have a greater proportional voice in congress. Why do they need a greater proportional voice in national elections as well?

Quote:
While the math works out that one electoral vote and the absolute number of people represented by that vote has a margin of variance that doesn't imply that a vote counts less than a vote from another state in any meaningful way because under a proportional electoral system it requires the same percentage of voters to gain one elector. Under the current system it doesn't work that way though.
Yeah, basically, that's how it works, but that's understood.

The fundamental inequity in the value of votes arises from the three default votes, AND from the (relatively) static number of electoral votes to be apportioned.

So, would you object to a system under which the number of electoral votes was dynamic? So, say, the population of the state with the fewest residents was divided by three, then whatever that came out to was the number used to add a seat?

If not, why?

Quote:
The way I see it basing things upon percentages within a state rather than individual numbers somewhat nullifies the nutjob or idiot voter factor.
So, you would support proportional votes, then? I might be misreading you here, so correct me if I am. Would that be like the existing ones, where the two senate equivalent votes (or is it all three?) go to the majority party, and the rest are divided proportionally; or the Colorado proposal, where all of the states' votes are proportional to the popular vote?

And what is the nutjob or idiot voter factor, really? Aren't those already pretty much nullified by the popular vote? (Or, you could argue, aren't those the popular vote already?)
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-01-2004, 05:57 AM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisarea
You can argue that there's reason to maintain state representation in national elections with the three default electoral votes, but the math is not misleading. I would prefer to establish a baseline based on the average population that determined electoral vote apportionment in 2000, and I'll give it a shot if I get a chance. But, again, the numbers are entirely accurate, as far as I know. What precisely did you find misleading about the numbers?
The numbers focus on how many voters are represented by an elector. They don't focus on the percentage of voters represented by an elector. I haven't done the math, but the idea is that the percentage of voters per elector should be roughly equal while the absolute number of voters will not be. If we had a system where the electors were chosen according to popular vote percentages then it would work out fine since states do the electing, not individual people.

Quote:
Now, I could accept the argument that, in the interests of representing each state as an individual entity, unequal representation in congress is a lesser of two inequities. I don't accept that this same formula is somehow necessary to represent the people in a national election.
The idea behind 2 senators for each state regardless of population is the same underlying idea behind 2+1 electors for each state regardless of population. Each state is it's own entity and as an entity is entitled to equal representation. Now, an argument could be made that states are no longer relevant in the way they were 200 years ago, but I would argue that they are still relevant and highly desirable. That's a debate for another thread though so here I am just going to assert this as true without supporting it at all.

Quote:
Note too that it is up to the individual states to determine how they cast their electoral votes, and currently two states do divvy up the representative portion of their electoral votes based on the percentages of the popular vote.
Correct and I support this 100%. It is a reform I would like to see in all states.

Quote:
They do, though. They have a greater proportional voice in congress. Why do they need a greater proportional voice in national elections as well?
To counteract the tyranny of the majority. Why does a worker ever require/benefit from union representation? This makes the union worker have a more significant voice than the non union worker. I don't want to debate the merits of unions in this thread, but the idea behind unions is that they better equalize the power between management and the workers. The small states, in this sense, can be viewed as the workers (those who get told what to do) and the large states as management (those who dictate what must be done). This would be the case if the smaller states didn't have a slight edge in representation and even with that slight edge still don't have a one to one power ratio with larger states. What makes the residents of a farming state(typically low population) less relevant than the residents of a professional/service sector state(typically large populations)? 2 radically different ways of life and different value systems, but neither can be considered more important than the other on the basis of majority rule. The state level electoral college system does a better job of respecting the rights of minorities than a direct vote would.

Quote:
So, would you object to a system under which the number of electoral votes was dynamic?
It's already a dynamic system.

Quote:
So, say, the population of the state with the fewest residents was divided by three, then whatever that came out to was the number used to add a seat?

If not, why?
If this was accompanied by apportioning electors according to popular vote percentage I would strongly consider it. Without that caveat I wouldn't as it would just amplify the tyranny of the majority problems.

Quote:
So, you would support proportional votes, then? I might be misreading you here, so correct me if I am. Would that be like the existing ones, where the two senate equivalent votes (or is it all three?) go to the majority party, and the rest are divided proportionally; or the Colorado proposal, where all of the states' votes are proportional to the popular vote?
I would support a more proportional election system, yes. I do not support a direct election system wherein the state boundaries become irrelevant and some low population states are effectively unimportant politically.

Quote:
And what is the nutjob or idiot voter factor, really? Aren't those already pretty much nullified by the popular vote? (Or, you could argue, aren't those the popular vote already?)
Regardless of which way I argued, a proportional electoral system based upon percentages rather than absolute numbers would do the best at nullifying it in my present opinion. The nutjob/idiot factor is the person who does vote, but if you asked him *why* he just voted the way he did you would just hold your head in your hands and cry at the nonsense response you received.

The reason a representative system nullifies it better than a direct vote system is that 1 vote doesn't equal one vote. It takes a percentage of the vote to equal one elector. Hopefully the percentage of idiot voters is lower than the threshold for one elector.
__________________
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others --- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-01-2004, 04:07 PM
viscousmemories's Avatar
viscousmemories viscousmemories is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ypsilanti, Mi
Gender: Male
Posts: XXXDCCXLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 9
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Well y'all lost me a long time ago, so I'll just chime in to say what constitutes the "idiot vote" is clearly subjective. Last election I devoted absolutely no time, energy or emotion to the event, and as far as I can tell I was every bit as effective as those people who gave much of themselves. Maybe the real "idiot voter" is the one who thinks their carefully considered contribution to the political system is any more effective than guesswork or inaction. Maybe people vote for the candidate with the best smile because the are aware of the fact that they ultimately have no say in who will be President, much less how the President will behave once enthroned.

Or maybe I'm just a cynic.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-01-2004, 06:31 PM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

I suppose one question that still remains is, How does abolishing the electoral college in favor of direct election of the president reduce existing state power, given the other structural components of federalism that serve to protect states' rights, such as their representation in Congress, and the simple fact that states retain plenary power, whereas the federal government's powers are enumerated and limited.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-01-2004, 08:03 PM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Abolish the "ridiculous" Electoral College

Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti
I suppose one question that still remains is, How does abolishing the electoral college in favor of direct election of the president reduce existing state power,
It don't think it does reduce state power, rather I think the present electoral system reinforces the seperation of powers, state's rights etc. I think the federal government has encroached well into state territory and most folks don't seem to even understand that the bill of rights isn't exhaustive and most don't seem to get the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments. I have even heard politicians like Hillary Clinton (and others) say silly things like "There is no right to (fill in the blank) in the constitution" which reflects the sad, common misunderstanding that people's and state's rights are somehow enumerated in an exhaustive fashion in the constitution.

The present electoral system is like a smack upside the heads of those ignorant on this matter.

I don't believe there would be any direct loss of state power if direct elections were implemented though.
__________________
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others --- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.97908 seconds with 13 queries