California's going dodgy on the Electoral College.

[California Tanker]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/130657.shtml

The California legislature has passed a bill to drastically change the way the president is elected – giving the state’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, regardless of the results within the state.

The bill is now on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk, and he has until Sept. 30 to decide whether to sign it.

Continues on link.

They've got to be joking. It's totally legal, but I think it rather subverts the choice of the people of California to that of the Rest of the US. What's the point in having your own electoral college votes if you're just going to work off the basis of what the people in the other 49 states think?

Does emailing politicians ever work?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGF5KNFUM1.DTL

Fortunately, even if signed, it won't take effect until another ten states at least follow a similar policy.

NTM

[MonCapitan2002]

I don't like it.

[Ari]

Edit: Note to self, don't do 5 things at once.
I don't like it either. If anything the votes should be split up by percentage and winner. Say half the votes are split up by percentage and the other half go to the state winner.

[Dingfod]

If the 10 most populous states did this, the electoral college victory would be a lot more likely to go for the candidate that won the national popular vote. It's actually just an end-around of doing away with electoral college going the other way without changing the Constitution. What is wrong with that? Why should one state get more say than another in a national election? I'm all for "one man [or woman], one vote".

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Why should one state get more say than another in a national election?

Because those who can be herded into population centers are the most easily gulled into marching to the beat of the loudest drummer - which at this point in history is the establishment media.

[Miisa]

Gulled, huh? It would still mean majority rule, no matter how the majority came by their opinions.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

If the 10 most populous states did this, the electoral college victory would be a lot more likely to go for the candidate that won the national popular vote. It's actually just an end-around of doing away with electoral college going the other way without changing the Constitution. What is wrong with that? Why should one state get more say than another in a national election? I'm all for "one man [or woman], one vote".

As am I: Every person currently gets one vote in their State.

I refer you back to the name of the nation: United States. This is a federation of states, not a single homogenous entity, and actually, I kindof like it that way.

Actually, given how close the nationwide popular vote is, the concept is probably better for the Republicans in the short term: There's bugger-all chance of California's 55 going Red any time soon, but they just need to swing a few thousand votes elsewhere, and the State suddently votes for the other guy. (Much to the displeasure, I would wager, of the Blue voters)

NTM

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

As am I: Every person currently gets one vote in their State.

But when the guy you voted for gets the most votes, but doesn't get elected because of the quirks of the electoral college, your vote is devalued to zero. Of course, I'm an advocate of getting rid of that ridiculous thing called the electoral college anyway. Way back when, when votes had to be delivered by horseback, it might have made sense, but not anymore.

[Crumb]

I'm all for a non electoral college direct vote of the people, too. But I am not a big fan of "one man, one vote". To really poll the will of the people we need instant run-off.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by yguy

Because those who can be herded into population centers are the most easily gulled into marching to the beat of the loudest drummer - which at this point in history is the establishment media.

I'm certain that you have some evidence at hand that proves that urban dwellers are more easily influenced by the media.

At any rate, while I don't know if this is the best approach, I'm glad that a creative solution may be tried. I find it sort of ironic that the system has a built in measure to enhance the political power of the minority of voters who live in rural state, while those same voters are the ones who, generally speaking, are least likely to vote to protect the rights of other minorities.

Ari, the problem with your suggestion (well, perhaps not so much a problem as something that the CA proposal addresses while yours does not) is that, no matter how you split the votes from a particular state, as long as you're allocating them based on the desires of voters in that state only, you're still giving greater weight to the desires of voters in less populous states. That said, I do think that proportional assignment of a states' electoral votes is more fair than winner take all, and there are several states that already do it that way.

The problem with moving to such a system (i.e. a proportional ssignement of a state's electoral votes) is that it would be difficult to implement, for purely political reasons. if a state nearly always votes for party A, then it's in party B's interest to split that state's electoral vote proportionally, so they get some rather than none of the votes. Unfortunately, party A willknow this and be reluctant to essentially give x% ofits electoral votes to party b, and since party A nearly always wins, party B is going to have to gain power in the state to push the change through. Once they do gain power, it's no longer in their interest to make the change. Rinse, repeat. I suppose we might see something like this in closely contested states that often swing between the parties, but not in solidly red or blue states.

[Dingfod]

Just to make it clear, I was for getting rid of the electoral college long before Gore lost to Bush in 2000. BTW, I didn't vote for Gore then anyway.

[Ari]

I agree with Ding. Right now any system that gives an entire state to someone devalues votes.

The only danger I see with moving to a one vote one point system is that politicians might ignore the low population areas to court the mass populations in cities.
On the other hand if one party, like the democrats, didn't think they were guaranteed an entire state, like California, maybe they would be more willing to work for the people and not screw them over.

[Ari]

Adam: I agree. It reminds me of a recent failed attempt for redistricting in California. Those who are happily set in their districts don't want to give up the easy votes. Those that want the change only do until the system favors them.

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by Ari

The only danger I see with moving to a one vote one point system is that politicians might ignore the low population areas to court the mass populations in cities.

They already do this (and I have no problem with it), but what's even worse is that with the current system, states that are predictably "red" or "blue" are ignored by both parties. The only votes that Presidential candidates bother to court are the handful of "swing states."

[California Tanker]

The only danger I see with moving to a one vote one point system is that politicians might ignore the low population areas to court the mass populations in cities.

An observation which has not escaped the notice of the Flyover States, or even the population of the non-flyover states who don't live in the cities. (Currently the rural Californians can at least rely on the weight of their neighbours in rural Nevada to put forward their position) Even leaving aside the election whistle-stop campaigns (Why spend a day talking to 40,000 people in Bismarck when you could talk to 9 million in New York City, and when's the next time a politician would visit the Great State of Wyoming?) some policies that look good to a guy in a city may be disastrous for countryside dwellers. The idea might have held some merit when the balance of urban/rural population was about equal, but it's not, and getting less so every year. The argument about the current situation devaluing votes will apply just as strongly in the other direction. the difference being that instead of the devaluation being based on state, it's based on the urban/rural demographic.

I believe Ari's suggestion of a split between State and National is somewhere equivalent to the Maine and Nebraska (?) split electoral vote policies. Do we have any members from those states to chime in?

NTM

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by JackDog

They already do this (and I have no problem with it), but what's even worse is that with the current system, states that are predictably "red" or "blue" are ignored by both parties. The only votes that Presidential candidates bother to court are the handful of "swing states."

That's a self-fulfilling argument. What states are predictably red or blue? The ones that have the populations dominantly in the rural or urban environment, and the policies of the two parties tend to appeal to the sort of people who live in the rural or urban environments accordingly. This happens in the microcosm as well: Just look at an electoral map of California, which is predominantly red: The red/blue divide isn't on states, it's based on population concentration.

NTM

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

That's a self-fulfilling argument. What states are predictably red or blue? ..... The red/blue divide isn't on states, it's based on population concentration.

So if it's a self-fulfilling argument, I'm correct...right? The states that are predictably red are the south, midwest, great plains, and mountain states; the predictably blue states are California, and a few New England states. Saying that the red/blue divide isn't on states but on population concentration is a bit misleading, because in America, most of the population is concentrated in a few states.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by JackDog

Saying that the red/blue divide isn't on states but on population concentration is a bit misleading, because in America, most of the population is concentrated in a few states.

But within those few populous states there are still people with issues that simply aren't addressed by urban-centric policies. At least with the way it is right now, the effects of policies with respect to their impact on rural areas is still taken into effect because the rural states have a vote. Chances are if it's good for Nevada farmers, it's good for San Bernadino County farmers. These SB County people may not have a hope of getting their concerns addressed at national level by their State's Senator for California if it's in general conflict with what urbanites think is best for them, but they at least have a chance that their Nevada counterparts a hundred miles away will raise the same issue.

NTM

[JackDog]

We're talking about the executive branch, not congress.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by adam

I'm certain that you have some evidence at hand that proves that urban dwellers are more easily influenced by the media.

Ha, that would be a first

[California Tanker]

I would still hope that the Executive takes the wishes/needs of all people, both urban and rural into account, as opposed to just urban. The responsibility to cater for the needs of rural denizens in addition to the urbanites does not stop solely at Congress.

I say this as a dedicated urbanite who is well aware that our survival depends on the countryside population thriving. Consider the current EC as a reflection of the disproportionate fact that so many millions of city-dwellers rely on the success of so many hundreds of thousands of ruralites.

NTM

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm certain that you have some evidence at hand that proves that urban dwellers are more easily influenced by the media.

It's self-evident. Those urban dwellers are more likely to believe that pro wrestling is real, that they've witnessed a flying saucer, that Elvis is still alive and planning his comeback, and ...

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm certain that you have some evidence at hand that proves that urban dwellers are more easily influenced by the media.

I think the '04 presidential election pretty well puts a wrapper on that one. Thanks to the complicity of the establishment media, Kerry - whose life is distinguished by nothing so much as his slandering American troops during Viet Nam and lying about his actions as an officer - got almost 60 million votes, mostly from states with highly populated cities.

At any rate, while I don't know if this is the best approach, I'm glad that a creative solution may be tried. I find it sort of ironic that the system has a built in measure to enhance the political power of the minority of voters who live in rural state, while those same voters are the ones who, generally speaking, are least likely to vote to protect the rights of other minorities.

When's the last time significant numbers of rural-dwelling Americans voted not to protect minority rights?

[Clutch Munny]

lying about his actions as an officer

What a credulous dolt you are. Are you an urban dweller trying to make your thesis true by the sheer magnitude of your own gullibility?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by yguy

I think the '04 presidential election pretty well puts a wrapper on that one. Thanks to the complicity of the establishment media, Kerry - whose life is distinguished by nothing so much as his slandering American troops during Viet Nam and lying about his actions as an officer - got almost 60 million votes, mostly from states with highly populated cities.

I'm not even going to address the (by my count) 3 distinct lies and/or distortions in that paragraph. Instead, I'll simply point out that it doesn't answer my question, as it shows no causal link between being an urban dweller and being susceptible to media influence. At best, if we buy your questionable assessment of the mainstream media, it shows a correlation, but no causation.

When's the last time significant numbers of rural-dwelling Americans voted not to protect minority rights?

When was the last time rural America voted? Where do anti-gay rights initiatives get the most traction?