Die Checky Die

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

good thing we arent a democracy.And your example doesnt dispute the value of the EC it enforces it. Why should the interests of 10 million California "surplus" voters over ride the interests 100 million voters in the other states, which is what would happen if their surplus votes would have resulted in the "other guy" winning.

It's not "100 million voters in other states" in my example. why are the votes of 49,000 people worth more than the 10 million californians? Their votes shouldn't count because of what region their in? I think that's madness. Nothing I've heard in this thread makes me convinced that someone who the minority of voters want should be elected.

[copernicus 0]

On the other hand, right now Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are the winners.

Not really. The interests of the big Electoral Vote states are always represented, by virtue of not being able to totally piss off the Dems, and the interests of the Real American states as a whole are always represented because the GOP cant afford to write off very many of them before the Dems dominate everything.

[copernicus 0]

Can we please get back to hating on checky?Please?

Sorry, cant hate what you ignore!

[copernicus 0]

And that right there is the heart of the problem. Rights should take precedence over the will of the teeming masses.

The will of the teeming masses is the only thing that determines rights.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

If the Federal Government were confined to Federal issues you'd be right. Unfortunately with the Feds having control of so many local and state issues, what is good for NY isnt good for Montana. (though notwithstanding our resident poster, wgaf about Montana?).

Okay, but so what? How many electoral votes are still based on population. what I have an issue with is the "all or nothing" nature of the way the electoral votes are decited. Why should minority opinion in say, Montana, be ignored nation wide? And again, this is all fine and niec, but in reality, what happens is there are 4-8 states that actually matter, and everyone else does not. I don't like the fact that Pennsylvania determines who the president is, not the country.

[vbnautilus 48]

And your example doesnt dispute the value of the EC it enforces it. Why should the interests of 10 million California "surplus" voters over ride the interests 100 million voters in the other states, which is what would happen if their surplus votes would have resulted in the "other guy" winning.

huh? He's proposing a system where everyone's vote is worth exactly the same amount (1) regardless of where they live, which is not how the current system works. I don't understand your argument here.

[copernicus 0]

The primary reason to have the electoral system was to ensure that the candidates visited each states so the citizens could see and hear who they were voting for. This is not a valid reason any more with mass media.

Good thing thats not the reason. The reason was because, as a confederation of states with different interests (but that were largely homogenous within a state), having the President elected by the states balances the interests of the states fairly. If the populous states were to have proportionally more power, then there never would have been a US because the less populous states would never have ceded that power.

[El Guapo 8]

Good thing thats not the reason. The reason was because, as a confederation of states with different interests (but that were largely homogenous within a state), having the President elected by the states balances the interests of the states fairly. If the populous states were to have proportionally more power, then there never would have been a US because the less populous states would never have ceded that power.

But Electoral votes are based on population, so this makes no sense.

[copernicus 0]

huh? He's proposing a system where everyone's vote is worth exactly the same amount (1) regardless of where they live, which is not how the current system works. I don't understand your argument here.

Im not sure what you dont understand. Everyone's vote being equal in electing someone who represents interests that are more or less homogenous within a state, but vary widely from state to state, gives more weight to more populous states.We are the United STATES of America, not the united INDIVIDUALS of America. (Or the US of KKK for that matter).

[copernicus 0]

But Electoral votes are based on population, so this makes no sense.

It does make sense if you think about the flip side: New York doesnt join the Union either if the State of Podunk has equal say. Its called negotiating so that everyone feels that are represented fairly.

[vbnautilus 48]

Everyone's vote being equal in electing someone who represents interests that are more or less homogenous within a state, but vary widely from state to state, gives more weight to more populous states.

And therefore less weight to individuals who live in populous states. And as EG pointed out, the system is some kind of compromise, because it does apportion EVs based on state population, so it's not really just a voting of the states. It's some kind of in-between that gives certain states more power than others. And since certain states with high populations are very evenly split between the political parties, these few states are deciding the elections these days, so that the balance between state power and individual power isn't really working out.If the motivation was to satisfy the states to join the union, that isn't too relevant any more and we should readjust based on current factors.

[El Guapo 8]

It does make sense if you think about the flip side: New York doesnt join the Union either if the State of Podunk has equal say. Its called negotiating so that everyone feels that are represented fairly.

I will admit that I am not well versed enough in regard to this to speak on the origination of the states of the union. I haven't studied that in probably 20 years or more.

And therefore less weight to individuals who live in populous states. And as EG pointed out, the system is some kind of compromise, because it does apportion EVs based on state population, so it's not really just a voting of the states. It's some kind of in-between that gives certain states more power than others. And since certain states with high populations are very evenly split between the political parties, these few states are deciding the elections these days, so that the balance between state power and individual power isn't really working out.If the motivation was to satisfy the states to join the union, that isn't too relevant any more and we should readjust based on current factors.

But, VB seems to be saying what I am trying to get across. Even if that were the reason 200+ years ago, it's not as valid and a change may be a more viable option.

[Nimue1995 1]

If the Federal Government were confined to Federal issues you'd be right. Unfortunately with the Feds having control of so many local and state issues, what is good for NY isnt good for Montana. (though notwithstanding our resident poster, wgaf about Montana?).

I'll let you have that one Cope. But seriously, it's not really homogenous within the states anymore either. There are 1 or 2 population centers here in Montana that virtually decide where our huge 3 electorial votes are going. Everywhere else gets disenfranchised. I'd like to see the county thing instituted though you might think that with 56 counties, Montana would have a disproportionate say in the election,lol. But it's not much different in a great number of states. Look at Washington. Basically their electorial votes are decided by the western half of the state and the eastern half gets left out in the cold. Billings/ Gallatin County pretty much decides where our electorial votes go. In California, I imagine that LA-San Francisco- San Diego has a disporportionate say in where California's electorial votes go. So really the electorial college is an anchronism and should be either abolished or reformed. I'd be more in favor of reforming it though I'm not sure how you'd go about it. But perhaps doing is like the Democrats did the primaries (minus the superdelegates) might make it more fair.

[checkymcfold 0]

Sorry, cant hate what you ignore!

lol you're really that afraid of someone on the left that can articulate a position and call you out when you lie?also, this notion that what is a state and what is a federal issue is unchanging is ridiculous, imo. while we can certainly have debates about specific issues, the idea that any time we start discussing what used to be a state issue in federal terms is a huge whoopsie is, at the very least, a really big overstatement. states are simply not as isolated from one another as they used to be, and to suggest that laws that were developed when they were should apply absolutely in an entirely different context is ludicrous.it's also worth saying that the group of "conventional battleground states" has expanded widely this election cycle.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

A proportional electoral vote system seems like it would work, too, where the electoral votes are proportioned according to the popular vote in that state, but it would take a lot of thinking to decide if that is significantly different than a straight popular vote. I'm not sure why it would be, except that maybe each state could decide how to allocate the votes, whether proportionally, winner-takes-all, by county, or whatever. Again, it's tough to know if that is good or not.... I"m just throwing ideas out here.

I am not certain about this, but isn't this how it is already done? I don't think it was mandated by the constitution to have winner take all electoral votes, I think it has just happened over time that most states have chosen to do this. I may be wrong but this has been by understanding.To me that idea is the most practical, you are not going to be able to change the constitution, it would take 2/3 of state legislators to approve a change and the small states just aren't going to go for that. It may even be 3/4 of states approval. But if I am not mistaken, the states could change from the winner take all format that most follow now.

[wildspoke 2]

That's funny. I can't tell you how disappointed I am in BG.I really thought he was brighter than that. He was the one person on these forums who I thought was actually intellegent.

I hope this was a jopke.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

But Electoral votes are based on population, so this makes no sense.

Not exactly, they are based on congressional districts and senate seats, so no state has less than 3 no matter how little their population. I did some research, I think that 48 states have all or nothing electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska have proportional system. In Maine, which has two congressional districts and 4 electoral votes, the winner of each congressional district gets that district's electoral vote. The winner of the general statewide election gets the other two.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I did some research, I think that 48 states have all or nothing electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska have proportional system.

We do? weird. This is the very first time I'll be voting in Nebraska, and I know I for one am glad Nebraska's 5 votes will be split. Glad to see it's only two of the least populace states that are doing this... All or nothing is insanity, imo.

[hblask 1]

The will of the teeming masses is the only thing that determines rights.

But that's just wrong. Not incorrect, but wrong as in "a terrible system". It's what allows Obama to say "I'm going to take from the top 3% and give to the other 99%" (hey, I can be as bad at math as Obama is). We are supposed to have a republic, in which the majority cannot just take from the minority because they want to. The teeming masses should be able to vote for whoever they want, but those elected should be limited to voting for things that are the proper function of government. Rewarding campaign contributors and pouring $$ into key voting areas don't qualify.