G
Geldain
Guest
You are correct. What a depressing thought.In which case we’d be ruled completely by California, & a few mega-cities…talk about a depressing thought.
- Status
G
Geldain
Guest
The Electoral College is a representitive body who elects the President based on the voters of their respective states. It’s worked perfectly for 200+ years. It need not be fixed cuz’ it’s certainly not broken.
M
MikeWM
Guest
But the populous states already have a large majority of the electoral college. I get your point, but it doesn’t seem like ‘one person, one vote’ would be a great deal of extra bias over what you already have, while possibly being very helpful for the engagement of the general public in politics.In which case we’d be ruled completely by California, & a few mega-cities…talk about a depressing thought.
Mike
G
Geldain
Guest
We already have one person one vote
G
gilliam
Guest
As they say, any port in a storm. If it wasn’t going to give an advantage to the larger states to do away with it, they wouldn’t be fighting for a popular vote, would they?
M
MikeWM
Guest
Not really. One person has one vote to vote for electors X, who then go and vote for the President. Someone in a small population state votes for a greater percentage of an elector than someone in a large population state. All votes are therefore not equal.We already have one person one vote
Incidentally, I’m not USA-bashing here, despite what some people no doubt think. There are similar problems with elections in the UK given our first-past-the-post system and the fact that the government is made from the biggest party. All resources are concentrated in swing seats and no-one cares less about the seats that are consistently one party or another.
Mike
M
MikeWM
Guest
Probably not, no. Perhaps they are thinking of the general principle rather than the specific advantages concurred - but, no, probably not
Mike
G
gilliam
Guest
What they are doing is counting the votes. They (the liberals who live primarily in and around large cities) would have won the election in 2000 if we did away with the electoral college. This is all about power (and money).
G
Geldain
Guest
That’s one person, one vote, no matter how you want to spin it. This is also where the representitive nature of our government comes into play. One person votes for them to represent them and vote for the President in the Electoral College.
So? What matters is not the percentage of the victor in any state. It’s whether or not they won at all.
Actually, they are equal. My vote in the small southern state I live in has just as much power as the person voting in New York or California does.
I never thought you were bashing the US. From where I sit you’re trying to make an argument about something you don’t fully understand factually and mechanically.
M
MikeWM
Guest
It’s not one person one vote directly for the President though, that’s my point. As I said, it’s not like that in Britain either, but I’m not saying we are a paragon of virtue.
There are nevertheless fewer voters per elector in a small state than in a large state.
Nope, see my last sentence.
Now I’m fascinated. What exactly do you think I don’t understand about it? It’s not exactly brain surgery.
Mike
G
Geldain
Guest
Repeating that over and over again, won’t make it true. If I vote for President in my state it counts just as much as the person voting in any other state.
Which is exactly what the system was designed to do;prevent highly populated states from dominating lower population states in Presidential elections.
Based on what you’re writing, you don’t seem to understand the whole process, why it was designed and why it’s worked as designed every election since it was instituted.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I wondered how long it would take you to come out with the old "If you don’t agree with me, you’re violating my freedom of opinion."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
Yes it would [be extra bias]…states like Alaska (Where I live) and Wyoming would have less say in a presidential election than a single large city!
I’m personally in favor of removing cities larger than 1 million people from states rule and create seperate “city-states” within our country…give each of them their own senators & reps, so that they are represented in the government and free the rural areas of the state from their tyrannical rule. In effect, make each huge city a seperate state…it would be much more fair to the people who live in rural areas that are currently bossed around by the darn city trash…
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The problem with that is that the new city-states would flood the Senate.Yes it would [be extra bias]…states like Alaska (Where I live) and Wyoming would have less say in a presidential election than a single large city!
I’m personally in favor of removing cities larger than 1 million people from states rule and create seperate “city-states” within our country…give each of them their own senators & reps, so that they are represented in the government and free the rural areas of the state from their tyrannical rule. In effect, make each huge city a seperate state…it would be much more fair to the people who live in rural areas that are currently bossed around by the darn city trash…
J
Jay74
Guest
The founding fathers created the electoral college for some very good reasons.
First, it is designed to protect the minority. Candidates cannot focus solely on largely populated areas, they must gather a broad range of support distributed across the country.
Second, it does provide some protectiong against voter fraud. The controversy in 2000 was limited to Florida, an evenly divided state. Imagine in a nationwide popular vote, Texas doing recounts to run up their totals so Bush would win the popular vote. Then California decides to do recounts to run up the total for Gore, then Ohio, then New York, etc. Heavily republican or democratic states give all their votes to the candidate they want, then are done–state’s cannot increase their power by running up totals for one candidate or the other, therefore limiting states power to rig elections.
Third, it gives voices to smaller states…another example of how protection of minorities from a majority is part of our framework. The same logic applies to why it is the Senate, and not the House of Representatives, that is considered the upper house. Smaller states would largely be ignored, and already powerful states of California and New York, and more specifically cities that may outnumber whole states, whould be even more powerful.
Fourth, a recount nationwide would be a nightmare.
I understand why Gore voted felt cheated in 2000. However, it was a razor thin election, with Bush winning about 60% of the states and 80% of the counties. Gore’s mistake was not having a broader range of support.
Maybe baseball is a bad analogy, but I read it once so I’ll say it here anyway. The World Series winner is usually, but not necessarily the team that scores the most run in a series. It is the team that wins the most games. If a team outscores its opponent 20-18, but loses in 4 of 7 games, most grade schoolers understand why they lose the series. Same concept…the winner must not simply outscore their opponent, they must do so in a distributed manner. One game with a lousy umpire or poor weather doesn’t win the whole series alone. It requires strategy–with the Electoral College, that strategy is designed to serve the country as a whole, while not neglecting smaller states, minority voices, lowly populated areas, and so on. It’s a brilliant mechanism that should not go away.
The Electoral College is exactly what Iraq really needs, to give a voice to everyone, while at the same time providing some protection to the minority sects.
First, it is designed to protect the minority. Candidates cannot focus solely on largely populated areas, they must gather a broad range of support distributed across the country.
Second, it does provide some protectiong against voter fraud. The controversy in 2000 was limited to Florida, an evenly divided state. Imagine in a nationwide popular vote, Texas doing recounts to run up their totals so Bush would win the popular vote. Then California decides to do recounts to run up the total for Gore, then Ohio, then New York, etc. Heavily republican or democratic states give all their votes to the candidate they want, then are done–state’s cannot increase their power by running up totals for one candidate or the other, therefore limiting states power to rig elections.
Third, it gives voices to smaller states…another example of how protection of minorities from a majority is part of our framework. The same logic applies to why it is the Senate, and not the House of Representatives, that is considered the upper house. Smaller states would largely be ignored, and already powerful states of California and New York, and more specifically cities that may outnumber whole states, whould be even more powerful.
Fourth, a recount nationwide would be a nightmare.
I understand why Gore voted felt cheated in 2000. However, it was a razor thin election, with Bush winning about 60% of the states and 80% of the counties. Gore’s mistake was not having a broader range of support.
Maybe baseball is a bad analogy, but I read it once so I’ll say it here anyway. The World Series winner is usually, but not necessarily the team that scores the most run in a series. It is the team that wins the most games. If a team outscores its opponent 20-18, but loses in 4 of 7 games, most grade schoolers understand why they lose the series. Same concept…the winner must not simply outscore their opponent, they must do so in a distributed manner. One game with a lousy umpire or poor weather doesn’t win the whole series alone. It requires strategy–with the Electoral College, that strategy is designed to serve the country as a whole, while not neglecting smaller states, minority voices, lowly populated areas, and so on. It’s a brilliant mechanism that should not go away.
The Electoral College is exactly what Iraq really needs, to give a voice to everyone, while at the same time providing some protection to the minority sects.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Former Senator Daniel Patrick Monyhan (no conserevative, he) used to point out that majority rule isn’t rare – but majority rule with respect for minority rights is.
It was in devising a system that was both democratic and protective of the minority that the Founders showed true genius.
It was in devising a system that was both democratic and protective of the minority that the Founders showed true genius.
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
vern humphrey:
Essentially we would just be increasing the number of states by adding a few high-population/small land area states (I think we have 10 cities over a million?)…
Anyway, I’ll shut up now to avoid drifting any further off topic…
I think it would be balanced out by the senators from their “ex” state.
Essentially we would just be increasing the number of states by adding a few high-population/small land area states (I think we have 10 cities over a million?)…
Anyway, I’ll shut up now to avoid drifting any further off topic…
J
jman507
Guest
You change one element and you can easily change the point of view of the government.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Sorry, that is actually contrary to the principle of “one man, one vote”. Consider a somewhat similar situation, New York City’s former Board of Estimate. Each borough had one representative (the borough president) on the Board.MikeWM:
That’s one person, one vote, no matter how you want to spin it. This is also where the representitive nature of our government comes into play. One person votes for them to represent them and vote for the President in the Electoral College.
The House of Representatives doesn’t reflect “one man, one vote” either, but follows that ideal to the extent possible when the populace is broken up into discrete states. The Electoral College dilutes this still further by merging it with the Senate representation scheme, which is “one state, one vote” rather than “one man, one vote”. It’s simply not accurate to pretend that the Electoral College reflects the principle of “one man, one vote” or that the Constitutional Convention intended it to.
M
Morning_Glory
Guest
“In 2004, President Bush won the popular vote by 3 million ballots, but would have lost the election if John Kerry had carried Ohio.”(quote from original article)
**According to these people, it would have been OK for Gore to obtain the popular vote and win the election, but not for Bush to obtain the popular vote and win the election?
All candidates should be wary of taking votes for granted, and start to visit and woo the states with fewer Electoral College votes. Seeing the trend for close elections recently, these “smaller” states will be the true swing vote getters.**
**According to these people, it would have been OK for Gore to obtain the popular vote and win the election, but not for Bush to obtain the popular vote and win the election?
All candidates should be wary of taking votes for granted, and start to visit and woo the states with fewer Electoral College votes. Seeing the trend for close elections recently, these “smaller” states will be the true swing vote getters.**
- Status