Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yoyoma1910
Your understanding is backwards.
If the electorial college were removed, and each person's vote counted directly for their candidate state pandering would be obsolete. It wouldn't mater where your vote lived anymore. A state that leans 45 percent Democrat and 55 percent Republican would still be important to the Democrats.
I agree completely. While Tuff points out the "worry" about fraud happening in the cities on a much grander scale (and I have no idea why this would be the case... rural and lesser populated areas have just as much temptation to inflate their voting numbers to increase the funding they receive, or their voice in government), I think cries of fraud possibility are dwarfed by how many people DON'T vote because they feel their vote does not count. And Tuff, I would think you would grasp this point more than anyone else here, being a Republican identifying as Independent but residing in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. Your vote DOESN'T count except on local initiatives or your district's representation or state ballots.
You traditionally see quite low turnout numbers for American elections. And I think part of that is because so many people feel, rightly, that their vote doesn't count for anything. If it fails to turn the entire tide of their whole state, then it is worthless because the state's whole electoral count goes to the winner. So this actually PENALIZES PEOPLE IN LARGE STATES especially if they do not belong to the majority party in their state! Take California, as an example. There are probably MORE REPUBLICANS in California than in the whole state of Idaho, or Montana, states which traditionally vote Republican. But because California is predominantly Democratic, those however many million Republican votes count for absolutely nothing.
I don't really see why this is defended as a great thing, least of all by people who are in the minority political affiliation of their given state. And Tuff yes I know the electoral system is part of the Constitution and I am not proposing we use coupon scissors to cut out any part we don't like without going through the formal process of amendment. We're just expressing viewpoints on whether or not we feel this is a good thing, which serves the practice of democracy in the U.S.
I will go out on the partisan limb for a moment, and venture the theory that the reason the electoral system is defended by people who do not seem to benefit from it whatsoever in a direct sense, is because it keeps a neocon brand of conservativism viable. It is a philosophy which benefits so little of the population, and serves the interest of such an elite few, that in a pure popular vote on the issues themselves I believe it would be hopeless to run a neocon campaign. That is why factcheckers frequently find more misdirection and misleading in Republican campaigns (though this is, like any other criticism of Republican tactics, dismissed as media bias). And why Republican campaigns so frequently degenerate into complete irrelevance in terms of the issues, focusing on character assasination or mudslinging campaigns and negative attack ads. These are all strategies that help to keep an ideology which only serves the interest of a small minority of the population viable.
Re: How the electoral process works.
If we ditched the electoral college the campaigns would focus on firing up the base instead of appealing to independants. Sarah Palin fired up the base...
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
If we ditched the electoral college the campaigns would focus on firing up the base instead of appealing to independants. Sarah Palin fired up the base...
There's certainly pros and cons for either system. I doubt anyone would deny that.
Re: How the electoral process works.
I don't like the electoral vote. I don't like the republican system in general, however, so I think I'll stay out of this for now. ~;)
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
Putin already offered to help the US elections fair... So why are you worried about fraud?
SFTS> That says something about the education system in the US, no?
Where I went to university, a dumb:elephant: like him would have been kicked out long ago:)
my. Bush is not dumb. The more you post the more I weep
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
my. Bush is not dumb. The more you post the more I weep
That is true, he is anti-intellectual though.
Re: How the electoral process works.
Well the more I look at it the more I don’t think it matters, either the politician panders to the most populated states or the more populated cities. Gore almost won in 2000 by going after the populated cities, he only had 676 counties while Bush had 2,436 but Gore still had the popular vote.
The entire system is irritating me today after doing some reading. Gore won Michigan after winning Detroit and the same thing happened with our governor election. There are so many people in the big cities that it doesn’t matter what the rest of a state wants. Win 1 city in most states and you take the entire state, popular or electoral vote. It wouldn’t be an issue if we had a slam dunk leader run on either side.
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yesdachi
Well the more I look at it the more I don’t think it matters, either the politician panders to the most populated states or the more populated cities. Gore almost won in 2000 by going after the populated cities, he only had 676 counties while Bush had 2,436 but Gore still had the popular vote.
The entire system is irritating me today after doing some reading. Gore won Michigan after winning Detroit and the same thing happened with our governor election. There are so many people in the big cities that it doesn’t matter what the rest of a state wants. Win 1 city in most states and you take the entire state, popular or electoral vote. It wouldn’t be an issue if we had a slam dunk leader run on either side.
Exactly.
Re: How the electoral process works.
I think the system reflects what the founders wanted for the country, it's just not implemented correctly at the state level. The Constitution does not specify how the electors are chosen, just how many the states get. It's up to the state legislature to decide how their share of votes is divvied up. If a state firmly in the grasp of one party, generally the legislature will want to help out on the national level by giving all votes to the majority winner.
In the original document, direct election was meant only for the House of Representatives (people power). The state legislature would chose the Senators (state power). The president was chosen via electors, which balances the power between large and small states (same balance as the Senate/House relationship). Unfortunately, they did not foresee the huge disparity in size between the Californias vs Montanas.
Since there is nothing (coming from a state's rights advocate) that can be done about the selection of electors, to better restore that balance I would say reduce the number of representatives. ~D
Re: How the electoral process works.
I think Yesdachi actually stumbled on the answer. One of the things the founding fathers were trying to prevent was Europe II. They didn't want 10-15 major population centers to control the destiny of their new country. They were farmers, they wanted the rural areas settled, and they knew nobody would move out ot the rural areas if they lived in constant fear that the masses in Philadelphia or Charleston would vote to tax them at 75%.
The electoral college serves as a force against urbanization. There's a reason a smaller percentage of Americans live in the major metro areas than they do in Europe or Asia (or Canada for that matter). The reason is, because we can.
If we went to direct election, the elections would follow the exact same pattern that television ratings systems do. 15 major urban areas make all the decisions for the rest of the country. While this is fine for things such as whether Big Brother will get another season or not, when deciding things like people's tax rates and the services provided by the state (in the federal sense), it's a bit disheartening.
We like having life out in the suburbs/rural area, and this would end in 30 years if we went to direct election.
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yesdachi
Well the more I look at it the more I don’t think it matters, either the politician panders to the most populated states or the more populated cities. Gore almost won in 2000 by going after the populated cities, he only had 676 counties while Bush had 2,436 but Gore still had the popular vote.
The entire system is irritating me today after doing some reading. Gore won Michigan after winning Detroit and the same thing happened with our governor election. There are so many people in the big cities that it doesn’t matter what the rest of a state wants. Win 1 city in most states and you take the entire state, popular or electoral vote. It wouldn’t be an issue if we had a slam dunk leader run on either side.
Why do you think communities with 248 residents and cities with 3,465,000 residents should have the same weight? And even with the electoral system, it is still far more cost-effective to "pander" to the big cities instead of visiting dozens or hundreds of small rural communities to acquire the same number of votes.
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Koga No Goshi
Why do you think communities with 248 residents and cities with 3,465,000 residents should have the same weight? And even with the electoral system, it is still far more cost-effective to "pander" to the big cities instead of visiting dozens or hundreds of small rural communities to acquire the same number of votes.
I will use Michigan as an example again. Look at what a disaster Detroit is then look at the rest of the state particularly the west coast, it is not doing so bad. There are a lot of smart people, good schools/colleges, world class medical facilities, many philanthropists, successful businesses and there are more ISO certified companies and GREEN buildings in West Michigan than anywhere in the country but all the smart, good, responsible people throughout two-thirds of the state don’t outweigh the votes of the jobless morons who are living on top of themselves in filth and stupidity in 1 city. I am sure it is a similar situation in many states.
Direct democracy has many drawbacks, this is one, but I still can’t think of a better system.
Imagine what a difference it would make in elections if we could exclude the idiots with a quick 10 question test before the vote. ~D
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yesdachi
I will use Michigan as an example again. Look at what a disaster Detroit is then look at the rest of the state particularly the west coast, it is not doing so bad. There are a lot of smart people, good schools/colleges, world class medical facilities, many philanthropists, successful businesses and there are more ISO certified companies and GREEN buildings in West Michigan than anywhere in the country but all the smart, good, responsible people throughout two-thirds of the state don’t outweigh the votes of the jobless morons who are living on top of themselves in filth and stupidity in 1 city. I am sure it is a similar situation in many states.
Direct democracy has many drawbacks, this is one, but I still can’t think of a better system.
Imagine what a difference it would make in elections if we could exclude the idiots with a quick 10 question test before the vote. ~D
I would LOVE such a system. The problem is that ideological Republicans would insist "Is Abortion murder?" should be one of the 10 questions to disqualify people. ;)
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Koga No Goshi
I would LOVE such a system. The problem is that ideological Republicans would insist "Is Abortion murder?" should be one of the 10 questions to disqualify people. ;)
Another problem would be Democrats insisting "Are gunz bAd1???" should be one of the ten questions.
Honestly, partisanship works both ways. Sometimes it gets aggravating.
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Evil_Maniac From Mars
Another problem would be Democrats insisting "Are gunz bAd1???" should be one of the ten questions.
Honestly, partisanship works both ways. Sometimes it gets aggravating.
Good thing you aren't in the U.S. and thus U.S. partisanship is a non-issue for you.
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Koga No Goshi
Good thing you aren't in the U.S. and thus U.S. partisanship is a non-issue for you.
I get it on this forum. ~;) Anyways, partisanship here or wherever - it can range from sickening to strangely refreshing. Can't live with it, can't live without it.
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Evil_Maniac From Mars
I get it on this forum. ~;) Anyways, partisanship here or wherever - it can range from sickening to strangely refreshing. Can't live with it, can't live without it.
The difference between my point and yours was, "banning guns" is a boogeyman tactic used by the right and not a universal litmus of running for major office as a Dem. But being pro life IS a virtual litmus question for the Rep party, especially if they want to be President. So the examples were not parallel.
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Koga No Goshi
I would LOVE such a system. The problem is that ideological Republicans would insist "Is Abortion murder?" should be one of the 10 questions to disqualify people. ;)
I think questions like “what color is red?” are sufficient enough to get rid of half the voters. ~D
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yesdachi
I think questions like “what color is red?” are sufficient enough to get rid of half the voters. ~D
No no no.
"What were the 49th and 50th states?"
Sizzle! 20% of electorate gone.
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TuffStuffMcGruff
Also - voter fraud is generally more likely in cites - therefore it is reasonable to say that city vote tallies are more likely to be skewed to a higher ratio than those in rural areas. The electoral college helps to protect people in suburban or rural states from larger states that can fudge their books more easily and with exponentially greater results.
Eh are you joking rural areas are way more prone to voter fraud everyone knows each other and people often know if somone is away for weekend they can then impersonate the voter the rural nature of the place often means the person looking after the ballots is in on it too.
It doesnt happenas much now I hope but its just as prevalent in a rural area as urban.
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gaelic cowboy
Eh are you joking rural areas are way more prone to voter fraud everyone knows each other and people often know if somone is away for weekend they can then impersonate the voter the rural nature of the place often means the person looking after the ballots is in on it too.
It doesnt happenas much now I hope but its just as prevalent in a rural area as urban.
Well I guess we'd need to compare stats, but they are lacking. Was ACORN heavily operative in rural areas? I'd imagine not, because there weren't as many voters to impersonate. What i'm saying is that, although it is odd, cities have a nameless aspect. If someone came into a metropolitan voting office, how likely is it that you would know everyone and not be swamped by the sheer number of people you didn't know? There is nowhere near the level of accountability in cities. I can't remember the last time I went into a voting office and the woman didn't know my family and mention how they had just come in to vote befroe I got there.
Does anybody have any stats?
Re: How the electoral process works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TuffStuffMcGruff
Well I guess we'd need to compare stats, but they are lacking. Was ACORN heavily operative in rural areas? I'd imagine not, because there weren't as many voters to impersonate. What i'm saying is that, although it is odd, cities have a nameless aspect. If someone came into a metropolitan voting office, how likely is it that you would know everyone and not be swamped by the sheer number of people you didn't know? There is nowhere near the level of accountability in cities. I can't remember the last time I went into a voting office and the woman didn't know my family and mention how they had just come in to vote befroe I got there.
Does anybody have any stats?
I love these claims of voter fraud from concerned Republicans. Like we don't have such lovely gems as the Help America Vote (Republican) Act and ongoing efforts to limit voter turnout, purge new voter registrations, etc. Not to mention the attempts to get required national photo ID and all sorts of other methods basically meant to just inconvenience or increase the expense of the process of getting registered, which will overwhelmingly discourage the poor and minorities from voting. Not likely Republican voters.
