War on the Electoral College

[tttppp]

May as well ban voting, it is useless, and will be with either system. The two parties will still rule it and no real choice will be presented.

That doesn't answer my question. Plus its hard for the two parties to dominate when they can't list their party on the ballot.

 

[tttppp]

no, there won't be swing states there will just be campaigning in NY, IL, CA, TX, FL, DC, NJ nothing else will matter, Ct won't matter, no use in voting, The big cities decided for you.

Wrong. My vote will count just as much as someone in NY. Either way, its better for the majority to have the say, not the minority.

 

[erowe1]

Your vote doesn't count in non swing states now. For example, here in CT people just look for the democrat and select him. There is no chance of anyone else winning CT. So my vote is worthless. If we switched to a popular vote, all votes are equal. There are no swing states that get all the attention. Or you could eliminate labeling parties on ballots, that way voters could not easily chose democrat and would be forced to actually know the candidates. In this case, my vote at least has a chance of counting.

As unlikely as it is that you could make the difference of who wins the electors of the state of CT, do you really think that you would have a greater chance of making the difference in a single nationwide vote?

 

[Uriah]

Because the biggest voice in the country is not the individual, it's the state. The sovereign states of America are loosely congregated so as to provide an association between separate local governments under a very weak federal government. The reasons for the electoral college are to support the interests of the individual state. Popular votes are one of the main indicators of true democracy, something we don't want. We want our local governments to have more authority than the federal government. If we have the individual directly tied to the federal government, then we don't have a republic. We have the two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. That's democracy, and it's a bad thing.

^^^What he said.^^^

For those of you that find a direct democracy appealing: Do you realize that a push for a direct popular vote, if successful, naturally will lead to a push for nationwide ballot initiatives? Money will win out. Whomever has more money for advertising will win in most cases. Every right you were born with will end up on the ballot. Democracies end due to internal decay. They become morally depleted.

The United States of America is exactly that -- united.... states. Our federal government was created to represent the several sovereign states. The union of the several states created the federal government and therefore it is the right of the states to have a voice in the selection of their administrators. Of course, each individual state may choose how it's say in said selection, will proceed.

 

[tttppp]

As unlikely as it is that you could make the difference of who wins the electors of the state of CT, do you really think that you would have a greater chance of making the difference in a single nationwide vote?

That's not the point. The point is that you don't know the outcome of a popular vote ahead of time. The way things are now, you know the winner of your state before you even vote, so what motivation do I have to vote in my state?

 

[tttppp]

^^^What he said.^^^

For those of you that find a direct democracy appealing: Do you realize that a push for a direct popular vote, if successful, naturally will lead to a push for nationwide ballot initiatives? Money will win out. Whomever has more money for advertising will win in most cases. Every right you were born with will end up on the ballot. Democracies end due to internal decay. They become morally depleted.

The United States of America is exactly that -- united.... states. Our federal government was created to represent the several sovereign states. The union of the several states created the federal government and therefore it is the right of the states to have a voice in the selection of their administrators. Of course, each individual state may choose how it's say in said selection, will proceed.

You can take the money out of politics and create a different system. A national vote does not lead to more coruption unles you want it to.

 

[erowe1]

its better for the majority to have the say, not the minority.

I don't really see why that is the case. But let's say it is. Are you maybe making a mountain out of a molehill?

In order for someone to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college, the election has to be so close to a tie that the slightest change could have swung it either way. The difference between the majority and the minority in that case would be virtually negligible.

 

[erowe1]

That's not the point. The point is that you don't know the outcome of a popular vote ahead of time. The way things are now, you know the winner of your state before you even vote, so what motivation do I have to vote in my state?

If knowing ahead of time is what makes the difference, then look at it this way:
In a popular vote, you would know ahead of time that your vote wouldn't make a bit of difference in the outcome, so what motivation would you have to vote?

I don't really see why your argument favors the popular vote over the electoral college.



ETA: Come to think of it, given the reasoning you're using, it could actually go the other way, if you want to consider the influence you can have beyond just voting.

In 2004 in CT if you and others along with you wanted to make the difference in the presidential election, you would have been able to win all 7 of CT's electors for Bush instead of Kerry just by getting 70,000 people to switch their votes.

And in the weeks leading up to the election, you could have gotten CT to show up in polls as a swing state, thus forcing the candidates to campaign there (as if that's a good thing), just by getting half that many people to change their minds.

You would be able to do all that by working locally.

In a national election, you could do all that and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

 

[FrancisMarion]

That's not the point. The point is that you don't know the outcome of a popular vote ahead of time. The way things are now, you know the winner of your state before you even vote, so what motivation do I have to vote in my state?

Principle? For the Record?

 

[tttppp]

I don't really see why that is the case. But let's say it is. Are you maybe making a mountain out of a molehill?

In order for someone to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college, the election has to be so close to a tie that the slightest change could have swung it either way. The difference between the majority and the minority in that case would be virtually negligible.

Yes, but the elections are ultimately decided by the swing states, minority. The outcome is already known for the rest of the states. Votes in swing states simply count more than votes in other states. Therefore the minority is making decisions for the majority.

 

[mad cow]

Doesn't matter, w/o an EC all candidates have to do is go to the most populated areas and promise as much shit as they can and poof, they're elected.

Exactly.And then all the 20 or so least populated States,and perhaps rural areas of some of the most populated States,have to do is secede.
Win-Win.

 

[tttppp]

If knowing ahead of time is what makes the difference, then look at it this way:
In a popular vote, you would know ahead of time that your vote wouldn't make a bit of difference in the outcome, so what motivation would you have to vote?

I don't really see why your argument favors the popular vote over the electoral college.

You don't know the outcome ahead of time in national votes. All they have is estimates which turn out to be wrong many times. In non swing states, you do know the outcome ahead of time. Its certain enough that the campaigns ignore these states.

 

[belian78]

Yes, but the elections are ultimately decided by the swing states, minority. The outcome is already known for the rest of the states. Votes in swing states simply count more than votes in other states. Therefore the minority is making decisions for the majority.

The problem you are describing is a problem with the level of political awareness of the populace, not with the system. If we had an informed populace, and one that actually paid attention to their respresentatives beyond what color their party was, there would be no swing states and otherwise.

 

[erowe1]

You don't know the outcome ahead of time in national votes.

But you do know ahead of time that your vote won't make a difference. And the argument you made was based on having a motivation to vote.

Its certain enough that the campaigns ignore these states.

OK, I'll bite. Why is this a bad thing?

 

[tttppp]

The problem you are describing is a problem with the level of political awareness of the populace, not with the system. If we had an informed populace, and one that actually paid attention to their respresentatives beyond what color their party was, there would be no swing states and otherwise.

That's why I have suggested removing the parties' names from the ballots and requiring a short test on the candidates positions, that way we don't have what we have now where people just select the party they want and ignore the fact that sometimes your candidate is not really part of that party, like Romney.

 

[tttppp]

But you do know ahead of time that your vote won't make a difference. And the argument you made was based on having a motivation to vote.


OK, I'll bite. Why is this a bad thing?

You don't know that. Its still possible for your vote to count.

 

[erowe1]

That's why I have suggested removing the parties' names from the ballots and requiring a short test on the candidates positions

Removing parties sounds great (the test, not so much), but that's entirely separate from getting rid of the electoral college.

ignore the fact that sometimes your candidate is not really part of that party, like Romney.

Romney is very much a part of the Republican party, in every way. You could hardly find a better representative of the GOP than him. Ron Paul is the one who's a Republican in name only.

 

[erowe1]

You don't know that. Its still possible for your vote to count.

It's still possible for CT to vote for Romney.

Impossible you say? Sure, for all intents and purposes. But you making the difference in a nationwide popular vote is probably even less likely than that.

 

[erowe1]

Actually, if we had a real electoral college system, where you only vote for the electors and not the presidential candidates, I'd probably take more interest in supporting that. As it is though, I just see what we have now as a poor excuse for something republican.

 

[Uriah]

I suggest everyone who hasnt watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

Anyone who thinks an election with the popular vote would only be focused on the cities is plain wrong. After NYC the population of cities in America drop drastically. By the time you get to the 10th largest city (San jose) your already under a million people. Adding all top 10 cities only gives you roughly 25 million people. Compare that to the remaining 275 million. Yea so just campaigning in cities wont cut it.

It might not be perfect but its a hell of a lot better then the current system. Anyone who thinks its better the minority rule the majority (in this case rural compared to urban/suburban) just because the rural vote might be more sympathetic to our cause then the urban vote is going against libertarian principles.

Popular vote is the way to go but for the legislatures we need proportional voting with party lists.

Cities are not isolated. The 10 largest cities in America form metro areas. These are easily identifiable and viewed more as 'media markets' rather than separate individual cities. The 10 largest metro areas in the USA are 81 million plus Americans.

The premise of the video uses an argument for the principal of equality. In the video, it is stated that the electoral college violates this principle while not addressing exactly what the electoral college is and why it was established; beyond superficial propaganda. The intent of the electoral college was not to make presidential candidates pay more attention to small states. It was created so each state had a fair voice in the selection of their administrator. Remember, the federal government represents and is a tool of the several sovereign states. The states represent the people and the federal government represents the states.

The video makes the point that the electoral college doesn't make candidates pay attention to small states. I agree with this and the fact that presidential candidates also don't give attention the the three largest states. The video uses this and more as evidence against the electoral college. It is clearly obvious to me that candidates don't pay attention to these states because American politics is completely polarized, divisive, and corrupt. Candidates don't have to pay attention to small states, large states, and most of the states because laws have been written in favor of the two major parties and against all other parties. If all parties, and individuals had fair access to running for office at the federal level then candidates would be more responsive to small states, large states, and most states.

Error of fact: not all states are winner take all. Nebraska and Maine are by congressional district and state-wide winner. States may choose how their electors are chosen. Electors had in the past, been chosen by state legislators.

What the authors of this video fail to see is not some violation of equality and fairness (the electoral college actually uses these principles for the states as the federal government was intended) but the underpinning of American republicanism by big-money fascist authoritarians. It is these individuals that have created a corrupt and politically divisive nation that has become unresponsive to it's people.

I find the video offensive when it states that you can win with only 22% of the popular vote, in a democracy. The United States of America is not a democracy. Please understand this. The founders consciously and specifically avoided becoming a democracy. Please learn why. The United States of America is a republic. Learn what that means.