On October 28 2012 03:10 ThreeAcross wrote: It is difficult to understand any of his posts. I have tried to explain that he should take more time when constructing his posts and use somewhat correct spelling and grammar but oh well.
I think he is trying to say Republicans are racist because of those videos, and then people don't like Colin Powell because he endorses Obama..
It doesn't matter, I think most people ignore him anyway.
I think you and the other guy must be old bitter right-wingers (but I repeat myself) who are upset that Romney doesn't have a chance of winning.
I will repeat myself only this time I will not give you an excuse to change the subject.
Democrats say watch this video for why to vote for us:
Republicans say watch this video for why to vote for them:
Do you understand now? Did I miss any spelling errors or punctuation?
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
What the electoral college does is it gives a disproportionate view to certain states just as a popular vote system would. Wyoming is irrelevent either way as are the 40 states that arent swing states and thats the sad truth of the electoral collge; if you arent in the swing states you dont matter. States like Ohio and Flordia get disproportionate attention already despite having nowhere near population of a larger state. So if you are going to disproportionately favor the issues of certain states then why not just at least favor the opinions of larger areas.
You are completely missing the point. I am not saying the EC is without fault, what I am saying is that the EC addresses one glaring concern that arises from democracy. While it is true that Wyoming hasn't been a swing state traditionally, if a republican president were to shit on Wyoming's economy and social welfare for four years then it could swing. And with the EC any state that swings is important.
Without the EC we dont just shift the swing states to the most populous states, we make the 3 point EC states literally meaningless on the national stage.
It is an imperfect system. We need a better one and popular vote isnt it.
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
What? How would states representing more than 270 electoral votes matter? The Electoral College is in the Constitution, therefore to change it you need an amendment. I don't understand.
And I don't understand the idea of 'States would be losing power.' The minorities in those states would be gaining power because it's winner-take-all, now they actually have a voice. So I guess the 'state' would be losing power, but at the gain of people gaining power. So whatever.
There is no requirement in the Constitution dictating how those states vote with there electoral votes. If states totalling 270 electoral college votes say "we will vote for whoever wins popular vote" than nothing else matters because whoever wins popular vote wins election.
Just a little tangent: Instead of removing electoral collage, how about adding a two roumd system like several other republics have? In that way, the strenght of the third parties would explode in round 1! To me that seems like a better way to deal with the problem. It also encourages a reform of the electoral college to make minorities more important, like in the pprimaries.
why is an arbitrary unit like the state the correct vessel for sovereignty, instead of you know, the people in it.
btw, you can see what the romneys want to do to america's public infrastructure by observing what's going on in the cayman islands. they are, despite being a gigantic offshore heaven, having problem funding the government. it's a straightup colonial attitude in romneyland.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
Oo im sorry but i dont follow your logic at all
The unique situation of Wyoming is already of no concern since the President has nothing to do with it. There not campaigning to solve the whatever problem that Wyoming have. There dealing with national issues.
Especially because of the way America is structured with the State and Federal level you can have a President chosen by national popular vote because the problems of a single state are dealt with at a State level.
Also your idea of the majority inflicting its will on the minority is pretty much how democracy works. The majority chooses. Instead you now have a situation where the minority inflicts its will on the majority through things like filibusters. Its a completely upside down system.
This is incredibly naive position. The majority inflicting its will on the minority is the absolute dark side of direct democracy that western culture has been fighting for centuries. It is the entire reason documents like the constitution are held in such high regard. The filibuster is a logistical artifact that stems from a good idea. Similar to the positive element of the EC I mentioned earlier, when liberals are in power we should pass liberal policies but it should never be good politics to completely ignore the concerns of conservatives. The same goes the other way.
In practice the president is a domestic and foreign policy official based both by how he sets the agenda for his party and his veto power. As he addresses national concerns the solutions he chooses to back directly affect the economies and social welfare of the states.
States are not independent enterprises. If you need any more proof of how much federal policy affects states just look at how much money states get back from the federal government relative to how much they put in.
I'm not sure I understand your point. The electoral college is an arcane institution that allows the minority to impose its will on the majority, which is more troubling than the majority imposing its will on a minority (which will always happen).
Additionally it forces candidates and presidents to pander to certain states exclusively. Do you really want Iowa to determine national agricultural policy because of its position as a swing state? How about bailouts for the private sector based on what part of the country they're in? Keeping open certain useless military bases because closing them, while efficient for the nation as a whole, would risk losing that state the next election?
The structure of the electoral college doesn't empower or protect 'smaller' states as it stands at the moment, it empowers a small subset of states that are ideologically 'in the middle'. That wasn't the original intention of the EC at all.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
What the electoral college does is it gives a disproportionate view to certain states just as a popular vote system would. Wyoming is irrelevent either way as are the 40 states that arent swing states and thats the sad truth of the electoral collge; if you arent in the swing states you dont matter. States like Ohio and Flordia get disproportionate attention already despite having nowhere near population of a larger state. So if you are going to disproportionately favor the issues of certain states then why not just at least favor the opinions of larger areas.
You are completely missing the point. I am not saying the EC is without fault, what I am saying is that the EC addresses one glaring concern that arises from democracy. While it is true that Wyoming hasn't been a swing state traditionally, if a republican president were to shit on Wyoming's economy and social welfare for four years then it could swing. And with the EC any state that swings is important.
Without the EC we dont just shift the swing states to the most populous states, we make the 3 point EC states literally meaningless on the national stage.
It is an imperfect system. We need a better one and popular vote isnt it.
Then again, if a Republican president were to shit all over Connecticut everything is fine?
the original intention was something along the lines of "protecting state sov" which is code for "mah slaves"
the EC is not the worst of it even, the senate's design is such that state ratification was kept in lock step 1 north, 1 south for decades, just to make sure the south can defend its system.
On October 28 2012 03:10 ThreeAcross wrote: It is difficult to understand any of his posts. I have tried to explain that he should take more time when constructing his posts and use somewhat correct spelling and grammar but oh well.
I think he is trying to say Republicans are racist because of those videos, and then people don't like Colin Powell because he endorses Obama..
It doesn't matter, I think most people ignore him anyway.
I think you and the other guy must be old bitter right-wingers (but I repeat myself) who are upset that Romney doesn't have a chance of winning.
I will repeat myself only this time I will not give you an excuse to change the subject.
Do you understand now? Did I miss any spelling errors or punctuation?
Congratulations.
While I expect that I am older than most of those who posts, I don't think I would call myself old. Also, as I have stated before I don't like Romney. I don't like Obama. I don't think it matters who gets elected because it is all the same.
You are proving my previous points on the craziness of partisanship. Anyone can cherry pick videos that put the other side in a darker light.
By the way, my vote is going to Gary Johnson. I liked him as a governor when I lived in New Mexico and I think he is a better option than either of the main candidates.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
What the electoral college does is it gives a disproportionate view to certain states just as a popular vote system would. Wyoming is irrelevent either way as are the 40 states that arent swing states and thats the sad truth of the electoral collge; if you arent in the swing states you dont matter. States like Ohio and Flordia get disproportionate attention already despite having nowhere near population of a larger state. So if you are going to disproportionately favor the issues of certain states then why not just at least favor the opinions of larger areas.
You are completely missing the point. I am not saying the EC is without fault, what I am saying is that the EC addresses one glaring concern that arises from democracy. While it is true that Wyoming hasn't been a swing state traditionally, if a republican president were to shit on Wyoming's economy and social welfare for four years then it could swing. And with the EC any state that swings is important.
Without the EC we dont just shift the swing states to the most populous states, we make the 3 point EC states literally meaningless on the national stage.
It is an imperfect system. We need a better one and popular vote isnt it.
If the economy was so screwed up that Wyoming became a swing state than that candidate is losing. There are a lot of things that are only the way they are because a swing state opposes it. The only real reason we still have an embargo against Cuba is because the party that gets rid of it gives up Flordia for next 40 years. The only reason the ethanol subsidy is off limits is because of Iowa.
Also what you are talking about basically happens. Have you noticed that NH is a "swing state"? It techincally is but no candidate cares about it because its only 4 electoral votes. Ohio Flordia Virgina before it started tilting NC, those are states where campaigns happen. Get out the vote efforts are spent in other states that are swing states but if you dont get to be in one of those you are basically a giant ATM for the swing states.
People who talk like having popular vote election means only campaigning in big cities dont really understand how close elections usually are. There will be lots of stops there but add buys will actually be run in those little towns because every vote will matter and you cant just ignore NY or ignore Cal or ignore even states like Arizona becuase you need every vote you can get.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
Oo im sorry but i dont follow your logic at all
The unique situation of Wyoming is already of no concern since the President has nothing to do with it. There not campaigning to solve the whatever problem that Wyoming have. There dealing with national issues.
Especially because of the way America is structured with the State and Federal level you can have a President chosen by national popular vote because the problems of a single state are dealt with at a State level.
Also your idea of the majority inflicting its will on the minority is pretty much how democracy works. The majority chooses. Instead you now have a situation where the minority inflicts its will on the majority through things like filibusters. Its a completely upside down system.
This is incredibly naive position. The majority inflicting its will on the minority is the absolute dark side of direct democracy that western culture has been fighting for centuries. It is the entire reason documents like the constitution are held in such high regard. The filibuster is a logistical artifact that stems from a good idea. Similar to the positive element of the EC I mentioned earlier, when liberals are in power we should pass liberal policies but it should never be good politics to completely ignore the concerns of conservatives. The same goes the other way.
In practice the president is a domestic and foreign policy official based both by how he sets the agenda for his party and his veto power. As he addresses national concerns the solutions he chooses to back directly affect the economies and social welfare of the states.
States are not independent enterprises. If you need any more proof of how much federal policy affects states just look at how much money states get back from the federal government relative to how much they put in.
I'm not sure I understand your point. The electoral college is an arcane institution that allows the minority to impose its will on the majority, which is more troubling than the majority imposing its will on a minority (which will always happen).
Additionally it forces candidates and presidents to pander to certain states exclusively. Do you really want Iowa to determine national agricultural policy because of its position as a swing state? How about bailouts for the private sector based on what part of the country they're in? Keeping open certain useless military bases because closing them, while efficient for the nation as a whole, would risk losing that state the next election?
The structure of the electoral college doesn't empower or protect 'smaller' states as it stands at the moment, it empowers a small subset of states that are ideologically 'in the middle'. That wasn't the original intention of the EC at all.
Basically what you are doing is making an argument to move away from the EC, not an argument for the popular vote. In its current state the EC does offer the protections I mentioned. While it is true that Ohio gets more attention it is not true that the federal government ignores any state. The existence of swing states is not eliminated by the popular vote and the powerlessness of not being a swing state is far more destructive with a popular vote system for the reasons I mentioned.
On October 30 2012 01:19 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 28 2012 03:10 ThreeAcross wrote: It is difficult to understand any of his posts. I have tried to explain that he should take more time when constructing his posts and use somewhat correct spelling and grammar but oh well.
I think he is trying to say Republicans are racist because of those videos, and then people don't like Colin Powell because he endorses Obama..
It doesn't matter, I think most people ignore him anyway.
I think you and the other guy must be old bitter right-wingers (but I repeat myself) who are upset that Romney doesn't have a chance of winning.
I will repeat myself only this time I will not give you an excuse to change the subject.
Do you understand now? Did I miss any spelling errors or punctuation?
Congratulations.
While I expect that I am older than most of those who posts, I don't think I would call myself old. Also, as I have stated before I don't like Romney. I don't like Obama. I don't think it matters who gets elected because it is all the same.
You are proving my previous points on the craziness of partisanship. Anyone can cherry pick videos that put the other side in a darker light.
By the way, my vote is going to Gary Johnson. I liked him as a governor when I lived in New Mexico and I think he is a better option than either of the main candidates.
If you think they will do the same thing then you are either cherry picking or having been paying attention to what they have been saying.
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
What? How would states representing more than 270 electoral votes matter? The Electoral College is in the Constitution, therefore to change it you need an amendment. I don't understand.
And I don't understand the idea of 'States would be losing power.' The minorities in those states would be gaining power because it's winner-take-all, now they actually have a voice. So I guess the 'state' would be losing power, but at the gain of people gaining power. So whatever.
Are you referring to the liberals in States like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma ? States like that ? All 53 of those people ?
I'm also referring to conservatives in New York, California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, half of the people in Ohio, Wisconsin, etc. etc....
i say bait them out and round them up, in FEMA concentration camps.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
What the electoral college does is it gives a disproportionate view to certain states just as a popular vote system would. Wyoming is irrelevent either way as are the 40 states that arent swing states and thats the sad truth of the electoral collge; if you arent in the swing states you dont matter. States like Ohio and Flordia get disproportionate attention already despite having nowhere near population of a larger state. So if you are going to disproportionately favor the issues of certain states then why not just at least favor the opinions of larger areas.
You are completely missing the point. I am not saying the EC is without fault, what I am saying is that the EC addresses one glaring concern that arises from democracy. While it is true that Wyoming hasn't been a swing state traditionally, if a republican president were to shit on Wyoming's economy and social welfare for four years then it could swing. And with the EC any state that swings is important.
Without the EC we dont just shift the swing states to the most populous states, we make the 3 point EC states literally meaningless on the national stage.
It is an imperfect system. We need a better one and popular vote isnt it.
If the economy was so screwed up that Wyoming became a swing state than that candidate is losing. There are a lot of things that are only the way they are because a swing state opposes it. The only real reason we still have an embargo against Cuba is because the party that gets rid of it gives up Flordia for next 40 years. The only reason the ethanol subsidy is off limits is because of Iowa.
Also what you are talking about basically happens. Have you noticed that NH is a "swing state"? It techincally is but no candidate cares about it because its only 4 electoral votes. Ohio Flordia Virgina before it started tilting NC, those are states where campaigns happen. Get out the vote efforts are spent in other states that are swing states but if you dont get to be in one of those you are basically a giant ATM for the swing states.
People who talk like having popular vote election means only campaigning in big cities dont really understand how close elections usually are. There will be lots of stops there but add buys will actually be run in those little towns because every vote will matter and you cant just ignore NY or ignore Cal or ignore even states like Arizona becuase you need every vote you can get.
You are projecting priorities that exist now onto the political infrastructure that would arise from a switch to a popular vote which is where the big disconnect is. The model changes completely at that point. Why would we have a socially liberal vs socially conservative party dynamic anymore with a popular vote? Why wouldnt party policies shift shift to funneling every possible resource towards urban environments to garner the vote? Do you really think voter turnout will be the same in LA or NYC when they, as a far more homogenous group, have the power to dictate federal policy? Do you think voter turnout will be the same in severely disenfranchised rural areas?
Again, you can bang on the "EC bad" drum all day and I am right there with you but this just seems disastrous to me.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
What the electoral college does is it gives a disproportionate view to certain states just as a popular vote system would. Wyoming is irrelevent either way as are the 40 states that arent swing states and thats the sad truth of the electoral collge; if you arent in the swing states you dont matter. States like Ohio and Flordia get disproportionate attention already despite having nowhere near population of a larger state. So if you are going to disproportionately favor the issues of certain states then why not just at least favor the opinions of larger areas.
You are completely missing the point. I am not saying the EC is without fault, what I am saying is that the EC addresses one glaring concern that arises from democracy. While it is true that Wyoming hasn't been a swing state traditionally, if a republican president were to shit on Wyoming's economy and social welfare for four years then it could swing. And with the EC any state that swings is important.
Without the EC we dont just shift the swing states to the most populous states, we make the 3 point EC states literally meaningless on the national stage.
It is an imperfect system. We need a better one and popular vote isnt it.
If the economy was so screwed up that Wyoming became a swing state than that candidate is losing. There are a lot of things that are only the way they are because a swing state opposes it. The only real reason we still have an embargo against Cuba is because the party that gets rid of it gives up Flordia for next 40 years. The only reason the ethanol subsidy is off limits is because of Iowa.
Also what you are talking about basically happens. Have you noticed that NH is a "swing state"? It techincally is but no candidate cares about it because its only 4 electoral votes. Ohio Flordia Virgina before it started tilting NC, those are states where campaigns happen. Get out the vote efforts are spent in other states that are swing states but if you dont get to be in one of those you are basically a giant ATM for the swing states.
People who talk like having popular vote election means only campaigning in big cities dont really understand how close elections usually are. There will be lots of stops there but add buys will actually be run in those little towns because every vote will matter and you cant just ignore NY or ignore Cal or ignore even states like Arizona becuase you need every vote you can get.
You are projecting priorities that exist now onto the political infrastructure that would arise from a switch to a popular vote which is where the big disconnect is. The model changes completely at that point. Why would we have a socially liberal vs socially conservative party dynamic anymore with a popular vote? Why wouldnt party policies shift shift to funneling every possible resource towards urban environments to garner the vote? Do you really think voter turnout will be the same in LA or NYC when they, as a far more homogenous group, have the power to dictate federal policy? Do you think voter turnout will be the same in severely disenfranchised rural areas?
Again, you can bang on the "EC bad" drum all day and I am right there with you but this just seems disastrous to me.
For the simple reason that you cant win on the urban vote alone and anyone who tries will lose every election they are in. What you will lose is a lot of the silly issues that only exist because one state is too important to offend but you still have senators and memebers of house running in those states so they wont be any more ignored than they are currently. However when president is basically a slave to the whims of the swing states that doenst improve anything it just means that a very narrow amount of people decide the election as opposed to actually letting everyone decide an election.
There is something innherently wrong with 80% of the votes for president being irrelevent and the only way to make every vote count is to have every vote count equally.
the EC's chilling effect on the type of political issues on the table in a short attention span environment is understated by the popular vote's detractors.
in a popular vote context, grassroot issue campaigns have much more influence potential, because all the votes it can mobilize is directly contributing to winning. this also means that it is actually worthwhile to mobilize people from deep blue areas to actually vote, in order to address some of the pressing issues affecting them.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
What the electoral college does is it gives a disproportionate view to certain states just as a popular vote system would. Wyoming is irrelevent either way as are the 40 states that arent swing states and thats the sad truth of the electoral collge; if you arent in the swing states you dont matter. States like Ohio and Flordia get disproportionate attention already despite having nowhere near population of a larger state. So if you are going to disproportionately favor the issues of certain states then why not just at least favor the opinions of larger areas.
You are completely missing the point. I am not saying the EC is without fault, what I am saying is that the EC addresses one glaring concern that arises from democracy. While it is true that Wyoming hasn't been a swing state traditionally, if a republican president were to shit on Wyoming's economy and social welfare for four years then it could swing. And with the EC any state that swings is important.
Without the EC we dont just shift the swing states to the most populous states, we make the 3 point EC states literally meaningless on the national stage.
It is an imperfect system. We need a better one and popular vote isnt it.
If the economy was so screwed up that Wyoming became a swing state than that candidate is losing. There are a lot of things that are only the way they are because a swing state opposes it. The only real reason we still have an embargo against Cuba is because the party that gets rid of it gives up Flordia for next 40 years. The only reason the ethanol subsidy is off limits is because of Iowa.
Also what you are talking about basically happens. Have you noticed that NH is a "swing state"? It techincally is but no candidate cares about it because its only 4 electoral votes. Ohio Flordia Virgina before it started tilting NC, those are states where campaigns happen. Get out the vote efforts are spent in other states that are swing states but if you dont get to be in one of those you are basically a giant ATM for the swing states.
People who talk like having popular vote election means only campaigning in big cities dont really understand how close elections usually are. There will be lots of stops there but add buys will actually be run in those little towns because every vote will matter and you cant just ignore NY or ignore Cal or ignore even states like Arizona becuase you need every vote you can get.
You are projecting priorities that exist now onto the political infrastructure that would arise from a switch to a popular vote which is where the big disconnect is. The model changes completely at that point. Why would we have a socially liberal vs socially conservative party dynamic anymore with a popular vote? Why wouldnt party policies shift shift to funneling every possible resource towards urban environments to garner the vote? Do you really think voter turnout will be the same in LA or NYC when they, as a far more homogenous group, have the power to dictate federal policy? Do you think voter turnout will be the same in severely disenfranchised rural areas?
Again, you can bang on the "EC bad" drum all day and I am right there with you but this just seems disastrous to me.
For the simple reason that you cant win on the urban vote alone and anyone who tries will lose every election they are in. What you will lose is a lot of the silly issues that only exist because one state is too important to offend but you still have senators and memebers of house running in those states so they wont be any more ignored than they are currently. However when president is basically a slave to the whims of the swing states that doenst improve anything it just means that a very narrow amount of people decide the election as opposed to actually letting everyone decide an election.
There is something innherently wrong with 80% of the votes for president being irrelevent and the only way to make every vote count is to have every vote count equally.
I wish I knew how you got this "80% of votes don't matter" claim. I assume you are only talking about states that aren't in contention. In that case, the majority vote in the state is getting their vote counted.
"The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor."
this is while...
"The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent"
and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones.
"One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated"
a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
What the electoral college does is it gives a disproportionate view to certain states just as a popular vote system would. Wyoming is irrelevent either way as are the 40 states that arent swing states and thats the sad truth of the electoral collge; if you arent in the swing states you dont matter. States like Ohio and Flordia get disproportionate attention already despite having nowhere near population of a larger state. So if you are going to disproportionately favor the issues of certain states then why not just at least favor the opinions of larger areas.
You are completely missing the point. I am not saying the EC is without fault, what I am saying is that the EC addresses one glaring concern that arises from democracy. While it is true that Wyoming hasn't been a swing state traditionally, if a republican president were to shit on Wyoming's economy and social welfare for four years then it could swing. And with the EC any state that swings is important.
Without the EC we dont just shift the swing states to the most populous states, we make the 3 point EC states literally meaningless on the national stage.
It is an imperfect system. We need a better one and popular vote isnt it.
If the economy was so screwed up that Wyoming became a swing state than that candidate is losing. There are a lot of things that are only the way they are because a swing state opposes it. The only real reason we still have an embargo against Cuba is because the party that gets rid of it gives up Flordia for next 40 years. The only reason the ethanol subsidy is off limits is because of Iowa.
Also what you are talking about basically happens. Have you noticed that NH is a "swing state"? It techincally is but no candidate cares about it because its only 4 electoral votes. Ohio Flordia Virgina before it started tilting NC, those are states where campaigns happen. Get out the vote efforts are spent in other states that are swing states but if you dont get to be in one of those you are basically a giant ATM for the swing states.
People who talk like having popular vote election means only campaigning in big cities dont really understand how close elections usually are. There will be lots of stops there but add buys will actually be run in those little towns because every vote will matter and you cant just ignore NY or ignore Cal or ignore even states like Arizona becuase you need every vote you can get.
You are projecting priorities that exist now onto the political infrastructure that would arise from a switch to a popular vote which is where the big disconnect is. The model changes completely at that point. Why would we have a socially liberal vs socially conservative party dynamic anymore with a popular vote? Why wouldnt party policies shift shift to funneling every possible resource towards urban environments to garner the vote? Do you really think voter turnout will be the same in LA or NYC when they, as a far more homogenous group, have the power to dictate federal policy? Do you think voter turnout will be the same in severely disenfranchised rural areas?
Again, you can bang on the "EC bad" drum all day and I am right there with you but this just seems disastrous to me.
For the simple reason that you cant win on the urban vote alone and anyone who tries will lose every election they are in. What you will lose is a lot of the silly issues that only exist because one state is too important to offend but you still have senators and memebers of house running in those states so they wont be any more ignored than they are currently. However when president is basically a slave to the whims of the swing states that doenst improve anything it just means that a very narrow amount of people decide the election as opposed to actually letting everyone decide an election.
There is something innherently wrong with 80% of the votes for president being irrelevent and the only way to make every vote count is to have every vote count equally.
I wish I knew how you got this "80% of votes don't matter" claim. I assume you are only talking about states that aren't in contention. In that case, the majority vote in the state is getting their vote counted.
If the state isnt in contention then there really is no reason to vote beyond of course civic duty and all that and is part of reason turnout is horrible. Every single vote in Ohio is drastically more important to get out than say every single vote in Texas or NY. This is basically reason that states like Cal, Texas and NY only function as ATMs during election cycles.
What makes people think that "unlikely" voters understand the EC system well enough to incorporate that reasoning into their decision not to vote? I think more base inclinations are at play here, at least in a majority of the cases.
On October 30 2012 03:05 farvacola wrote: What makes people think that "unlikely" voters understand the EC system well enough to incorporate that reasoning into their decision not to vote? I think more base inclinations are at play here, at least in a majority of the cases.
Saying that the EC system discourages voting is silly. When people vote during presidential elections, they aren't just voting for the president. There are always many, many other issues on the ballot ranging from local elections to state constitutional amendments. If people aren't voting, it's not because of the EC system. It's because they are lazy and disengaged.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
What the electoral college does is it gives a disproportionate view to certain states just as a popular vote system would. Wyoming is irrelevent either way as are the 40 states that arent swing states and thats the sad truth of the electoral collge; if you arent in the swing states you dont matter. States like Ohio and Flordia get disproportionate attention already despite having nowhere near population of a larger state. So if you are going to disproportionately favor the issues of certain states then why not just at least favor the opinions of larger areas.
You are completely missing the point. I am not saying the EC is without fault, what I am saying is that the EC addresses one glaring concern that arises from democracy. While it is true that Wyoming hasn't been a swing state traditionally, if a republican president were to shit on Wyoming's economy and social welfare for four years then it could swing. And with the EC any state that swings is important.
Without the EC we dont just shift the swing states to the most populous states, we make the 3 point EC states literally meaningless on the national stage.
It is an imperfect system. We need a better one and popular vote isnt it.
If the economy was so screwed up that Wyoming became a swing state than that candidate is losing. There are a lot of things that are only the way they are because a swing state opposes it. The only real reason we still have an embargo against Cuba is because the party that gets rid of it gives up Flordia for next 40 years. The only reason the ethanol subsidy is off limits is because of Iowa.
Also what you are talking about basically happens. Have you noticed that NH is a "swing state"? It techincally is but no candidate cares about it because its only 4 electoral votes. Ohio Flordia Virgina before it started tilting NC, those are states where campaigns happen. Get out the vote efforts are spent in other states that are swing states but if you dont get to be in one of those you are basically a giant ATM for the swing states.
People who talk like having popular vote election means only campaigning in big cities dont really understand how close elections usually are. There will be lots of stops there but add buys will actually be run in those little towns because every vote will matter and you cant just ignore NY or ignore Cal or ignore even states like Arizona becuase you need every vote you can get.
You are projecting priorities that exist now onto the political infrastructure that would arise from a switch to a popular vote which is where the big disconnect is. The model changes completely at that point. Why would we have a socially liberal vs socially conservative party dynamic anymore with a popular vote? Why wouldnt party policies shift shift to funneling every possible resource towards urban environments to garner the vote? Do you really think voter turnout will be the same in LA or NYC when they, as a far more homogenous group, have the power to dictate federal policy? Do you think voter turnout will be the same in severely disenfranchised rural areas?
Again, you can bang on the "EC bad" drum all day and I am right there with you but this just seems disastrous to me.
For the simple reason that you cant win on the urban vote alone and anyone who tries will lose every election they are in. What you will lose is a lot of the silly issues that only exist because one state is too important to offend but you still have senators and memebers of house running in those states so they wont be any more ignored than they are currently. However when president is basically a slave to the whims of the swing states that doenst improve anything it just means that a very narrow amount of people decide the election as opposed to actually letting everyone decide an election.
There is something innherently wrong with 80% of the votes for president being irrelevent and the only way to make every vote count is to have every vote count equally.
I wish I knew how you got this "80% of votes don't matter" claim. I assume you are only talking about states that aren't in contention. In that case, the majority vote in the state is getting their vote counted.
If the state isnt in contention then there really is no reason to vote beyond of course civic duty and all that and is part of reason turnout is horrible. Every single vote in Ohio is drastically more important to get out than say every single vote in Texas or NY. This is basically reason that states like Cal, Texas and NY only function as ATMs during election cycles.
But this logic would apply to any election in which one side has a clear lead. A clear lead discourages voter turn-out, the electoral college has nothing to do with it. Your argument would make sense if frequently the popular vote contradicted the electoral vote, but that's only occurred one time in the last 100 years.
Also, xDaunt makes a great point above. I'm voting, but not because I care about the presidential election.
EPT
