My Question To Everyone: Electoral College

[winnar111]

It's fine. The only thing worse than a recount in Florida is a recount in all 50 states.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: destrekor

In the modern landscape of the USA, I'd say its possible the Electoral College to be disbanded at some point, but that's exactly my point in all of this: I fear that, because when that happens, at that point people would have either completely abandoned the idea of state loyalty/individuality, or the Federal government grew so large to basically negate the point of state governments. Both would be very depressing imho.

I don't know why you're bringing state loyalty into this. Because I'm loyal to my state, I should expect the minority in my state to accept that their votes are meaningless? Because I'm loyal to my state, I should accept that a vote in one state counts more than a vote in another state?



We have our state interests represented in the legislature. The president is the president of the United States, and voters in one state shouldn't be more important than voters in another state.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Martin
I've found that whether its defending the EC in the states, or defending FPTP systems in English-style parliament countries, people will go to great and very creative lengths to explain why more democracy is bad.

It's easy to explain why more democracy is bad - most voters are stupid and uniformed.

 

[sactoking]

The Electoral College is good, seeing as how we are a REPUBLIC.

Beyond that, it appears to me that the majority of the complaints about the EC aren't complaints about the EC but instead complaints about how certain states allocate their EC votes. In that case, you're whining about the wrong point(s).

 

[n yusef]

The Electoral College is a major cause of America's low voter turnout compared to other nations. If you live in a non-contested state such as MA or TX, your vote means nothing. If we had a Popular Vote, or at least some kind of proportional EC system (I believe a few states have one), there would be incentive for everyone to vote, regardless of how their neighbors were voting. A few people have commented that a move to a PV system would not change much, as the EC winner is generally the PV winner. This is an irrelevent statistic because it measures PV under an EC system. If PV is counted instead, I predict voter turnout to rise dramatically, and not equally for all demographics.

Of course, those on the right will oppose this because it gives the highly populated areas (which are generally Liberal) more say in elections.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes, I understand the EC. No, I don't support it because it is no longer necessary. No, I don't claim loyalty to any state. I've lived in Nebraska for 84% of my life, but I don't think it is loyal to me, nor am I loyal to it. I think Nebraska is better than many states, but I certainly don't think it is the best state. Nor do I think I have to be loyal to any state. Finally, I don't think having no state loyalty means I want a more powerful federal government.

We have local power. 2 senators per state. Small states thus already have far more power per capita than large states. I think that is enough bonus for small states, we don't need the EC to give them more bonus.

The EC was necessary before mass communications. However, the advent of radio, television, and the internet makes the EC antiquated. The EC was intended to force politicians to consider the small states. But remember that was when there was no national media and there were only a handful of states. If politicians focused only on NY, the other states could easilly band together and still win.

Not so anymore. Now, policians only have to win a few big states and all other states and territories combined can't band together and win. The 12 smallest states + Washington DC combined still pale in comparison to California. In fact, a politician could build a team of the smallest 20 states + DC and still not be able to beat the democrat's block of CA + NY. The way the EC is built now, the small states are meaningless. In order for the EC to be effective, the small states would need even a more disproportionate vote in the presidential election than they do now.

Thus, the EC actually does the OPPOSITE of what it intended. The EC doesn't put power into small states, instead it puts power into swing states. There is a significant difference there even though it is subtle. Honestly, OH and FL are just about all that matters in this election and in the past couple of elections. Instead of having representation by small states, we have representation by OH and FL.

Also, national media has eliminated the problem. A candidate debate in one state is seen by them all. In a popular vote, a candidate would have to address the issues in small states to get their millions of votes. As it is now, a candidate can ignore all small states since they are too small to matter even in the EC.

I know, I live in a small state. In the last few elections we've had one small visit by one vice presidential candidate (Palin). That's it. We've had a couple visits in the off season, but they are rare and short. That is your evidence that the EC works? Candidates completely ignoring the small states means the EC works?

Thank you for providing the most insightful post yet in this thread.

Everything is a variable in the present state of our country. The EC could be made more effective if the Federal Government was reduced in power, the way it is supposed to be. Then the issues of small states would be significantly more important to the entire country. If the entire country is now looking to those small states, then the EC would again be important, because then the small states would have a more represented vote for the President, based on what values that President offers their state.

That is supposed to be how it works. Even with the mass communication and mass transit, states can still be important, if we returned the Federal Government to where it is supposed to be in terms of power.

But, then another problem is in play... people are voting for their Congressmen time and time again, even those Congressmen who are furthering the problem of escalating the Federal Government's power. Why is this? Tough to really say, but one thing is people aren't truly realizing the importance of the situation, even if they are for or against a larger Federal Government, and most don't even know/care about the entirety of the voting record of their Congressmen. And many individuals will continue to vote for a particular Congressmen just because they have voted for a number of things they agree with, and look past the things they don't agree with.

Another reason why I am all for the idea of pushing for voters to educate themselves, and against the idea of just pushing people to vote just because it's their Right/'duty'. That sickens me to say, because I am all for people exercising their Rights, but when a large number of individuals vote rather blindly - either as described above, or worse, strictly for their Political Party of choice - then the situation becomes dire and problems can grow worse.

There are many factors to our current problems, but everyone loves quick fixes and never look at the big picture. Rarely is a large problem the result of one factor. Case in point - current economy. Very few recent factors are the result of today's economy - this has been brewing for a LONG time, well beyond the time of our current President (though I won't argue that he hasn't contributed at all, but it's above him, was before he even stepped into office). Didn't want to bring any other political issues into this thread, so hopefully we can keep from arguing other issues here. Just wanted to provide an example everyone can be familiar with, at least in regards to the surface of the issue).

 

[AstroManLuca]

Regarding the state loyalty thing, I am happy to be living in Minnesota, but I am by no means loyal to this state. If Minnesota were to enact laws that I disagreed with that were not present in other states, I would strongly consider moving. I wouldn't stick up for my state's laws no matter what.

Biggest issues where state laws affect people are things like gun ownership and carry rights, gay marriage, taxation, and miscellaneous "nanny state" regulations or city ordnances (a friend of mine in NYC is constantly complaining about all the hoops he has to jump through as a cook, mostly created by Michael Bloomberg to "protect" people).

Lots of gay people have moved to California to get married. If California passes Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, I imagine many will move to a more accepting state like Massachusetts, state loyalty be damned.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: destrekor

In the modern landscape of the USA, I'd say its possible the Electoral College to be disbanded at some point, but that's exactly my point in all of this: I fear that, because when that happens, at that point people would have either completely abandoned the idea of state loyalty/individuality, or the Federal government grew so large to basically negate the point of state governments. Both would be very depressing imho.

I don't know why you're bringing state loyalty into this. Because I'm loyal to my state, I should expect the minority in my state to accept that their votes are meaningless? Because I'm loyal to my state, I should accept that a vote in one state counts more than a vote in another state?



We have our state interests represented in the legislature. The president is the president of the United States, and voters in one state shouldn't be more important than voters in another state.

All I'm going to say for this reply is that I'm having trouble coming up with the exact words to describe how I want to describe holding interest in a state. I don't necessarily mean 'state loyalty', because that's implying far more than I intend.

See my reply to Dullard for a more detailed response about the EC in general, and hopefully it sheds more light onto what exactly I'm trying to argue... sort of.

This topic is really one, that in its entirety - in regards to problems and solutions - would best be represented in a book written by someone holding a PhD in the appropriate field of study. A forum is a terrible place, and I mostly just wanted to create a pathetically small survey.

 

[DrPizza]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the electoral college from each state must give 100% of their votes to whoever wins their state. In fact, I believe there's legislation in several states to give all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner, regardless of how their state votes. Thus, I'm surprised so many claim to understand the EC, yet ignore that fact. If you have a problem with all of Cali's electorates going to one candidate, then you don't realize that it could be changed under the EC system to be divided however they deem best. 75% for the winner, 25% to the loser? And, something like that: 75% to the winner, 25% to the loser would certainly make campaigning a lot more interesting.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Regarding the state loyalty thing, I am happy to be living in Minnesota, but I am by no means loyal to this state. If Minnesota were to enact laws that I disagreed with that were not present in other states, I would strongly consider moving. I wouldn't stick up for my state's laws no matter what.

Biggest issues where state laws affect people are things like gun ownership and carry rights, gay marriage, taxation, and miscellaneous "nanny state" regulations or city ordnances (a friend of mine in NYC is constantly complaining about all the hoops he has to jump through as a cook, mostly created by Michael Bloomberg to "protect" people).

Lots of gay people have moved to California to get married. If California passes Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, I imagine many will move to a more accepting state like Massachusetts, state loyalty be damned.

As I was stated in my reply to Mugs, this whole 'state loyalty' thing kind of got blown out of proportion.

I in know way intend to state that one should be loyal no matter what laws are enacted. And that is exactly one of the points that comes into question here. Would you simply stand still if certain bills/propositions came into the spotlight that you disagree with? Or would you rally together and do everything in your power to fight against them? Would you do anything about the local representatives if they voted for something you strongly disagree with? Write them, make your voice heard. They are supposed to be fighting for you, not just what they feel is best. If there people are strongly against what they might support, one, I'd have to ask how they came into power... and two, what would you do? They obviously are going to want to maintain their political position, or advance further... they cannot do that without the support of those that vote for them, so contest them every step of the way.
THAT is government. Not elect and forget like half the population of this country does. Elect and forget, and then bitch and moan or ignore.

The people of the states are only failing themselves and have no one else to blame but themselves. Just because you feel small in comparison to the rest of the people in your state, does NOT mean you are alone - on the contrary, there will be many like you, you just have to find them.

With that said, yes there is the option to move to another state if it all goes to hell and you feel they have completely betrayed you. Maybe find another state. But look beyond that. You would have done nothing then to interfere with how that state interacts with the Federal government, and may contribute more to the problem.
People all joke about moving out of the US if certain things happen at the Federal level. How does that solve anything though? Fight dammit.
I'll fight for this country, and fight for my state in the event that's ever needed... and I'll fight against them at the political level if they betray what we are supposed to stand for. First step, I'll be voting accordingly.

I'm finally beginning to find this out for myself, as I haven't always felt this way, mostly was just ignorant to politics and, like most of the country, did the vote and forget thing. I'm paying more attention now.

Sooo...
Anyone have any other suggestions for the wording in Question 3?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the electoral college from each state must give 100% of their votes to whoever wins their state. In fact, I believe there's legislation in several states to give all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner, regardless of how their state votes. Thus, I'm surprised so many claim to understand the EC, yet ignore that fact. If you have a problem with all of Cali's electorates going to one candidate, then you don't realize that it could be changed under the EC system to be divided however they deem best. 75% for the winner, 25% to the loser? And, something like that: 75% to the winner, 25% to the loser would certainly make campaigning a lot more interesting.

Some of the larger states are attempting to band together to destroy the EC permanently... by all creating state laws to pledge all their EC votes to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of how their state votes. If they can ever get 270 votes worth of states to agree to it, the EC may as well not exist.

 

[nageov3t]

small welfare states can suck it, imo.

down with the republic.