red- If Gore wins florida, he will have done just that, been elected by winning most of the largest states and ignoring all the little ones.
IT's politics as usual. I personally hate Gore for this stunt in Florida. That's what i call low-balling. He should've just surrendered and kept his dignity. Just goes to show you what kind of a character uses fuzzy math.
As I see it, yes, the EC (damn European Commission) gives more clout to the smaller states, but it preserves the importance of the issues facing the smaller states. As it is, Gore has done very well in concentrating his campaign in the large states with particular emphasis in the urban population centers (look at the Florida returns, for God's sake -- you could map out the cities with the vote distribution) under a system that gives more power to the smaller states.
Under a popular vote system, the power shift would go back to the larger states where the population is concentrated, as Red says. So, a candidate concentrates his efforts in the population centers and caters his message to those masses and ignores the rest of the country. Since the large states now have the advantage, their views win out. Do they want lower food prices? Sure, abandon our farmers and allow cheap agricultural products to flood our shores. The city folks are happy since their food costs go down, but the farmers are out because they didn't have a say during the election.
The EC balances out regional differences and forces candidates to give time and consideration to the concerns of the rural voters who aren't in a large state. With so much talk of disenfranchising, I haven't seen any mention of it here. If you worry that your vote is wasted in a large state, move to a smaller one.
Under a popular vote system, the power shift would go back to the larger states where the population is concentrated, as Red says. So, a candidate concentrates his efforts in the population centers and caters his message to those masses and ignores the rest of the country. Since the large states now have the advantage, their views win out. Do they want lower food prices? Sure, abandon our farmers and allow cheap agricultural products to flood our shores. The city folks are happy since their food costs go down, but the farmers are out because they didn't have a say during the election.
The EC balances out regional differences and forces candidates to give time and consideration to the concerns of the rural voters who aren't in a large state. With so much talk of disenfranchising, I haven't seen any mention of it here. If you worry that your vote is wasted in a large state, move to a smaller one.
IMO, the problem is that when someone wins a large state, no matter how small the margin of victory is, all of the EC votes go for that candidate. This is evident in Florida, where the margin will be ridiculously small, yet all 25 votes will go to the winner. This "winner takes all" method results in the smaller states being largely ignored, as every single vote in a large state counts toward ALL of that state's EC votes. However, while disbanding the Electoral College may not be the best solution, it at least needs to be revamped, and the EC votes from each state should be divided proportionately. In all, an Electoral college may not be the best solution, but there do seem to be many convincing arguements in favor of it's existance.
The electoral college system will stay for the reasons expressed by Andrew R.
If I were to change it I would reduce the number of electors to one per state.
The impotance of every state would become important and equal.
If I were to change it I would reduce the number of electors to one per state.
The impotance of every state would become important and equal.
Well the rest of the world seems to cope without an 'electoral college' getting between the voters & their candidates.
Some people seem to think that smaller states will have less influence if the electoral college gets replaced by a popular vote, but the fact remains, that's what the Senate is for. As each US state has the same amount of senate seats regardless of population (here in Australia its the same regarding the senate, except each state have 8 senate seats).
Really nothing's fairer than one person, one vote, which is the whole concept behind a popular vote. As any vote, anywhere across the country would then have the same value.
Plus this anomoly where a candidate onlt needs 50% + 1 vote in a state to get all the electoral college votes in that state is ridiculous too. Why arn't the electoral college votes divided by the proportion of votes a party gets - here in Australia a party doesnt get all 8 senate seats in a state, just because they get 50% + 1 vote, basically a party gets a Senate seat for every 12.5% of the votes they get, & if a 3rd party gets 7% they even have a chance of getting that last senate seat.
There are plenty of Federal systems arround the world & they all cope well without an 'electoral college', which shows its not needed. Why Americans refuse to learn from the rest of the world is beyond me.
Some people seem to think that smaller states will have less influence if the electoral college gets replaced by a popular vote, but the fact remains, that's what the Senate is for. As each US state has the same amount of senate seats regardless of population (here in Australia its the same regarding the senate, except each state have 8 senate seats).
Really nothing's fairer than one person, one vote, which is the whole concept behind a popular vote. As any vote, anywhere across the country would then have the same value.
Plus this anomoly where a candidate onlt needs 50% + 1 vote in a state to get all the electoral college votes in that state is ridiculous too. Why arn't the electoral college votes divided by the proportion of votes a party gets - here in Australia a party doesnt get all 8 senate seats in a state, just because they get 50% + 1 vote, basically a party gets a Senate seat for every 12.5% of the votes they get, & if a 3rd party gets 7% they even have a chance of getting that last senate seat.
There are plenty of Federal systems arround the world & they all cope well without an 'electoral college', which shows its not needed. Why Americans refuse to learn from the rest of the world is beyond me.
I just listened to an interesting Talk of the Nation show, that talked about hanging chads (punched through, but holding on in one spot), swinging-door chads (punched through but hanging on by two spots), pregnant chads, and dimpled chads, and how hanging and swing-door chads can be in the closed position during one count, but open during another (or vise-versa), how chads can come off and block sensors, and how the counting machines and cards are sensitive to humidity.
These things aren't nearly as fool-proof as I would like!
I know; off topic for this off-topic thread. It's an interesting observation, in any case.
These things aren't nearly as fool-proof as I would like!
I know; off topic for this off-topic thread. It's an interesting observation, in any case.
Before the election, I didn't really care who won. Now, I will be ashamed to be an American if Al Gore wins through the court system by claiming voting irregularities. The entire Democratic party is spitting on the Constitution, and I am disgusted by it.
I did not read this whole post. I just wanted to chime in with MHO on that ^^ sentence. Hey, wasn't the constitution made as a guideline? Are all of the amendments we have ratified so far "spitting on the Constitution"? Any nation that fails to change as the times warrant will die a slow death. We should not change everything at once, but modifying the laws which we founded this county on is inevitable as the times change. The Constitution was not a perfect document, this is not fairytale land.
I did not read this whole post. I just wanted to chime in with MHO on that ^^ sentence. Hey, wasn't the constitution made as a guideline? Are all of the amendments we have ratified so far "spitting on the Constitution"? Any nation that fails to change as the times warrant will die a slow death. We should not change everything at once, but modifying the laws which we founded this county on is inevitable as the times change. The Constitution was not a perfect document, this is not fairytale land.
<< Who are we to decide that the electoral college is a "flawed" system? >>
Nobody. Junior Senator Elect Hillary Rodman Clinton, however, has decided to make it her baby. Yep, Hillary wants to abolish this atroticious, outmoded, unfair EC system. Why? My hard take: because she and certain other democrats know they'll always win, quite handily in fact, simply by pandering to select areas of the country. Nuking the EC makes their job a lot easier.
Hillary, in 2004, would prefer to simply pitch programs to NY (obviously), FL, CA, and TX. That's it! You scum in UT, KS, etc. etc. are nothing. Might as well be serfs under a Kingdom. Or in her case Queendom. She will attempt to straddle the throne someday, simply because she wants it.
That's reason enough to keep it IMO.
Nobody. Junior Senator Elect Hillary Rodman Clinton, however, has decided to make it her baby. Yep, Hillary wants to abolish this atroticious, outmoded, unfair EC system. Why? My hard take: because she and certain other democrats know they'll always win, quite handily in fact, simply by pandering to select areas of the country. Nuking the EC makes their job a lot easier.
Hillary, in 2004, would prefer to simply pitch programs to NY (obviously), FL, CA, and TX. That's it! You scum in UT, KS, etc. etc. are nothing. Might as well be serfs under a Kingdom. Or in her case Queendom. She will attempt to straddle the throne someday, simply because she wants it.
That's reason enough to keep it IMO.
<< Well the rest of the world seems to cope without an 'electoral college' getting between the voters & their candidates >>
And much of the world has parliamentary systems with monarchs as sovereigns. Our system of government has withstood the test of time for 211 years without interruption or serious disruption and has spawned countless freedom movements around the globe in emulation.
The principal aspect that misses most people when discussing the EC is that our system of government is based on the STATES, not the people as a whole -- that is part of the secret of its success. The power of the federal government, and HENCE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, is derived from the states' grant of power. The individual unit of power is not the city, nor a federal branch, it is the state. A division of power along state lines is not only reasonable, it is essential.
Andrew R got it again.
We are a federation of states who have agreed to give the federal government some power and reserved the rest to ourselves.
Lets look at this from a practical/political point of view. To change the constitution you need, assuming the amendment starts in the congress.
1. 2/3 vote in both houses of congress, 34/50 state legislatures approval.
You may get 2/3 in the house but you sure as hell won't get 2/3 in the senate.
The small state senators votes more than equal the big state votes.
Do you really see 34 small states giving up the only real power they have in choosing a president?
We are a federation of states who have agreed to give the federal government some power and reserved the rest to ourselves.
Lets look at this from a practical/political point of view. To change the constitution you need, assuming the amendment starts in the congress.
1. 2/3 vote in both houses of congress, 34/50 state legislatures approval.
You may get 2/3 in the house but you sure as hell won't get 2/3 in the senate.
The small state senators votes more than equal the big state votes.
Do you really see 34 small states giving up the only real power they have in choosing a president?
"And much of the world has parliamentary systems with monarchs as sovereigns"
Just get a list of the worlds countries or even ones that qualify as democracies, you'll see that less than 5% fit that description. Even of the 40 odd nations that make up Europe, only 10 fit that description, & that's include the petty principalities of Monaco & Andorra & the Duchy of Luxemburg. Out of them all, only 2, Slovakia & Belorussia, are currently having problems with their democratic institutions.
"that is part of the secret of its success. The power of the federal government, and HENCE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, is derived from the states' grant of power. The individual unit of power is not the city, nor a federal branch, it is the state. A division of power along state lines is not only reasonable, it is essential."
That's why the states still exist, Andrew, just because the anomoly that is the 'EC' gets (hyperthetically) overturned, doesnt stop the power of the states to excercise their powers under the constitution within their own state.
Anyway there's no reaso why all EC votes in a state have to go to the party with a simple majority of 50%+1, they could easily divided by the proportion of votes each party gets in that state. here in Australia a party doesnt get all 8 federal senate seats in a state, just because they get 50% + 1 vote, basically a party gets a Senate seat for every 12.5% of the votes they get, & if a 3rd party gets 7% they even have a chance of getting that last senate seat.
It works fine & there's no reason why the EC votes in a state can't get proportionaly divided between the candidates, according to the results of the election. Even in small states with only 3 EC votes it can be done - say one party gets 53% of the vote, another part gets 42& of the vote & a 3rd party gets 3% of the vote. Well then each party with more than 33.3% of the vote would get 1 EC seat & the 3rd EC seat would go to the party that has the majority of that last 1/3 of the vote, so the party with 53% would get 2 EC votes & the party with 42% would get 1 EC vote. Actually a couple of US states do it exactly like that, why they all don't do it like that is beyond me.
.
Just get a list of the worlds countries or even ones that qualify as democracies, you'll see that less than 5% fit that description. Even of the 40 odd nations that make up Europe, only 10 fit that description, & that's include the petty principalities of Monaco & Andorra & the Duchy of Luxemburg. Out of them all, only 2, Slovakia & Belorussia, are currently having problems with their democratic institutions.
"that is part of the secret of its success. The power of the federal government, and HENCE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, is derived from the states' grant of power. The individual unit of power is not the city, nor a federal branch, it is the state. A division of power along state lines is not only reasonable, it is essential."
That's why the states still exist, Andrew, just because the anomoly that is the 'EC' gets (hyperthetically) overturned, doesnt stop the power of the states to excercise their powers under the constitution within their own state.
Anyway there's no reaso why all EC votes in a state have to go to the party with a simple majority of 50%+1, they could easily divided by the proportion of votes each party gets in that state. here in Australia a party doesnt get all 8 federal senate seats in a state, just because they get 50% + 1 vote, basically a party gets a Senate seat for every 12.5% of the votes they get, & if a 3rd party gets 7% they even have a chance of getting that last senate seat.
It works fine & there's no reason why the EC votes in a state can't get proportionaly divided between the candidates, according to the results of the election. Even in small states with only 3 EC votes it can be done - say one party gets 53% of the vote, another part gets 42& of the vote & a 3rd party gets 3% of the vote. Well then each party with more than 33.3% of the vote would get 1 EC seat & the 3rd EC seat would go to the party that has the majority of that last 1/3 of the vote, so the party with 53% would get 2 EC votes & the party with 42% would get 1 EC vote. Actually a couple of US states do it exactly like that, why they all don't do it like that is beyond me.
.
<< And just because Comrade Hillary has taken it to be her cause, thatt is no reason the equate the reform or abolishment of it with her radical beliefs. >>
Red,
Sorry but I question her motives. I'm not at all saying a politician can't "magic" up a brand spankin' new issue to pander to us but I think Hillary's timing is "iffy". Has she ever championed this cause in the past? Hell no. There are groups who've been trying to bring down (or at least fix) the EC system...one was on TV today and was formed in the 70s. But for Hillary to decry the EC system just 2 days after she won in NY is scary. Might she not want to figure out what a senator does first?....Maybe place her things in her new desk before she starts rewriting our constitution?
As an aside: some people here point out other countries run perfectly well without the EC system. I'm sure most if not all of these, however, started with their current system. Oh it may have been tweaked here and there but in our (america) case, we have a well-definied system that has passed the test of time. It works for us, more or less, with the oddity of the "popular vote" vs "EC vote" argument.
Red,
Sorry but I question her motives. I'm not at all saying a politician can't "magic" up a brand spankin' new issue to pander to us but I think Hillary's timing is "iffy". Has she ever championed this cause in the past? Hell no. There are groups who've been trying to bring down (or at least fix) the EC system...one was on TV today and was formed in the 70s. But for Hillary to decry the EC system just 2 days after she won in NY is scary. Might she not want to figure out what a senator does first?....Maybe place her things in her new desk before she starts rewriting our constitution?
As an aside: some people here point out other countries run perfectly well without the EC system. I'm sure most if not all of these, however, started with their current system. Oh it may have been tweaked here and there but in our (america) case, we have a well-definied system that has passed the test of time. It works for us, more or less, with the oddity of the "popular vote" vs "EC vote" argument.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter