NY Times: Damn That Constitution! Damn It All to Hell!

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Editorial
Drop Out of the College

Published: March 14, 2006

The Electoral College is an antidemocratic relic. Everyone who remembers 2000 knows that it can lead to the election of the candidate who loses the popular vote as president. But the Electoral College's other serious flaws are perhaps even more debilitating for a democracy. It focuses presidential elections on just a handful of battleground states, and pushes the rest of the nation's voters to the sidelines.

There is an innovative new proposal for states to take the lead in undoing the Electoral College. Legislatures across the country should get behind it.

Both parties should have reason to fear the college's perverse effects. In 2000, the Democrats lost out. But in 2004, a shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have elected John Kerry, even though he lost the national popular vote decisively.

Just as serious is the way the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. Candidates have no incentive to campaign in, or address the concerns of, states that reliably vote for a particular party. In recent years, the battleground in presidential elections has shrunk drastically. In 1960, 24 states, with 327 electoral votes, were battleground states, according to estimates by National Popular Vote, the bipartisan coalition making the new proposal. In 2004, only 13 states, with 159 electoral votes, were. As a result, campaigns and national priorities are stacked in favor of a few strategic states. Ethanol fuel, a pet issue of Iowa farmers, is discussed a lot. But issues of equal concern to states like Alabama, California, New York and Indiana are not.

The Electoral College discourages turnout because voters in two-thirds of the nation know well before Election Day who will win their states. It also discriminates among voters by weighing presidential votes unequally. A Wyoming voter has about four times as much impact on selecting that state's electors as a California voter does on selecting that state's.

The answer to all of these problems is direct election of the president. Past attempts to abolish the Electoral College by amending the Constitution have run into difficulty. But National Popular Vote, which includes several former members of Congress, is offering an ingenious solution that would not require a constitutional amendment. It proposes that states commit to casting their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. These promises would become binding only when states representing a majority of the Electoral College signed on. Then any candidate who won the popular vote would be sure to win the White House.

The coalition is starting out by trying to have laws passed in Illinois and a few other states. Americans are rightly cautious about tinkering with mechanisms established by the Constitution. But throughout the nation's history, there have been a series of reforms affecting how elections are conducted, like the ones that gave blacks and women the vote and provided for the direct election of United States senators. Sidestepping the Electoral College would be in this worthy tradition of making American democracy more democratic.
New York Times Editorial

I would say SITYS but it's the NYT. That's like bragging you knew the Devil Rays would have a losing season in March.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Both parties should have reason to fear the college's perverse effects. In 2000, the Democrats lost out. But in 2004, a shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have elected John Kerry, even though he lost the national popular vote decisively.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to see you deconstruct the merit of their argument here, seeing as how the only thing you added to the OP was a smarmy title and some predictable reference to the "NY Slimes," as if that has any inkling of humor or smattering of a viable political barb to it at all.

It's funny how you want to make this a simple "damn the constitution" argument, when the electoral college was already changed once via the 12th amendment. It's not as if (1) the constitution is a wholly perfect document not to be changed in the slightest as our nation grows and changes (otherwise the founders would not have permitted for amendments at all, and every four years the house would have to vote on who gets to be president and who gets to be vice president, if we assume that we have two-person/party tickets, since they'd all be voted in with equal numbers of electoral votes), (2) the precedents shown in the past two years suggest some serious flaws in the electoral college, and (3) there is a precedent of changing it via the 12th amendment. It's been done before, that's all.

I'm beginning to understand how you people view liberals today. Every argument we make, you avoid discourse in favor of sputtering, twitching, and blathering about how we hate the United States and George W Bush and Apple Pie (unless it's vegan). I'm so certain that your fervent foaming-at-the-mouth reaction (well, I suppose that's hyperbole, since you really just added the bare minimum effort of analysis) is merely a reaction to the organization presenting the argument rather than the argument itself that I wonder how you'd treat this if you were unable to detect who wrote it. You often accuse alonzo (it's either you or bmugs) of not forming an opinion until others post their views; on the contrary, yours is more sinister, because (1) since you have a pattern of not actually reading conventional newspapers yourself, you almost certainly linked this from drudge or FreeRepublic, bringing with it the kind of analytical perspective they told you to bring (and thus proffering no actual insight of your own whatsoever, again bringing yourself down to the bare minimum), and (2) you're so open to particular viewpoints that you probably refuse, even to yourself, to admit that you're just a receptor to what these cats told you to do, and you actually didn't come up with any rationale for your viewpoint by yourself at all.

I still demand a :yawn: smilie. Get CheapyD on the batphone!
 
maybe PAD's just a masochist and likes to get his ass handed to him every day...

Myke - i'd, uh, be wary. you never know what get's people's rocks off in this day and age.
 
[quote name='NYT']Everyone who remembers 2000 knows that it can lead to the election of the candidate who loses the popular vote as president. But the Electoral College's other serious flaws are perhaps even more debilitating for a democracy.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps they NYT forgot that we don't live in a democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
It's funny how you want to make this a simple "damn the constitution" argument, when the electoral college was already changed once via the 12th amendment. It's not as if (1) the constitution is a wholly perfect document not to be changed in the slightest as our nation grows and changes (otherwise the founders would not have permitted for amendments at all, and every four years the house would have to vote on who gets to be president and who gets to be vice president, if we assume that we have two-person/party tickets, since they'd all be voted in with equal numbers of electoral votes), (2) the precedents shown in the past two years suggest some serious flaws in the electoral college, and (3) there is a precedent of changing it via the 12th amendment. It's been done before, that's all.[/quote]

TRANSLATION : (1) They changed the rules of the electoral college, therefor it makes the whole principle behind it invalid. (2) There is a serious flaw in the principle of the electoral college becuase my candidate didn't get elected. (3) They've changed something in the electoral college, therefore it's valid to change the entire concept and principle behind it.

That's a brilliant, in-depth analysis, myke. It's good to know that the mainstay of acedemia is still fluff-talk and calls for real scrutiny. The only real dissection of the problem, to you, is one that coincides with your viewpoint of abolishing a principle in favor of mob rule.

I'm beginning to understand how you people view liberals today. Every argument we make, you avoid discourse in favor of sputtering, twitching, and blathering about how we hate the United States and George W Bush and Apple Pie...
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exacty how we view liberals. You are so shallow and predictable that analysis of any issue will produce a correct result based on the following rules:

Rule #1 - hate goerge bush. Rule #2 - hate any policy or anyone hired by george bush. Rule # 3 - hate all republicans because they are the opposite of democrats. Rule # 4 - hate any and all policies that agree with bush or give him authority over anything.

Result (following rule #4)- hate the process that elected george bush instead of a democrat and abolish the electoral college.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Perhaps they NYT forgot that we don't live in a democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.[/quote]

yup, humans eat eachother...
 
Bmullet, George W Bush is an incompetent liar.

Do you even attempt to deny that?

That fact isnt even based on ideology, it is reality.

Meanwhile lets just say its something irrational and primal what would you be able to say since its all you and your ilk feel about Libruls.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']TRANSLATION : (1) They changed the rules of the electoral college, therefor it makes the whole principle behind it invalid. (2) There is a serious flaw in the principle of the electoral college becuase my candidate didn't get elected. (3) They've changed something in the electoral college, therefore it's valid to change the entire concept and principle behind it.

That's a brilliant, in-depth analysis, myke. It's good to know that the mainstay of acedemia is still fluff-talk and calls for real scrutiny. The only real dissection of the problem, to you, is one that coincides with your viewpoint of abolishing a principle in favor of mob rule.[/quote]

It's flattering that you want to try to put words in my mouth, but ultimately wrong. If you pay attention to the sentence I quoted from the NYT editorial, it pointed out that, although he *lost* the popular election by several million, John Kerry was, based on the rules of the electoral college, within 60,000 votes of winning the electon. It's not a matter of *my* candidate, it's a matter of the breadth and scope of the United States in terms of population size and technology creating new problems in the electoral college. I don't mind if you don't disagree, but if you're going to do so, at least make an argument about it.

I'll give you a dollar and a blowjob if you can make a coherent post without (1) overgeneralizing the argument that you're refuting, (2) using slippery slope arguments that make numerous fallacious jumps in logic, and (3) play into ad hominems.

You're going to grit your teeth and want to call me a hypocrite because I play the ad hominem game too; that I sure do, sweetass. But I don't make my argument in toto a "myke's a big dork and a liberal and oh-my-god you're so predictable" spectacle.

I pointed out that the electoral college has been changed; I pointed out that we have these wacky things called amendments that allow us to change the constitution from time to time. What that was in reference to was the C&P argument PAD put forward: that eliminating the electoral college is contrary to the constitution. My argument is this: no, it's not (and here's why).

Whether you agree or disagree with it is moot; if you want to discuss it here, that's fine. If you want to argue with me every time I try to argue the sky is blue, then you prove yourself to be little more than a shallow wordsmith.
 
I'm more interested in what will happen when the voting process eventually moves into into the online domain. Internet voting will have a profound affect on not only voter turnout , but also the demographics (see: previously nonvoting youths). When that day comes, the immediate impact would be far greater than revisiting or outright removing the electoral college process.

In the original editorial, the wyoming voter needs to matter 4x as much as the Cali voter. If not, no candidate would ever both campaigning there. Instead they would hit the densest urban and suburban areas and those states with rural or small populations would get little to no attention. The electoral college system may be flawed, but the geographic size and population distributions destroy an election system based purely on the popular vote.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.[/quote]

:lol:

I gotta remember that one.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']:lol:

I gotta remember that one.[/QUOTE]

I believe it belongs to Ben Franklin.


[quote name='mykevermin'] I'll give you a dollar and a blowjob if you can make a coherent post without (1) overgeneralizing the argument that you're refuting, (2) using slippery slope arguments that make numerous fallacious jumps in logic, and (3) play into ad hominems...

You're going to grit your teeth and want to call me a hypocrite because I play the ad hominem game too; that I sure do, sweetass. But I don't make my argument in toto a "myke's a big dork and a liberal and oh-my-god you're so predictable" spectacle.[/quote]

Glad to know you can admit to the personal attacks as part of your arsenal while at the same time claiming invalidation of someone else's post as an ad hominem attack. Pretty talk and lots of words may do wonders for your career at a university, but in reality thats all they are - pretty talk and words to obfuscate your premise.

I pointed out that the electoral college has been changed; I pointed out that we have these wacky things called amendments that allow us to change the constitution from time to time. What that was in reference to was the C&P argument PAD put forward: that eliminating the electoral college is contrary to the constitution. My argument is this: no, it's not (and here's why).

Whether you agree or disagree with it is moot; if you want to discuss it here, that's fine. If you want to argue with me every time I try to argue the sky is blue, then you prove yourself to be little more than a shallow wordsmith.
Click to expand...

You made no argument whatsoever aganst the electoral college. Pointing out that the process has been amended is not an argument of how to fix it or that it needs fixing. An implied argument that it could or should be abolished because we have the license to change it and that abolition should logically follow, is not a valid argument. You stated nothing of the intent of the framers and the inception of the college which, I think, would be a necessary element in such an argument. Knowing a concept's origins and intentions is paramount to making a legal, or any other, argument. Should we also elect supreme court justices and cabinet members? If not, why not? It's only a simple matter of amending the constitution.

So, until you can present a REAL argument for abolition of the electoral college besides mob rule, I'll be waiting for you to take out your teeth and work up some spit. I've got a large load for your throat.
 
Wow, a NYT editorial I can agree with. I would favor a constitutional amendment, but I guess the novel approach being pursued will have more or less the same effect. Still, I'd like to see a constitutional amendment put in place. I think the editorial did a stellar job of laying out all the problems with the current system and why it should be modified, although it did leave out other things like electors deciding all on their own to cast their votes for candidates other than the ones who they are supposed to, which has happened. I still don't know why, with all the problems associated with it, people are still behind the outdated Electoral College.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'] I still don't know why, with all the problems associated with it, people are still behind the outdated Electoral College.[/QUOTE]

Becuase we are also still citizens of States and have interests as members of individual States in the union. Voting as a state should carry the enormous importance it deserves instead of disjointed constituencies seperated by class, race, or geography between states.

What are the problems with it besides not representing a popular tally ?
 
Here is where the "states" argument falls apart with respect to presidential election. First, the president is the president of the US, not simply the CEO of a collection of states. He has very little control over what happens in individual states and therefore has little control over each state's interests. State interests are taken care of in the Senate where they belong. After all that is where the money is spent.

There also can be no doubt about the increasing power of the executive branch. Typically presidential decisions impact all people of the union. So all people should have an equal say in who gets elected. Instead of the disproportionate amount of power small states have.

Furthermore just because you share a state with someone doesn't mean there aren't divided interests within a state. Just ask Northern Cali and Southern Cali, or where I live, The western slope of Colorado vs. the Front Range Denver area. I would argue that congressional districts have more in common than whole states.

There are times when voting as a state makes sense. A Presidential election is not one.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Here is where the "states" argument falls apart with respect to presidential election. First, the president is the president of the US, not simply the CEO of a collection of states. He has very little control over what happens in individual states and therefore has little control over each state's interests. [/quote]
This is the most naive and ignorant statement I've ever heard about the structure of our federal and state governmnets. Please tell me you are still a highschool student and have yet to take government and/or history.

State interests are taken care of in the Senate where they belong. After all that is where the money is spent.
Click to expand...
I guess you skipped school the day everyone learned that the House of representatives is responsible for money appropriation. (pssst: It's in the constitution, you should read it someday)

There also can be no doubt about the increasing power of the executive branch. Typically presidential decisions impact all people of the union. So all people should have an equal say in who gets elected. Instead of the disproportionate amount of power small states have.
Click to expand...

The sad, sad state of the public school system is bleeding into the abyss of ignorance. Supreme court justices impact all of our lives too, shouldn't we vote for them too? And the senators from massechusettes have an impact on my life by their actions in the senate, should I get to have a vote for them too even though I am from Michigan ? The Secretary of state represents me in foreign nations, shouldn't I get to vote for her too?

Furthermore just because you share a state with someone doesn't mean there aren't divided interests within a state. { DUH } Just ask Northern Cali and Southern Cali, or where I live, The western slope of Colorado vs. the Front Range Denver area. I would argue that congressional districts have more in common than whole states.

There are times when voting as a state makes sense. A Presidential election is not one.
Click to expand...

Perhaps some historical reading would help you to understand the background of the process and why it was part of the constitution. You know about the constitution, right? It's that outdated rag written by some rich white guys that has no real relevance to our modern day society. I'm sure they taught you THAT in school...
 
I think the electoral system makes the voting process a big smokescreen, they tell you to get up and vote, that every vote counts, then you find out the other candidate won because of the electoral system, thats like saying the american people are too stupid and shouldn't be allowed to decide who wins! Even Russia even has a more direct system of voting, with no electoral middle man to choose who wins.
 
This is the most naive and ignorant statement I've ever heard about the structure of our federal and state governmnets. Please tell me you are still a highschool student and have yet to take government and/or history.
Click to expand...
Oh please you're let's all vote as a state make less sense. Two states ALREADY split their electoral votes up with little consequence. Funny, in this very thread you chastised myke for personal attacks then turn around and post this. Nice you see you are a hypocrite as well as a moron.


I guess you skipped school the day everyone learned that the House of representatives is responsible for money appropriation. (pssst: It's in the constitution, you should read it someday)
Click to expand...

Wow another personal attack, you're good. Actually, I did study governement but unlike yourself I didn't stop after the 3rd grade. Ever hear of the The Senate Committee on the Budget? Along with the House Budget Committee , it is responsible for drafting Congress' annual budget plan and monitoring action on the budget for the Federal Government. It also has jurisdiction of the CBO. Additionally, I wasn't only speaking of money. Hell, Article 1: Section 7 of that constitution says as much: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. As you freely admit later on Senators can have an impact on your life (without approving a dime). Maybe you only see the gov't as a cash cow but it actually does a bit more.

The sad, sad state of the public school system is bleeding into the abyss of ignorance. Supreme court justices impact all of our lives too, shouldn't we vote for them too? And the senators from massechusettes have an impact on my life by their actions in the senate, should I get to have a vote for them too even though I am from Michigan ? The Secretary of state represents me in foreign nations, shouldn't I get to vote for her too?
Click to expand...
Wow. If you don't know the difference between the roles, responsibilities and power that Presidents have as opposed to Senators, Justices and Secretary of State; I can't help you there. (pssst: It's in the constitution, you should read it someday)

Perhaps some historical reading would help you to understand the background of the process and why it was part of the constitution. You know about the constitution, right? It's that outdated rag written by some rich white guys that has no real relevance to our modern day society. I'm sure they taught you THAT in school...
Click to expand...

Good suggestion maybe you should try it. There are a lot of theories as to why it is in there.But that is a slippery slope to go down. The EC as it exisits today is quite different than originally intended. It was only set up to select a president with the second place guy being VP (until it was amended) for example.

I'm not against the entire EC per se. But we should make changes. This all or nothing crap has got to go.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Oh please you're let's all vote as a state make less sense. Two states ALREADY split their electoral votes up with little consequence. Funny, in this very thread you chastised myke for personal attacks then turn around and post this. Nice you see you are a hypocrite as well as a moron. [/quote]

I pointed out that myke, who plays the ad hominem whine ad infinitum, was guilty of identical behavior and he admitted as such. I've never complained about ad hominem attacks against me. I expect them as they are the last resort of idiots like you who don't know their history, can't think rationally, and base all their decisions on their feelings. I love the ad hominem, it gives me pleasure to return a bitchslap to people like you who deserve it.


Wow. If you don't know the difference between the roles, responsibilities and power that Presidents have as opposed to Senators, Justices and Secretary of State; I can't help you there. (pssst: It's in the constitution, you should read it someday)
Click to expand...
since your argument was that the president affects all of us we should elect him directly, it logically follows that these other positions should be directly elected. You can't even follow your own logic.

There are a lot of theories as to why it is in there.But that is a slippery slope to go down. The EC as it exisits today is quite different than originally intended. It was only set up to select a president with the second place guy being VP (until it was amended) for example.

I'm not against the entire EC per se. But we should make changes. This all or nothing crap has got to go.
Click to expand...

But what is a slippery slope? And what are the theories? < blank out > I'm not against it and I don't know why, but it needs changing and I don't know why but I feel it's the right thing to do. That's a great argument.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Becuase we are also still citizens of States and have interests as members of individual States in the union. Voting as a state should carry the enormous importance it deserves instead of disjointed constituencies seperated by class, race, or geography between states.

What are the problems with it besides not representing a popular tally ?[/QUOTE]

They're outlined well in the article, including the violation of the one-man-one-vote ideal and concentration of presidential campaigning (and pandering) in a handful of battleground states.

EDIT: usickenme's ignorance of the structure and workings of our government is pretty scary, since he is a regular on this board and therefore would be someone more interested in politics than Joe Sixpack.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']

since your argument was that the president affects all of us we should elect him directly, it logically follows that these other positions should be directly elected. You can't even follow your own logic. [/QUOTe]

No, the point was the President is in a unique position when it comes to elections as opposed to others because it the only time we have a national election. Speaking of following your own logic, you've never explained why voting as a state is a good idea beyond "GO team!"


[quote name='bmulligan']
But what is a slippery slope? And what are the theories? < blank out > I'm not against it and I don't know why, but it needs changing and I don't know why but I feel it's the right thing to do. That's a great argument.[/QUOTE]

for starters In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event given another. Invoking the "slippery slope" means arguing that one action will initiate a chain of events that will lead to a (generally undesirable) event later.

I forgot that you need more explaining than the average fool. I incorrectly assumed that someone who claims to be educated would already be aware of the reasons for the college and theories as to why it is implemented.

-Protecting smaller states
-insuring against "mob rule"
- a compromise between a Congress elected president and a people elected president
- to discourage political parties.

to name a few.

The slipperly slope that you are standing in is the "well it is part of the constitution so It can't be changed". For one, the EC has already been changed- twice. Secondly, IMO, it is ridiculous to assume that because something was needed when the constitution was written that it can't be amended to better reflect modern society. If we go down the road you seem to want, we should always have a jury in all cases over $20 as spelled in the seventh Admendment

It needs to be changed to more accurately reflect the will of the people while still providing some of the safeguards. It's not hard.


elprincipe what the fuck are you talking about? If you agree with Bmug that Senators have no say in legislation or budget, I suggest you are the ignorant one. The Senate is far more complex then spelled out in the Constitution, ya know.

And remember why the Senate was created in the first place. (hint: It is Bmug original point)
 
[quote name='usickenme']Here is where the "states" argument falls apart with respect to presidential election. First, the president is the president of the US, not simply the CEO of a collection of states. He has very little control over what happens in individual states and therefore has little control over each state's interests. State interests are taken care of in the Senate where they belong. After all that is where the money is spent.[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about this. State interests are not taken care of in the Senate. That is just ignorant to say. And as bmulligan pointed out, the Senate doesn't even initiate spending, much less approve of it on its own.
 
The simple mathematical fact is that the electorial college give more, not less power to the individual voters in the electorate.

If we didn't have the electoral college, we would be at the mercy of the largest voting bloc in the US. Whatever the agenda. With the college, candidates have to appeal to all the states, not just California and the East Coast.

Anyone wishing to change it should first read this article:
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm
Math Against Tyranny, Discover Magazine, November 1996

EDIT: I thought the quote was this: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
-James Bovard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bovard
 
[quote name='Quillion']The simple mathematical fact is that the electorial college give more, not less power to the individual voters in the electorate.

If we didn't have the electoral college, we would be at the mercy of the largest voting bloc in the US. Whatever the agenda. With the college, candidates have to appeal to all the states, not just California and the East Coast.

Anyone wishing to change it should first read this article:
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm
Math Against Tyranny, Discover Magazine, November 1996

EDIT: I thought the quote was this: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
-James Bovard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bovard[/QUOTE]

And that's what happens now. Candidates only care about a few swing states, like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Do candidates visit California, Oregon, New York? Nope.

Also, the electoral college makes the votes in smaller states worth more than those in larger ones, therefore making the people in Wyoming, South Dakota, etc., individually more powerful than people in California or New York. This is completely unfair and flys in the face of the principles this country was founded on.
 
[quote name='evanft']And that's what happens now. Candidates only care about a few swing states, like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Do candidates visit California, Oregon, New York? Nope.

Also, the electoral college makes the votes in smaller states worth more than those in larger ones, therefore making the people in Wyoming, South Dakota, etc., individually more powerful than people in California or New York. This is completely unfair and flys in the face of the principles this country was founded on.[/quote]
Only because the non swing-states are already decided. And your assertion that people in smaller states have a stronger vote is factually inaccurate. Read my article.

This country was founded on the principle of equality, that one group of people cannot select the president alone. The understanding that all direct democracies of a certain size degenerate to mob rule. We've always had the electoral college, read Article II of the Constitution. The twelfth amendment is only housekeeping, so that they elect President and Vice-President seperately.

Keep in mind the surplus that Gore had in 2000 were all people in New York State. In the case of a direct vote, Gore won even though Bush appealed to a larger cross section of the Country. I'm sure the founders would have had a problem with that.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Only because the non swing-states are already decided.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, duh. You implied that candidates would ignore most states in favor of only a few that had votes that could elect them. That happens now.

[quote name='Quillion'] And your assertion that people in smaller states have a stronger vote is factually inaccurate. Read my article.[/QUOTE]

Wyoming Population: 509,294
Electoral Votes: 3
EV per Person: 5.9 x 10^-6

California Population: 36,132,147
Electoral Votes: 55
EV per Person: 1.5 x 10^-6

A person is Wyoming is almost 4x as powerful as one in California.

[quote name='Quillion']This country was founded on the principle of equality, that one group of people cannot select the president alone. [/QUOTE]

And yet, the president can be elected by winning a plurality in 11 states, since almost all the states use the winner-take-all method of distributing their electoral votes.

Of course, god forbid if an election ever has to go to the House.

[quote name='Quillion']The understanding that all direct democracies of a certain size degenerate to mob rule. We've always had the electoral college, read Article II of the Constitution. The twelfth amendment is only housekeeping, so that they elect President and Vice-President seperately.[/QUOTE]

So having a system in which the president can be elected outside the will of the people is the solution?

[quote name='Quillion']Keep in mind the 200,000 surplus that Gore had in 2000 were all people in New York State. In the case of a direct vote, Gore won even though Bush appealed to a larger cross section of the Country. I'm sure the founders would have had a problem with that.[/QUOTE]

O RLY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege2000-Large-BushRed-GoreBlue.png

Gore appealed to the coasts, Bush to the south, bible belt, and plain states. Also, how the hell can you say Gore's extra votes were only in New York? What about votes Gore won across the country? Why isn't his surplus 4,000 votes in each state?
 
wasn't the electoral college created to prevent the president being elected by cityfolks, who don't have the same concerns/issues as those that live in rural area's. If it goes by population, the president would be elected by major cities like LA/NYC etc...while the electoral college is far from perfect, I don't see this as being a viable solution.

IMO, it is bullshit that the canidates don't compete in a lot more states. Bush for example lost to kerry in MA by I believe 13%. While that is a fair amount, I don't think he even campaigned here. I know his daughters came, but I don't think he did. If he did, it wasn't that often. Very little to no TV ad space, and it was Kerry's homestate and he still didn't get crushed. I understand they want to spend as much money as possible within the couple of swing states, but if they made an effort into some of the alleged strongholds of the opposition, I think things could change going forward.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']wasn't the electoral college created to prevent the president being elected by cityfolks, who don't have the same concerns/issues as those that live in rural area's. If it goes by population, the president would be elected by major cities like LA/NYC etc...while the electoral college is far from perfect, I don't see this as being a viable solution.[/QUOTE]

You also have to remember that information about the candidiates was not as easily accessible as it is now, so the founder wanted to make sure that the president was elected by those who knew what they were doing. There also weren't organized political parties/systems deciminating information as there is now.
 
Believe me, I would have loved for bush to campaign in MA. He had no hope in a democratic stronghold where the candidate is a long term senator from that state, and it would just drain his campaign fund.

Though he won by 25 points. Bush won in texas by 23.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']and going by the popular vote would elect the president by people knowing what they are doing??[/QUOTE]

And going against the will of the people would?
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I am not saying for them to heavily campaign, but not making any effort will not help change things for the future.[/quote]

I'm not sure how they're going to change things, unless they themselves change. You have a point in some places, but this is massachusetts we're talking about. Romney was elected as a very liberal republican, but that changed when he started having presidential ambitions. Anti-gay rights (adoption, marriage etc.), anti-abortion, opposed to many social programs, small government etc. those views aren't going to win many statewide MA elections. In fact, romney made several liberal campaign promises (abortion rights for example). He later attempted to backpedal on some, but he seems to have little to do with, or little concern for, MA these days.

The majority of legislators here even support same sex marriage.
 
I don't remeber many supporting the same sex marriage law that was created by the courts. Most of them didn't say anything. They straddled the fence to prevent coming down on the wrong side of things.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm talking about this. State interests are not taken care of in the Senate. That is just ignorant to say. And as bmulligan pointed out, the Senate doesn't even initiate spending, much less approve of it on its own.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, my wording was terrible. I mean that states are represented in the Senate. However, you are incorrect about the Senate not approving spending. Both the house and the Senate must pass any bill before it becomes law (and that bill must be identical in both houses). This is known as the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and it includes spending/ budget bills.

If the House and Senate pass bills that aren't indentical, the must work on a compromise.

There is also the matter of the Senate Budget Committee as I noted before.

http://www.senate.gov/~budget/republican/major_documents/budgetprocess.pdf
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I don't remeber many supporting the same sex marriage law that was created by the courts. Most of them didn't say anything. They straddled the fence to prevent coming down on the wrong side of things.[/quote]

An anti-same sex marriage amendment to the constitution was defeated with about 80% of the statehouse voting against it. That's not straddling the fence. Actually supporters of same-sex marriage had hovered around 50%, many original opponents had changed their mind after meeting directly with recently married couples. The percent is likely higher now (it was increasing with time). The other 30 or so percent were either on the fence, while others who opposed gay marriage voted against in protest to various other aspects of the bill.

And, in an attempt to get a signature for an anti-gay marriage petition, anti-gay marriage supporters resorted to fraud to people to sign their names to it.

There are still many other major issues that republicans would need to resolve before make headway into MA, such as gay rights (which entails much more than marriage), abortion etc.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Yeah, my wording was terrible. I mean that states are represented in the Senate. [/QUOTE]

Fair enough, that's all that needed be said. Although I don't appreciate the false implication that I said the Senate has no voice in spending when that's not what I said.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I am not saying for them to heavily campaign, but not making any effort will not help change things for the future.[/QUOTE]

If you want candidates to campaign more widely, you should support the effort to abolish the Electoral College. The current system rewards candidates for campaigning only in closely contested states. Do you think a Republican candidate would ignore upstate New York voters or Central Valley California voters if things were done by popular vote? Or a Democratic one ignore cities like Atlanta and Dallas? Of course they wouldn't, because there are votes to be had there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top