Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tusaki · Feb 12, 2004, 06:28 am

What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 12, 2004, 08:30 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What makes you think voting counts at all?

--Jackney Sneeb

Samildanach · Feb 12, 2004, 12:36 pm

It doesn't. Governments are just there to keep the masses distracted.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 12, 2004, 12:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
But don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>This issue has come up at least three times in American history, as this past election was not the first time a president had gained the popular vote but lost the election.

--tangent--
Actually, this was no time at all, since Gore did win. Posthumously, Shrub's legitimacy was questioned with increasing intensity, culminating with the final recount that came out in - you guessed it - summer of 2001. Funny how that works.
--tangent--

But yes, you're right, we should really have a popular election. We should also redistrict the country to better represent the people involved. New York State, for instance, is really two states when it comes to policy and voting - New York City, and upstate New York. Same with Texas. Same with northern and southern California. Not to mention that under-populated states get more than their fair share of representation thanks to the electoral college and the senators...

damnrad · Feb 12, 2004, 04:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It is a legacy, with practical but also political original reasons. Consider the U.S. when it was formed, with a large frontier, and slow communications and transport even where it was built up. Rather than have individual votes recorded in far-away places and then communicated to a center, with all the attendant delay, security, and validation problems, it was practical to elect representatives on a statewide basis and then have them assemble centrally to elect a president.

But there were also political reasons, not least being that an elite was fearful of 'mobocracy,' so put many barriers between voters and policy -- while also severely restricting who could vote. And note that it would have been even more practical to elect presidential electors locally, not statewide; but doing so statewide gave greater power to those who could control the politics in a state. Moreover, it gave states greater power vis a vis federal government, with the president literally owing election to state electors rather than to a national electorate. It also gave smaller-population states more power vis a vis more-populous states, by dint of their 'senatorial' electors, distributed equally among the states.

The system is certainly inane now: when it matters, it does so by denying the presidency to the candidate who polls more votes. But the problem is that it is unlikely to be changed. That is because such change would require a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states; and more than 1/4 of the states gain greater power with the EC than they would without it.

States are free to allocate their electoral votes differently than winner-take-all; and two small states do. A large state would be stupid to do so, because it would dilute its power to sway presidential elections.

So, we have a stupid, nondemocratic system for electing the president; but what can we do about it?

Should we be kicked out of international organizations on the basis that our presidential elections are not democratic?

damnrad · Feb 12, 2004, 04:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Not to mention that under-populated states get more than their fair share of representation thanks to the electoral college and the senators...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Do you know what provision of the Constitution cannot be amended? The allocation of an equal number of senators to each state.

An antidemocratic principle so placed in our basic document that it cannot, presumably, be altered.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 12, 2004, 04:56 pm

That's because our founding fathers wanted to ensure that the actual representation of the people only takes up one half of one third of the government (ie: the House). Of course, we don't have to break the rules of our founding fathers, just redistrict a bit more equally among our population district.

--tangent--
Or even -gasp- have urban administrative districts like every other major urbanized country! To think! NYC would have political clout for the first time ever!
--tangent--

After all, there's no freakin' way New Hampshire should be that powerful.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 12, 2004, 05:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
. . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
"Congress shall have Power To . . .suppress Insuurections . . ." --Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution

So much for the right to abolish "government . . ."

--Jackney Sneeb

Pyackog · Feb 12, 2004, 05:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)

After all, there's no freakin' way New Hampshire should be that powerful.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

But without an electoral college, New Hampshire is totally at the whim of the rest of the country. Even though they are smaller, part of the deal when the states joined the Union was making sure that they wouldn't be run roughshod over by more popular states. Even though circumstances have changed, there is no reason to go back on that deal now...because small states can still run into the same problems now as then.

m5lange1 · Feb 12, 2004, 05:28 pm

If it were truly one person/one vote Politicians would play totally to large urban areas. That is where the majority lies. States with no major urban areas might as well bend over and grab the old ankles.

On the other side it is ridiculous for states to throw ALL of their electoral votes one way if it is a pretty even split between candidates.

Is it just to easy to allow proportional splitting of electoral votes? It would not be perfect since lines would always have to be drawn and near misses are inevitable but allowing electoral votes to split to the nearest percent sure seems more reasonable than eliminating the entire electoral system or the silliness we have now.

tusaki · Feb 12, 2004, 05:52 pm

m5langel, I understand why smaller states would want such a manner of voting, but what about the rural areas of bigger states? those people are totally at the whim of the 'city people' in their state. Not that I have solution, but I don't think giving 'smaller' states more (relative) votes is the right way. I would love to hear a solution, because in the EU, the Netherlands is pretty small and there is some fear we will be run by the big three (France/Germany/UK).

SeanWah · Feb 12, 2004, 10:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Interesting that this is being posted by a Netherlander, where one ideology has essentially driven all domestic policy decisions since time out of mind.

Anyway, the electoral college is a relic and ought to be abolished. I live in rural Maryland, which means any part of Maryland outside of Baltimore City, and the political direction of 24 counties are determined by a mere three.

The ideopolis of Baltimore has determined Maryland policy for too damn long, and frankly, the idea of secession seems mighty appealing.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 13, 2004, 12:14 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pyackog)
But without an electoral college, New Hampshire is totally at the whim of the rest of the country. Even though they are smaller, part of the deal when the states joined the Union was making sure that they wouldn't be run roughshod over by more popular states.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Like the population deserves that much power. And yet, states don't have any real power anyway. New York and Utah tried seceding, because of a desire to exercise true state rights (New York against the first draft, Utah to create a utopian Mormon state) Both were put down by the army. Hell, New Hampshire has visions of being a true anarchist state. That will simply never happen. Besides, we're either a country or a set of states - we really can't be both at the same time, as that dilutes the power of either. The only state that really got its way was West Virginia, and that was a power play to do with the Civil War. Not that it did West Virginia any good in the end.

In the meanwhile, highly populated and dense places don't have their fair share of representation, both in terms of our county system as well as in terms of our electoral college, and this shows when it comes to American policy in our history. The entire system was meant to favor against cities, because cities were seen as ugly, dirty, and filled with people who were *gasp* Catholic and Black. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON urban areas must pay for the upkeep of rural areas without fair representation in federal government. As of right now, a candidate can win without getting the majority of any city, but a candidate cannot win without getting the majority of at least one majorly rural Southern state.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (m5lange1)
If it were truly one person/one vote Politicians would play totally to large urban areas. That is where the majority lies. States with no major urban areas might as well bend over and grab the old ankles.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>60% of the people in this country live in large urban areas. Live with it.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (m5lange1)
Is it just to easy to allow proportional splitting of electoral votes?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>True proportionality would be *gasp* One Man, One Vote. Also, the reason we don't have powerful third parties is because of our "to the victor go all the spoils" electoral college. It makes a difference if the front-runner gets 40% of the vote, the second 30% and the third 20%, and policies should reflect that.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SeanWah)
Anyway, the electoral college is a relic and ought to be abolished. I live in rural Maryland, which means any part of Maryland outside of Baltimore City, and the political direction of 24 counties are determined by a mere three.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>That's a districting problem, not a voting problem. New York City's been at the mercy of rural upstate New York for the history of our state. We subsidize their services, and yet we have most of the problems (and potential growth). Believe me, we want to be free of you as much as you want to be free of us. Besides, if we really redistricted counties based on population count, Brooklyn alone would be 150 counties.

tusaki · Feb 13, 2004, 06:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SeanWah,)
Interesting that this is being posted by a Netherlander, where one ideology has essentially driven all domestic policy decisions since time out of mind. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, that was until 2002. This is the first liberal/right-wing cabinet we've had. And yes, it takes some 'getting-used-to'. Everyday social interest groups are protesting in the Hague because the government refuses to give their special pet project money. But uptill 2002, people voted in such a way that one ideology was dominant. If they wanted, they could vote for something else. But if I live in a state in America and I vote <A> and the state votes [b] for 51 percent, most likely (I didn't know there were states which do not use the winner-takes-all principle) my vote will not go to <A>. Even worse, my vote will go to [b]. In the Netherlands, if I vote for <A>, my vote will go to <A>.

Pyackog · Feb 13, 2004, 09:03 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Like the population deserves that much power. And yet, states don't have any real power anyway. New York and Utah tried seceding, because of a desire to exercise true state rights (New York against the first draft, Utah to create a utopian Mormon state) Both were put down by the army. Hell, New Hampshire has visions of being a true anarchist state. That will simply never happen. Besides, we're either a country or a set of states - we really can't be both at the same time, as that dilutes the power of either. The only state that really got its way was West Virginia, and that was a power play to do with the Civil War. Not that it did West Virginia any good in the end.

In the meanwhile, highly populated and dense places don't have their fair share of representation, both in terms of our county system as well as in terms of our electoral college, and this shows when it comes to American policy in our history. The entire system was meant to favor against cities, because cities were seen as ugly, dirty, and filled with people who were *gasp* Catholic and Black. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON urban areas must pay for the upkeep of rural areas without fair representation in federal government. As of right now, a candidate can win without getting the majority of any city, but a candidate cannot win without getting the majority of at least one majorly rural Southern state.That's a districting problem, not a voting problem. New York City's been at the mercy of rural upstate New York for the history of our state. We subsidize their services, and yet we have most of the problems (and potential growth). Believe me, we want to be free of you as much as you want to be free of us. Besides, if we really redistricted counties based on population count, Brooklyn alone would be 150 counties.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I can agree with you that the states themselves don't have enough autonomy from the federal government.

Your beef about urban versus rural representation is not quite right though. The way the representation is set up, the cities are still in the majority and they are still, for the most part, setting more policy than the urban areas. Concerning NY, the rural areas there (I lived the first 30 years of my life in NY) have been paying huge money into the cesspool of welfare that is NYC. And look at the representation of the state...for example, it certainly wasn't NY STATE that elected Hillary Clinton there, that was all NYC and the rest of the state has to deal with it and she will pander only to NYC at the expense of the rest of the state.

Relatively speaking, the rest of the state is giving up much more to NYC than vice versa.

FreedomFirst · Feb 13, 2004, 10:37 am

Voting in America is biased toward the two "major" parties. Through ballot access restrictions, federal funding of elections, fear-mongering, and a variety of other methods, the "major" parties block out everybody else and push their big government agenda without opposition.

We need to institute Condorcet or Instant Runoff Voting in America, to eliminate the "wasted vote" syndrome.

MiniPhreek · Feb 14, 2004, 04:13 pm

I think the first step the US needs to take in order to fix it's electorial system is to take Big Business out of the equation. now i know some of you might say right of the bat, that that is imposible, but rather it is very simple, Not to long ago Canada's federal government and several provintial governments have Banned Union and Corperation Donnations to political campains, and they capped indivuduale donations ($5000 a year federaly $1000 a year in ontario) to political parties. this along with a spending cap of thired party organizations on political advertising has changed the way politicans campaighn. They no lounger try to get big spenders to back them and curb there values for that purpose, but now go for getting alot of small donations to fund there campian, there are no more big fancy TV advertisments or mudslinging commercials, but instede only a few small advertisments. i think this is the first step to make democrocy speak to the people again, and plus start to give smaller parties a chance, then next step of course is switching to a form of proportional representation, by the way the only 3 industrialised democrocys in the world that don't have a form of PR are the UK, Canada (several provinces are looking into changing there system) and the US.

Toussaint · Feb 14, 2004, 08:16 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The point of the system is to avoid a simple system of majority rule. The founders smoke of majoritarian democracy of simply another form of tyranny.

This mechanism called the electoral college was put in place for specific reasons that are still relevent today. If there were no electoral college, big cities would pretty much rule the country. In a country as vast as the U.S. such a situation would leave many non-city dwellers disconcerted-- which creates an atmosphere of alienation that has historically led to revolutions and other sorts of upheavals.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 14, 2004, 09:24 pm

Pyackog, two things:

1) The state already deflected the costs of Medicaid by levying them to local governments - the state has a lower than average state tax, but the highest local tax in the country: The state deflects the costs of Medicaid by requiring New York City to make more than three times more in 'Local to State aid' per person than the rest of the state as well as having us pay for most of our social services locally. Upstate social services are mostly state-funded. Also, Federal to State aid is exceptional for helping New York State in housing and welfare, but New York City does not get its proportional share, whereas upstate New York gets an above average share of state funds in all three categories. New York City gets about half as much state aid per person as the upstate metropolitan areas.(1)

2) While New Yorkers make up 58% of the state under the poverty line(2), New York City pays the vast majority of state corporate tax. Also, while New Yorkers already pay twice as much as the state average in local and state taxes combined, the state takes from the local taxes and the city does not even get the same return on their state taxes alone. Simply put, you're shafting us - we pay for ourselves, and subsidize you at the same time.

The_Broken_Column · Feb 23, 2004, 11:16 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I think you're stupid, sorry, but really you are.

It is so damn easy, to pick up a little book, it's called hmm...let me think, oh yeah... A HISTORY BOOK.

Look up Athens, you'll see why we chose a Republic over a Direct Democracy. Too bad so many people have forgotten this and are trashing our nation.

I should refrain from calling you stupid though, ignorant is a better term. If you don't pick up a history boook and learn about Athens and Direct Democracy and its failures, then you are stupid...ok? Now go, educate yourself.

Feb 12, 2004, 06:28 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"? Hope & Dream

Feb 12, 2004, 08:30 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,) What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What makes you think voting counts at all? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 12, 2004, 12:36 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	It doesn't. Governments are just there to keep the masses distracted. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Feb 12, 2004, 12:50 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,) But don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>This issue has come up at least three times in American history, as this past election was not the first time a president had gained the popular vote but lost the election. --tangent-- Actually, this was no time at all, since Gore did win. Posthumously, Shrub's legitimacy was questioned with increasing intensity, culminating with the final recount that came out in - you guessed it - summer of 2001. Funny how that works. --tangent-- But yes, you're right, we should really have a popular election. We should also redistrict the country to better represent the people involved. New York State, for instance, is really two states when it comes to policy and voting - New York City, and upstate New York. Same with Texas. Same with northern and southern California. Not to mention that under-populated states get more than their fair share of representation thanks to the electoral college and the senators... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 12, 2004, 04:02 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,) What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It is a legacy, with practical but also political original reasons. Consider the U.S. when it was formed, with a large frontier, and slow communications and transport even where it was built up. Rather than have individual votes recorded in far-away places and then communicated to a center, with all the attendant delay, security, and validation problems, it was practical to elect representatives on a statewide basis and then have them assemble centrally to elect a president. But there were also political reasons, not least being that an elite was fearful of 'mobocracy,' so put many barriers between voters and policy -- while also severely restricting who could vote. And note that it would have been even more practical to elect presidential electors locally, not statewide; but doing so statewide gave greater power to those who could control the politics in a state. Moreover, it gave states greater power vis a vis federal government, with the president literally owing election to state electors rather than to a national electorate. It also gave smaller-population states more power vis a vis more-populous states, by dint of their 'senatorial' electors, distributed equally among the states. The system is certainly inane now: when it matters, it does so by denying the presidency to the candidate who polls more votes. But the problem is that it is unlikely to be changed. That is because such change would require a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states; and more than 1/4 of the states gain greater power with the EC than they would without it. States are free to allocate their electoral votes differently than winner-take-all; and two small states do. A large state would be stupid to do so, because it would dilute its power to sway presidential elections. So, we have a stupid, nondemocratic system for electing the president; but what can we do about it? Should we be kicked out of international organizations on the basis that our presidential elections are not democratic?

Feb 12, 2004, 04:05 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) Not to mention that under-populated states get more than their fair share of representation thanks to the electoral college and the senators...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Do you know what provision of the Constitution cannot be amended? The allocation of an equal number of senators to each state. An antidemocratic principle so placed in our basic document that it cannot, presumably, be altered.

Feb 12, 2004, 04:56 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	That's because our founding fathers wanted to ensure that the actual representation of the people only takes up one half of one third of the government (ie: the House). Of course, we don't have to break the rules of our founding fathers, just redistrict a bit more equally among our population district. --tangent-- Or even -gasp- have urban administrative districts like every other major urbanized country! To think! NYC would have political clout for the first time ever! --tangent-- After all, there's no freakin' way New Hampshire should be that powerful. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 12, 2004, 05:13 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "Congress shall have Power To . . .suppress Insuurections . . ." --Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution So much for the right to abolish "government . . ." --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 12, 2004, 05:22 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Pyackog Sedimentary Rock Posts: 16	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) After all, there's no freakin' way New Hampshire should be that powerful.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But without an electoral college, New Hampshire is totally at the whim of the rest of the country. Even though they are smaller, part of the deal when the states joined the Union was making sure that they wouldn't be run roughshod over by more popular states. Even though circumstances have changed, there is no reason to go back on that deal now...because small states can still run into the same problems now as then.

Feb 12, 2004, 05:28 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
m5lange1 Igneous Magma Posts: 650	If it were truly one person/one vote Politicians would play totally to large urban areas. That is where the majority lies. States with no major urban areas might as well bend over and grab the old ankles. On the other side it is ridiculous for states to throw ALL of their electoral votes one way if it is a pretty even split between candidates. Is it just to easy to allow proportional splitting of electoral votes? It would not be perfect since lines would always have to be drawn and near misses are inevitable but allowing electoral votes to split to the nearest percent sure seems more reasonable than eliminating the entire electoral system or the silliness we have now. Protester against the culture war!!!!

Feb 12, 2004, 05:52 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	m5langel, I understand why smaller states would want such a manner of voting, but what about the rural areas of bigger states? those people are totally at the whim of the 'city people' in their state. Not that I have solution, but I don't think giving 'smaller' states more (relative) votes is the right way. I would love to hear a solution, because in the EU, the Netherlands is pretty small and there is some fear we will be run by the big three (France/Germany/UK). Hope & Dream

Feb 12, 2004, 10:15 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
SeanWah Molten Ash Posts: 47	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,) What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Interesting that this is being posted by a Netherlander, where one ideology has essentially driven all domestic policy decisions since time out of mind. Anyway, the electoral college is a relic and ought to be abolished. I live in rural Maryland, which means any part of Maryland outside of Baltimore City, and the political direction of 24 counties are determined by a mere three. The ideopolis of Baltimore has determined Maryland policy for too damn long, and frankly, the idea of secession seems mighty appealing.

Feb 13, 2004, 12:14 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pyackog) But without an electoral college, New Hampshire is totally at the whim of the rest of the country. Even though they are smaller, part of the deal when the states joined the Union was making sure that they wouldn't be run roughshod over by more popular states.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Like the population deserves that much power. And yet, states don't have any real power anyway. New York and Utah tried seceding, because of a desire to exercise true state rights (New York against the first draft, Utah to create a utopian Mormon state) Both were put down by the army. Hell, New Hampshire has visions of being a true anarchist state. That will simply never happen. Besides, we're either a country or a set of states - we really can't be both at the same time, as that dilutes the power of either. The only state that really got its way was West Virginia, and that was a power play to do with the Civil War. Not that it did West Virginia any good in the end. In the meanwhile, highly populated and dense places don't have their fair share of representation, both in terms of our county system as well as in terms of our electoral college, and this shows when it comes to American policy in our history. The entire system was meant to favor against cities, because cities were seen as ugly, dirty, and filled with people who were gasp Catholic and Black. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON urban areas must pay for the upkeep of rural areas without fair representation in federal government. As of right now, a candidate can win without getting the majority of any city, but a candidate cannot win without getting the majority of at least one majorly rural Southern state.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (m5lange1) If it were truly one person/one vote Politicians would play totally to large urban areas. That is where the majority lies. States with no major urban areas might as well bend over and grab the old ankles.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>60% of the people in this country live in large urban areas. Live with it.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (m5lange1) Is it just to easy to allow proportional splitting of electoral votes?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>True proportionality would be gasp One Man, One Vote. Also, the reason we don't have powerful third parties is because of our "to the victor go all the spoils" electoral college. It makes a difference if the front-runner gets 40% of the vote, the second 30% and the third 20%, and policies should reflect that.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SeanWah) Anyway, the electoral college is a relic and ought to be abolished. I live in rural Maryland, which means any part of Maryland outside of Baltimore City, and the political direction of 24 counties are determined by a mere three.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>That's a districting problem, not a voting problem. New York City's been at the mercy of rural upstate New York for the history of our state. We subsidize their services, and yet we have most of the problems (and potential growth). Believe me, we want to be free of you as much as you want to be free of us. Besides, if we really redistricted counties based on population count, Brooklyn alone would be 150 counties. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 13, 2004, 06:00 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SeanWah,) Interesting that this is being posted by a Netherlander, where one ideology has essentially driven all domestic policy decisions since time out of mind. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, that was until 2002. This is the first liberal/right-wing cabinet we've had. And yes, it takes some 'getting-used-to'. Everyday social interest groups are protesting in the Hague because the government refuses to give their special pet project money. But uptill 2002, people voted in such a way that one ideology was dominant. If they wanted, they could vote for something else. But if I live in a state in America and I vote <A> and the state votes [b] for 51 percent, most likely (I didn't know there were states which do not use the winner-takes-all principle) my vote will not go to <A>. Even worse, my vote will go to [b]. In the Netherlands, if I vote for <A>, my vote will go to <A>. Hope & Dream

Feb 13, 2004, 09:03 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Pyackog Sedimentary Rock Posts: 16	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) Like the population deserves that much power. And yet, states don't have any real power anyway. New York and Utah tried seceding, because of a desire to exercise true state rights (New York against the first draft, Utah to create a utopian Mormon state) Both were put down by the army. Hell, New Hampshire has visions of being a true anarchist state. That will simply never happen. Besides, we're either a country or a set of states - we really can't be both at the same time, as that dilutes the power of either. The only state that really got its way was West Virginia, and that was a power play to do with the Civil War. Not that it did West Virginia any good in the end. In the meanwhile, highly populated and dense places don't have their fair share of representation, both in terms of our county system as well as in terms of our electoral college, and this shows when it comes to American policy in our history. The entire system was meant to favor against cities, because cities were seen as ugly, dirty, and filled with people who were gasp Catholic and Black. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON urban areas must pay for the upkeep of rural areas without fair representation in federal government. As of right now, a candidate can win without getting the majority of any city, but a candidate cannot win without getting the majority of at least one majorly rural Southern state.That's a districting problem, not a voting problem. New York City's been at the mercy of rural upstate New York for the history of our state. We subsidize their services, and yet we have most of the problems (and potential growth). Believe me, we want to be free of you as much as you want to be free of us. Besides, if we really redistricted counties based on population count, Brooklyn alone would be 150 counties.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I can agree with you that the states themselves don't have enough autonomy from the federal government. Your beef about urban versus rural representation is not quite right though. The way the representation is set up, the cities are still in the majority and they are still, for the most part, setting more policy than the urban areas. Concerning NY, the rural areas there (I lived the first 30 years of my life in NY) have been paying huge money into the cesspool of welfare that is NYC. And look at the representation of the state...for example, it certainly wasn't NY STATE that elected Hillary Clinton there, that was all NYC and the rest of the state has to deal with it and she will pander only to NYC at the expense of the rest of the state. Relatively speaking, the rest of the state is giving up much more to NYC than vice versa.

Feb 13, 2004, 10:37 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
FreedomFirst Molten Ash Posts: 67	Voting in America is biased toward the two "major" parties. Through ballot access restrictions, federal funding of elections, fear-mongering, and a variety of other methods, the "major" parties block out everybody else and push their big government agenda without opposition. We need to institute Condorcet or Instant Runoff Voting in America, to eliminate the "wasted vote" syndrome. "You have to question when a person says, 'I have a great idea, let's make everyone __________.' If it's such a great idea, why do you have to make people do it?" www.freestateproject.org

Feb 14, 2004, 04:13 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
MiniPhreek Sedimentary Rock Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 9	I think the first step the US needs to take in order to fix it's electorial system is to take Big Business out of the equation. now i know some of you might say right of the bat, that that is imposible, but rather it is very simple, Not to long ago Canada's federal government and several provintial governments have Banned Union and Corperation Donnations to political campains, and they capped indivuduale donations ($5000 a year federaly $1000 a year in ontario) to political parties. this along with a spending cap of thired party organizations on political advertising has changed the way politicans campaighn. They no lounger try to get big spenders to back them and curb there values for that purpose, but now go for getting alot of small donations to fund there campian, there are no more big fancy TV advertisments or mudslinging commercials, but instede only a few small advertisments. i think this is the first step to make democrocy speak to the people again, and plus start to give smaller parties a chance, then next step of course is switching to a form of proportional representation, by the way the only 3 industrialised democrocys in the world that don't have a form of PR are the UK, Canada (several provinces are looking into changing there system) and the US.

Feb 14, 2004, 08:16 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Toussaint Molten Ash Posts: 43	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,) What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The point of the system is to avoid a simple system of majority rule. The founders smoke of majoritarian democracy of simply another form of tyranny. This mechanism called the electoral college was put in place for specific reasons that are still relevent today. If there were no electoral college, big cities would pretty much rule the country. In a country as vast as the U.S. such a situation would leave many non-city dwellers disconcerted-- which creates an atmosphere of alienation that has historically led to revolutions and other sorts of upheavals. "Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat "Now go and sin no more!" - Jesus Christ

Feb 14, 2004, 09:24 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Pyackog, two things: 1) The state already deflected the costs of Medicaid by levying them to local governments - the state has a lower than average state tax, but the highest local tax in the country: The state deflects the costs of Medicaid by requiring New York City to make more than three times more in 'Local to State aid' per person than the rest of the state as well as having us pay for most of our social services locally. Upstate social services are mostly state-funded. Also, Federal to State aid is exceptional for helping New York State in housing and welfare, but New York City does not get its proportional share, whereas upstate New York gets an above average share of state funds in all three categories. New York City gets about half as much state aid per person as the upstate metropolitan areas.(1) 2) While New Yorkers make up 58% of the state under the poverty line(2), New York City pays the vast majority of state corporate tax. Also, while New Yorkers already pay twice as much as the state average in local and state taxes combined, the state takes from the local taxes and the city does not even get the same return on their state taxes alone. Simply put, you're shafting us - we pay for ourselves, and subsidize you at the same time. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 23, 2004, 11:16 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
The_Broken_Column Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,) What always amazed me is the "Electoral College" system used in the US. The system where the votes of an entire state go to one candidate or another, no matter if it was a 99% or a 51% win. I can understand the historic reasoning for this system, but don't you agree it's just legacy and "a vote is a vote" should count? instead of "a vote is maybe a vote or maybe a vote for someone I dont agree with"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think you're stupid, sorry, but really you are. It is so damn easy, to pick up a little book, it's called hmm...let me think, oh yeah... A HISTORY BOOK. Look up Athens, you'll see why we chose a Republic over a Direct Democracy. Too bad so many people have forgotten this and are trashing our nation. I should refrain from calling you stupid though, ignorant is a better term. If you don't pick up a history boook and learn about Athens and Direct Democracy and its failures, then you are stupid...ok? Now go, educate yourself.