[ghost_flash]

Hmmmm. John F. Kennedy maybe?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/...l?id=110004320

Have a looky.

[itai195]

Or Rutherford B. Hayes?

[Saul Goode]

WTF is the matter with you? This forum is NO place for facts. Shame on you.

[Volanges]

nothing like referencing a non-conclusive editorial

sad

[Dakar]

The point you are maing seems to be overshadowed by the fact that Kennedy most likely stole the election through rigging.

I guess history does repeat itself.

[chabig]

The fact is, not one single US President has ever been elected by popular vote. They are all elected by the Electoral College. Case closed. QED.

Chris

[ghost_flash]

So, what TF was GORE and all the demies complaining about? Why was there no MEDIA smackdown on them for being little babies? You mean all those elite media people who like to pat themselves on the back like that clown on 60 minutes and WOODWARD couldn't figure it out? Yo! Michael "Fathead" Moore, where were you?

I think everyone got the point of my thread in here. Some too well.

[Mithras]

ghost_flash, chill the f*ck out, okay?
I can't believe you can earnestly think that vote-rigging by Kennedy's allies is an argument in support of Bush's election. Fraud or undemocratic processes should be deplored, not hauled out as justification.


Direct popular election would probably be better, since the President is supposed to be the representative of the American people at large. We have a House and Senate for representing the interests of individual states, and buttressing the rights of the smaller states.

But I'd be content with the electoral college system, if we changed the "winner-take-all" system of elector allocation that is in place in all but two states. This current system focuses the effort on a narrow slice of the electorate in 10 to 15 "battleground states". It means that if you're a Republican in New York, or a Democrat in Texas, your vote really has little chance of making any difference in the election of your President.

I think it would be great if more states adopted either proportional allocation or Congressional district allocation. (See this site for a full explanation). This kind of system would preserve the "inflation" of small states, while making everyone's vote count.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Direct popular election would probably be better, since the President is supposed to be the representative of the American people at large. We have a House and Senate for representing the interests of individual states, and buttressing the rights of the smaller states.

But I'd be content with the electoral college system, if we changed the "winner-take-all" system of elector allocation that is in place in all but two states. This current system focuses the effort on a narrow slice of the electorate in 10 to 15 "battleground states". It means that if you're a Republican in New York, or a Democrat in Texas, your vote really has little chance of making any difference in the election of your President.

I find your opinion on the matter most refreshing. Of course, I hold the same view, but refreshing none-the-less, since I hear few people actually advocate what you said.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Dakar:
I find your opinion on the matter most refreshing. Of course, I hold the same view, but refreshing none-the-less, since I hear few people actually advocate what you said.

So few terrorists with internet connections these days. So sad. Maybe that is why the lack of support for your oppinions?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
So few terrorists with internet connections these days. So sad. Maybe that is why the lack of support for your oppinions?

How is supporting a popular vote a terrorist act?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Dakar:
... since I hear few people actually advocate what you said.

I was responding to this statment. Terrorists would most certainly be advocates for this oppinion. I never said having that oppinion was a "terrorist act". Don't insert words where they don't exist in my statements. If they had internet connections, then they would most certainly make this oppinion known...

I was quite clear.

[itai195]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
So few terrorists with internet connections these days. So sad. Maybe that is why the lack of support for your oppinions?

Err, opposing the electoral college has what to do with terrorists exactly?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I was responding to this statment. Terrorists would most certainly be advocates for this oppinion. I never said having that oppinion was a "terrorist act". Don't insert words where they don't exist in my statements. If they had internet connections, then they would most certainly make this oppinion known...

I was quite clear.

Not really.

So why would terrorists support a popular vote? Why wouldn't any american?

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
So few terrorists with internet connections these days. So sad. Maybe that is why the lack of support for your oppinions?

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
It would be proper, and cause less confusion when people are reading your posts.
You offended me in the way you responded. So, yes. You did.

No need to be condescending either, nor mocking.

No need to explain i think.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Not really.

So why would terrorists support a popular vote? Why wouldn't any american?

They did it in Spain.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
They did it in Spain.

That's silly.

That's not the popular vote's fault. That's the terrorists and/or the peoples'.

[Saul Goode]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Direct popular election would probably be better, since the President is supposed to be the representative of the American people at large. We have a House and Senate for representing the interests of individual states, and buttressing the rights of the smaller states.

No, because he would no longer represent everyone. The president would then be elected by literally a handful of the same states every time. New York, California, etc. People like me would be left out, voter turn out smaller states like mine would be atrocious, and considering the political slant of these places historically, we would essentially have a one party system.

The electoral college system does a good job of insuring that the candidates need the smaller areas' votes too. It's not perfect, but historically it does very well.

I find it hard to look at this and think that the country got robbed of the true winner.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Saul Goode:
No, because he would no longer represent everyone. The president would then be elected by literally a handful of the same states every time. New York, California, etc. People like me would be left out, voter turn out smaller states like mine would be atrocious, and considering the political slant of these places historically, we would essentially have a one party system.

You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not about the states. It's about all the people of the nation. Just because they are concentrated in certain locales is purely superficial. One vote from NYC will have the same weight as a vote from a small town in Nebraska.

[netgear]

Keep it the same way as it is now.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
Keep it the same way as it is now.

Any particular reason?

[Saul Goode]

Originally posted by Dakar:
You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not about the states. It's about all the people of the nation. Just because they are concentrated in certain locales is purely superficial. One vote from NYC will have the same weight as a vote from a small town in Nebraska.

The point is, why would the President:

#1 Bother to campaign in the smaller areas when he wouldn't even need their vote?

#2 Bother to take actions that matter to the small states or non-urban needs when he won't need their vote anyway?

IDEALLY he should take it upon himself to represent the entire country no matter what, but in the REAL world he represents those who will vote for him or his other party members.

Popular vote works in small confined areas like states and small countries, but IMO America is too large, sprawling, and diverse to effectively elect a true representative by popular vote.

[netgear]

America is the "united states" and that's why the President is chosen on a state by state basis.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Saul Goode:
The point is, why would the President:

#1 Bother to campaign in the smaller areas when he wouldn't even need their vote?

You've got a point there. However, an ignored peoples will turn somewhere else, and ignoring enough small areas begins to add up.

Originally posted by Saul Goode:
#2 Bother to take actions that matter to the small states or non-urban needs when he won't need their vote anyway?

That's what the Legislative Branch is for. They represent the states, the Executive represents the nation. Further, if the president hopes for any support from congress or votes from small states in his next election, he'll di the right thing.

Originally posted by Saul Goode:
IDEALLY he should take it upon himself to represent the entire country no matter what, but in the REAL world he represents those who will vote for him or his other party members.

Popular vote works in small confined areas like states and small countries, but IMO America is too large, sprawling, and diverse to effectively elect a true representative by popular vote.

I think as we move further and further into this age of connectivity, that statement wil apply less and less.

Just because I don't support an electoral system now, doesn't mean it was flawed or useless 50 years ago. It's just that times have changed.

[netgear]

But still we are a confederation of 50 more or less independent states. No reason to change the current method of electing the President just because some people continue to keep whining about Gore losing.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
But still we are a confederation of 50 more or less independent states. No reason to change the current method of electing the President just because some people continue to keep whining about Gore losing.

Actually, I'm in favor of it because it'll keep anyone from having any excuse for whining.

[netgear]

Why is that? The electoral system is balanced and fair.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
Why is that? The electoral system is balanced and fair.

Perhaps. However I see it as an added layer of buracracy[sp].

Also, my school didn't do a good job of pointing out that the US is not a Democracy, but a Republic. I forget sometimes.

[itai195]

Originally posted by netgear:
America is the "united states" and that's why the President is chosen on a state by state basis.

So what? That doesn't mean the electoral college hasn't outlived its usefulness. The argument in favor of it basically goes something like: "I live in a small state, and I think my vote should count more than yours."

The other arguments are weak. The presidential candidates won't campaign in small states? They already only campaign in a handful of states as it is. Seems more important to me that they campaign where the votes are.

[netgear]

Originally posted by itai195:
So what? That doesn't mean the electoral college hasn't outlived its usefulness. The argument in favor of it basically goes something like: "I live in a small state, and I think my vote should count more than yours."

The other arguments are weak. The presidential candidates won't campaign in small states? They already only campaign in a handful of states as it is. Seems more important to me that they campaign where the votes are.

A state like California has 11.9% of the nation's population and 10.2% of the total electoral votes. I'd say that's pretty fair.

[itai195]

Originally posted by netgear:
A state like California has 11.9% of the nation's population and 10.2% of the total electoral votes. I'd say that's pretty fair.

Not if you're a Republican.

[Mithras]

First of all, let me say that to me, what matters is voters, not states per se. Some may disagree.

Under the current system, voters in Texas, Hawaii, New York, Utah ,California, Alabama, Massachusetts, and elsewhere are ignored, because those states are perceived as "safe" for one party or the other.

In a direct popular election, there is indeed the risk that voters in smaller states would be ignored, since it would take more effort to fly out and gather 1,000 votes in a rural area than it would in a heavily populated suburb or city.

That is one reason that the electoral college system was introduced: to "inflate" the votes of people in less populated states.

So, as I suggested above, I favor a proportional allocation system, in which voterse in small states still have their votes inflated, but the electors are given not by "winner take all", but in rough proportion to the vote in the state.

That means that it would be better for Bush to win 75%/25% in Texas, rather than 55%/45%. More people voting for him would yield more votes for him in the EC. It makes a certain kind of sense, doesn't it?

It would also mean that it would make sense for Bush to show up in California, or Kerry in Oklahoma, to fight for votes. Just because a candidate is behind in a certain state doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to gain something by persuading some more people to vote for him, right? As in the above example, isn't it more democratic if Kerry would rather lose 55%/45% in Texas than 75%/25%?

Believe it or not, there are people who look at this as more than a narrow partisan issue, and actually care about taking care of the long-term welfare of our democracy. Same reason that people like John McCain and Russ Feingold get together for campaign finance reform, or well-minded people of both parties try to work out saner systems of Congressional redistricting.

[netgear]

I'm a Republican and I have no issues with the electoral college. Yes, usually CA votes Democratic and winner takes all but so what? I'm not going to whine about it. Sometimes things go for your candidate, sometimes they don't.

[itai195]

Originally posted by netgear:
I'm a Republican and I have no issues with the electoral college. Yes, usually CA votes Democratic and winner takes all but so what? I'm not going to whine about it. Sometimes things go for your candidate, sometimes they don't.

It has nothing to do with whining. It has everything to do with Republican votes in California [usually] not counting at all! That's just an example, it happens in states all over the country. Not long ago it was the other way around in California.

I wouldn't mind an electoral system that isn't 'winner-take-all.' I realize that states rights should be respected to a degree.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by netgear:
A state like California has 11.9% of the nation's population and 10.2% of the total electoral votes. I'd say that's pretty fair.

Another way to look at it is that states with 44% of the population have 51% of the electoral college vote. (source)

[netgear]

Here again it's a state issue. Each state will have to change their own individual method of chosing electors. You'll never get a Constitutional amendment passed covering this.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Mithras:
First of all, let me say that to me, what matters is voters, not states per se. Some may disagree.

Under the current system, voters in Texas, Hawaii, New York, Utah ,California, Alabama, Massachusetts, and elsewhere are ignored, because those states are perceived as "safe" for one party or the other.

In a direct popular election, there is indeed the risk that voters in smaller states would be ignored, since it would take more effort to fly out and gather 1,000 votes in a rural area than it would in a heavily populated suburb or city.

That is one reason that the electoral college system was introduced: to "inflate" the votes of people in less populated states.

So, as I suggested above, I favor a proportional allocation system, in which voterse in small states still have their votes inflated, but the electors are given not by "winner take all", but in rough proportion to the vote in the state.

That means that it would be better for Bush to win 75%/25% in Texas, rather than 55%/45%. More people voting for him would yield more votes for him in the EC. It makes a certain kind of sense, doesn't it?

It would also mean that it would make sense for Bush to show up in California, or Kerry in Oklahoma, to fight for votes. Just because a candidate is behind in a certain state doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to gain something by persuading some more people to vote for him, right? As in the above example, isn't it more democratic if Kerry would rather lose 55%/45% in Texas than 75%/25%?

Believe it or not, there are people who look at this as more than a narrow partisan issue, and actually care about taking care of the long-term welfare of our democracy. Same reason that people like John McCain and Russ Feingold get together for campaign finance reform, or well-minded people of both parties try to work out saner systems of Congressional redistricting.

No, what matters are states, and the citizens in them. As we are a republic of states with a widely varied culture of citizenry.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, what matters are states, and the citizens in them. As we are a republic of states with a widely varied culture of citizenry.

Which is why we have congress for the explicit purpose of representing the states, and in a far more effective manner than the President?

[netgear]

No, Congress doesn't really represent the states since power is individually weaker. Very rarely do state delegations vote exactly the same way. Representatives are the most direct voice of representation in Washington followed by the Senators (which come closest to really representing a state).

[ghost_flash]

Thank God.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
No, Congress doesn't really represent the states since power is individually weaker. Very rarely do state delegations vote exactly the same way. Representatives are the most direct voice of representation in Washington followed by the Senators (which come closest to really representing a state).

I would imagine that representation of individual state concerns is still far greater than with 1 president who has to worry about the entire nation.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by netgear:
Here again it's a state issue. Each state will have to change their own individual method of chosing electors. You'll never get a Constitutional amendment passed covering this.

Absolutely, I agree. It is up to the states, and we wouldn't need or want a Constitutional amendment.

As I mentioned above, Maine and Nebraska current use the "Congressional district" allocation scheme. I would be very pleased if my state (NY) moved to either that or a proportional allocation system. You can see here a list of both federal and state legislation to change systems. They tend to die in state committee, since it is generally the minority party in each state that has the most to gain from abolishing winner-take-all.


Again, I repeat: This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is a healthy democracy issue.