[Nicko]

yay

link

[nredman]

Originally posted by Nicko:
yay

link

cool, i never believe those polls when they said bush was ahead, so i guess i can't believe them now, even if i want to

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Nicko:
yay

link

Wow, some guy in Kenya wants Kerry to win. Shouldn't you be out there like trying to save endangered rhinos or something?

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by nredman:
cool, i never believe those polls when they said bush was ahead, so i guess i can't believe them now, even if i want to

Most state polls still show Bush in the lead abeit narrowly. Kerry won the first debate so he got a boost in the national polls.

You dems still think this election is a popularity contest.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Most state polls still show Bush in the lead abeit narrowly. Kerry won the first debate so he got a boost in the national polls.

You dems still think this election is a popularity contest.

Um, duh. What the hell do you think an election is? Usually the most popular (i.e. MOST VOTES) person wins. LMAO

[BlueSky]

Now don't get too excited about this. After all, the only poll that really matters is Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Wow, some guy in Kenya wants Kerry to win. Shouldn't you be out there like trying to save endangered rhinos or something?

There are many of us that aren't American citizens but are worried about the state of global safety should Bush get another term.

[Logic]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Most state polls still show Bush in the lead abeit narrowly. Kerry won the first debate so he got a boost in the national polls.

You dems still think this election is a popularity contest.

uh...... exactly how do you elect your presidents?

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Logic:
uh...... exactly how do you elect your presidents?

Electoral college. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the electoral. This still upsets Dems even though that is the way American Presidents have been always elected.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Electoral college. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the electoral. This still upsets Dems even though that is the way American Presidents have been always elected.

Exactly why it needs to be fixed. If this is a true Democracy the person with the most votes should win.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Exactly why it needs to be fixed. If this is a true Democracy the person with the most votes should win.

Why fix it if it isn't broken? I refuse to let New York and California elect my President. I want my vote as a citizen of KY to count!

[villalobos]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why fix it if it isn't broken? I refuse to let New York and California elect my President. I want my vote as a citizen of KY to count!

And if KY was mostly democrat your vote for Bush would count for naught. You would have NO say whatsoever in the issue of the elections. That makes sens does it not?
They should at the very least do what Colorado is voting for that is giving a number of electors proportional to the number of votes in each state. As such, the election is not fair and not representative.

[Mithras]

In a direct popular election, every citizen's vote, of KY or NY or anywhere else, would count exactly the same! That's the beauty of the concept, eh?

[constrictor]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why fix it if it isn't broken? I refuse to let New York and California elect my President. I want my vote as a citizen of KY to count!

You contradict yourself. If the electoral college didn't exist, absolutely everyone's vote would count exactly the same. Anybody in any state at any time on election day could turn the total from, say, 30,695,401 to 30,695,402.

[UNTeMac]

I want my vote in Texas to count!

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Exactly why it needs to be fixed. If this is a true Democracy the person with the most votes should win.

Right. And if Gore would of won the electoral vote but not the popular you would be saying the exact opposite.

See we agree.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Electoral college. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the electoral. This still upsets Dems even though that is the way American Presidents have been always elected.

I got news for you. That's not what upsets Dems about that election. It was the fact that Gore had more votes in the state of Florida than Bush, but Bush's brother's gov't and the conservatives on the Supreme Court stopped the votes from being fully counted.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Right. And if Gore would of won the electoral vote but not the popular you would be saying the exact opposite.

See we agree.

That is a hypothetical so there is no way will will know is there. Nice try.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
That is a hypothetical so there is no way will will know is there. Nice try.

Exactly. Plus, if you get rid of the EC, there is no more ******** like "Our candidate may have gotten fewer [blah], but he got more [blah]!!!"

There will only be one measure, one thing to tally, one [blah]. Votes. Quite a novel idea for a country so big on democratic rule, eh? Our Kentucky boy buys into the Electoral College because he feels the electoral votes ensure that a candidate will pay attention to his state...and therefore his vote "counts" more. But what of the Republicans in Massachusetts? The Democrats in Texas? Who is paying attention to them?

Let the Repubs in the Bay State have their equal say, and let the Dems in the Lone Star State have theirs, too.

[shabbasuraj]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/National/

Canada prefers...

[constrictor]

Originally posted by shabbasuraj:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/National/

Canada prefers...

Yet another example of Kerry flip-flopping!!!! I don't know how exactly, but it is. Seriously. Uh. Right?

[kido]

How does one go about contesting a purely democratic election? Should you allow recounts on a national scale? How would one monitor such a recount?

How do you deal with different states having different rules with regards to who may vote? (Convicted felons, mentally impaired, etc.)

Should the winner in a contest be the one who scores the most points or the most games?



curious.

kido

[shabbasuraj]

I say Bush vs. Kerry in an arm wrestling competition. Winner Take All. Best 2 of 3.

DONE.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by kido:
How does one go about contesting a purely democratic election? Should you allow recounts on a national scale? How would one monitor such a recount?

How do you deal with different states having different rules with regards to who may vote? (Convicted felons, mentally impaired, etc.)

Should the winner in a contest be the one who scores the most points or the most games?



curious.

kido

Um, it is a Federal election. The states should not have different rules for who can and cannot vote. And yes, recounts should be handled on a national scale if necessary. We are the world's "only superpower," after all. Our engineers and pols should be able to get such a recount to work, especially with a 4-year prep period.

As it stands now, people who are Republican in a staunchly Democratic state (and vice versa) have all the more reason to stay home on November 2nd than those in swing states. Their votes literally do "count less" than they would in other states. Remove the electoral college, and that changes instantly. If you get people thinking that their vote actually means something toward the outcome on a national scale, maybe that would help raise the dismal voting numbers we have in this country.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why fix it if it isn't broken? I refuse to let New York and California elect my President. I want my vote as a citizen of KY to count!

The Electoral College is similar in structure to the House of Representatives - which gives disproportionate power to the larger states (NY has more votes than KY). Conversely, the Senate gives disproportionate representation to smaller states (KY has more senate votes per capita than NY).

Since the EC is closer in structure to the House than Senate (a state's EC vote count is based on census data), the EC would actually seem to give disproportionate power to larger states. Your vote would count for more without the EC.


Since we have the means to accurately and precisely count the direct popular vote these days, I see that as the preferred method. However, old habits are the hardest to break.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by kido:
How does one go about contesting a purely democratic election? Should you allow recounts on a national scale? How would one monitor such a recount?

How do you deal with different states having different rules with regards to who may vote? (Convicted felons, mentally impaired, etc.)

Should the winner in a contest be the one who scores the most points or the most games?

curious.

kido

I'm not a statistician but it seems to me that we could do recounts by precinct, or county, or what have you, with standards as to when a recount is allowable. We already do it - look at Florida 2000. Surely we're sophisticated enough to create workable parameters. And it's not as though the electoral system prevents recount problems - again, look at 2000.

I've always thought the electoral system has outlived its usefulness and this election only serves to reinforce that belief. It no longer serves any purpose even remotely related to its original one - a deliberative body - and every argument I've seen for it in its present form is easily refuted. The games vs. points argument is one of the weakest - this is an election, not a football tournament.

[BRussell]

We should make our voting machinery accurate enough that we don't need recounts. If the votes in Florida had reflected voter intent correctly the first time around, there would have been no recount (and no president Bush).

[kido]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The games vs. points argument is one of the weakest - this is an election, not a football tournament.

It is an election held in the United States of America, meaning that the founding fathers decided the President should be selected on the basis of what the majority of states wanted, not the people. You may dismiss the games vs. points argument, but the Founding Fathers thought it was an important distinction and an important preservation of states' rights.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by kido:
It is an election held in the United States of America, meaning that the founding fathers decided the President should be selected on the basis of what the majority of states wanted, not the people. You may dismiss the games vs. points argument, but the Founding Fathers thought it was an important distinction and an important preservation of states' rights.

A good point, but they also intended it to be a deliberative body, which made the state-by-state vote more meaningful. Take away the deliberative part and you're left with a popular vote arbitrarily divided by state, which is what we have today. I don't see any convincing reason why this should be so - let's either make it the way the Founders intended or make it relevant to modern conditions. I think a good compromise would be a proportional electoral vote, as Maine uses.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by kido:
It is an election held in the United States of America, meaning that the founding fathers decided the President should be selected on the basis of what the majority of states wanted, not the people.

That's not accurate. They didn't want the majority of states to determine the president. They wanted electors to determine the president.

[kido]

Originally posted by constrictor:
As it stands now, people who are Republican in a staunchly Democratic state (and vice versa) have all the more reason to stay home on November 2nd than those in swing states. Their votes literally do "count less" than they would in other states. Remove the electoral college, and that changes instantly. If you get people thinking that their vote actually means something toward the outcome on a national scale, maybe that would help raise the dismal voting numbers we have in this country.

And what of people in the western parts of the United States? If the difference in the election is greater than a western state's population, then no one's vote would matter in that state. Would you insist that the election results in a national popular election would be kept secret until every American citizen has had a chance to make their vote count? From 7:00am on the east coast til 9:00pm in Hawaii?

kido

[kido]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That's not accurate. They didn't want the majority of states to determine the president. They wanted electors to determine the president.

As selected by the States.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by kido:
As selected by the States.

That's very different than "selected based on what the majority of states wanted." The electoral college, as zigzag points out, was a deliberative body, and not winner-take-all as we have today.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by kido:
And what of people in the western parts of the United States? If the difference in the election is greater than a western state's population, then no one's vote would matter in that state. Would you insist that the election results in a national popular election would be kept secret until every American citizen has had a chance to make their vote count? From 7:00am on the east coast til 9:00pm in Hawaii?

kido

I'm not sure I accept your premise. If those votes went into the total, they'd have as much meaning as any other votes, regardless of state. Indeed, that's the benefit - each vote would count equally whether it's cast in New York City or Wyoming. It's only if you're preoccupied with counting states that your point might be valid. I'm questioning the importance of counting states when there is no deliberative process.

As for results, that's a valid concern, but I don't see why it couldn't be overcome, for instance by keeping the vote secret until all polls are closed. We're not accustomed to that, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. You'd still have people doing exit polling. However, your concern would be another reason for keeping the electoral system, but making it more proportional in order to avoid disenfranchising so many people.

I look at it this way: in the modern era, how many times have the popular vote and the electoral vote diverged? Very few. Therefore, as a practical matter, the electoral system has meant little if anything. On balance, it seems to me that it would be better to add meaning to the votes of those in minority parties in the winner-take-all states.

But I don't lose sleep over it. I mostly just wish we would improve the voting technology.

[kido]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That's very different than "selected based on what the majority of states wanted." The electoral college, as zigzag points out, was a deliberative body, and not winner-take-all as we have today.

That is not the fault of the Constitution but of the individual state's legislatures, which is elected by the residents of each state. So you believe the legislatures of each state should have no say in the manner in which electors are appointed? You must also believe that winner-takes-all somehow dilutes a voter's power. Perhaps this is true, but it greatly increases a state's voting power. If you have a roughly 50/50 split in the population of a state, then the voting influence of that state is cut in half in the electoral college if you apportion the electors to reflect this.

[kido]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm not sure I accept your premise. If those votes went into the total, they'd have as much meaning as any other votes, regardless of state.

This is the problem with popular elections, only one vote has any power, the one that gives you a majority. In an election with 3 voters, each would have 1/3 of the voting power if results are kept secret, otherwise, 2 voters end up having no power and 1 voter has all the power.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by kido:
That is not the fault of the Constitution but of the individual state's legislatures, which is elected by the residents of each state. So you believe the legislatures of each state should have no say in the manner in which electors are appointed? You must also believe that winner-takes-all somehow dilutes a voter's power. Perhaps this is true, but it greatly increases a state's voting power. If you have a roughly 50/50 split in the population of a state, then the voting influence of that state is cut in half in the electoral college if you apportion the electors to reflect this.

The manner of appointing the electors isn't the problem; it's the fact that we pretend to use electors when really they're a sham. They don't deliberate and vote for candidates as intended by the founders. Originally there was no popular vote. We now have this bizarre hybrid where we have both a national popular vote and an "electoral" vote, which isn't what it was originally intended to be anyway. It is truly irrational.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by kido:
And what of people in the western parts of the United States? If the difference in the election is greater than a western state's population, then no one's vote would matter in that state. Would you insist that the election results in a national popular election would be kept secret until every American citizen has had a chance to make their vote count? From 7:00am on the east coast til 9:00pm in Hawaii?

kido

That would be valid if a singular western state was the only one with polls still open and every other western state had closed its polls. However, if you're reaching for a technicality due to time zone difference, you're reaching way too far. You'd have to take the entire time zone--the entire western US--en bloc. It's difficult to imagine any scenario where the published outcome from the eastern US dwarfed the ENTIRE voting population of the west. Not going to happen.

And Hawaii is another great example of why the EC has lost its use. Republicans in the Hawaii don't count for **** now, and that's just not right.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by kido:
This is the problem with popular elections, only one vote has any power, the one that gives you a majority. In an election with 3 voters, each would have 1/3 of the voting power if results are kept secret, otherwise, 2 voters end up having no power and 1 voter has all the power.

The same could be said under the electoral system, except that a given state (e.g. Ohio) would have that power instead of an individual. That's fine if it's what you want; I'm just not sure it's what I want when it has the effect of disenfranchising so many people in states that are overwhelmingly Democrat or Republican.

While a popular vote wouldn't bother me, I think there are valid concerns; therefore I would endorse a compromise.

[cpt kangarooski]

constrictor--

Um, it is a Federal election.

No, when the electors gather and cast their votes, that's a federal election.

Prior to that are numerous state processes for determining who shall be electors. State elections are one method of doing this. Arbitrary choices by the state legislatures are another.

The states should not have different rules for who can and cannot vote.

Gonna need an amendment for that one, buddy.

BRussel--

They don't deliberate and vote for candidates as intended by the founders.

Who's stopping them? But of course, if they don't want to do so, how can you make them, any more than you can make someone make a careful, informed choice before voting otherwise?

[zigzag]

wikipedia has a pretty good, up-to-date entry on the electoral college, with coverage of the various pros, cons, and alternatives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by kido:
And what of people in the western parts of the United States? If the difference in the election is greater than a western state's population, then no one's vote would matter in that state. Would you insist that the election results in a national popular election would be kept secret until every American citizen has had a chance to make their vote count? From 7:00am on the east coast til 9:00pm in Hawaii?

That's the way it is in most other countries, AFAIK.

I always find it bizarre when election results are published before the election has ended.

Here, media can conduct exit polls during the day, but they are banned from publishing the results until 6 p.m. (when voting booths close). Election coverage on all channels begins smack 18:00.

-s*

[BRussell]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
BRussel--


Who's stopping them? But of course, if they don't want to do so, how can you make them, any more than you can make someone make a careful, informed choice before voting otherwise?

In most cases, state laws are stopping them from deliberating.