Useless Stat of the Day

[NorthSideSox72]

Im in favor of keeping the status quo.  Im absolutely positive the founders had this very same debate when the Constitution was being drawn up and theres a very good reason why things are the way they are.  We get rid of the electoral college then the views of the small states become irrelevant as candidates focus on Cali, NY, TX, IL, OH and Florida.

 

Actually, I don't think it would do that at all. It would in fact make states like CA the same as states like ID, because states no longer matter. Candidates would be forced to go after voters as individuals, not specific states. To me, it benefits the country as a whole by creating equality on a per-person basis.

[Texsox]

Did y'all know that we are the United STATES of America? Not the United Individuals of America. Our founding fathers saw this as the states getting together and electing someone to be President.

 

Just thought I'd mention that. It seems so basic, but some people lost sight that we wanted power among the states. Each state was protected, in a fashion, from being taken over by another.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It wouldn't have been a mandate either way because half the voting age population doesn't f***ing vote in the damn first place.

 

 

If you dont vote then you automatically forfeit your right to dissent in my book. If you cant be bothered with taking the time out to choose whos calling the shots for you then you need to just shut your piehole and deal with what the result is.

 

 

This tee shirt says it all.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

If you dont vote then you automatically forfeit your right to dissent in my book.  If you cant be bothered with taking the time out to choose whos calling the shots for you then you need to just shut your piehole and deal with what the result is.

This tee shirt says it all.

I kinda stand with the stance of Stan in South Park on why people fail to vote. If all you have to choose from is a giant douche and a turd sandwich then what's the point? That very well may be why so many people don't vote.

[mmmmmbeeer]

Did y'all know that we are the United STATES of America? Not the United Individuals of America. Our founding fathers saw this as the states getting together and electing someone to be President.

 

Just thought I'd mention that. It seems so basic, but some people lost sight that we wanted power among the states. Each state was protected, in a fashion, from being taken over by another.

 

If not for the electoral college we wouldn't be living in the USA, several states wouldn't have joined the union. I'm certainly curious what exactly has changed today because, as far as I know, states are still not willing to sacrifice power to other states.

[Texsox]

If you dont vote then you automatically forfeit your right to dissent in my book.  If you cant be bothered with taking the time out to choose whos calling the shots for you then you need to just shut your piehole and deal with what the result is.

This tee shirt says it all.

 

I knew that my vote for President absolutely would not matter. I knew that Kerry would receive 85% of the votes in my country and Bush would win the state. Yet, I still had a Bush yard sign displayed and went and pulled for Kerry after having my finger of Dubya's lever for about 10 seconds. Nothing like waiting until the last second to decide.

 

But Nuke, I don't encourage people to vote. They should just let me decide. All this get out the vote stuff is nonsense. Y'all stay home and let me decide. You will be better off. I promise.

[southsider2k5]

Doesn't anyone remember their history? Remember the Great Compromise? Small states rights? The system was set up this way to ensure that large states didn't completely dominate this new union. In today's world, it wouldn't necesarily be large states, but large urban areas would become the only thing that matters. I know someone already alluded to this, but the United States wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for this system that recognized the power of majority rule on one hand, yet gave a nod to the minority rights on the other hand. Also remember that it isn't JUST the electoral college that gives this kind of credence to minority rights... ahem filibuster anyone?

 

Think about it, if you were trying to win only popular votes, why would you ever leave the 6 county area around Chicago? How many rural issues would ever get heard when urban areas would be the only ones that mattered?

[Texsox]

It is rare that the electoral and popular votes don't coincide. What is funnier is when a party uses the electoral vote and try to make it appear as if their candidate was clearly more popular and had more support than he really did. To gauge how the American people felt as a whole, you need to look at the popular vote.

[Rex Kickass]

Doesn't anyone remember their history?  Remember the Great Compromise?  Small states rights?  The system was set up this way to ensure that large states didn't completely dominate this new union.  In today's world, it wouldn't necesarily be large states, but large urban areas would become the only thing that matters.  I know someone already alluded to this, but the United States wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for this system that recognized the power of majority rule on one hand, yet gave a nod to the minority rights on the other hand.  Also remember that it isn't JUST the electoral college that gives this kind of credence to minority rights... ahem filibuster anyone?

 

Think about it, if you were trying to win only popular votes, why would you ever leave the 6 county area around Chicago?  How many rural issues would ever get heard when urban areas would be the only ones that mattered?

 

Some would argue the real intent behind the great compromise was to allow some states to not allow direct suffrage in most cases.

[NorthSideSox72]

Doesn't anyone remember their history?  Remember the Great Compromise?  Small states rights?  The system was set up this way to ensure that large states didn't completely dominate this new union.  In today's world, it wouldn't necesarily be large states, but large urban areas would become the only thing that matters.  I know someone already alluded to this, but the United States wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for this system that recognized the power of majority rule on one hand, yet gave a nod to the minority rights on the other hand.  Also remember that it isn't JUST the electoral college that gives this kind of credence to minority rights... ahem filibuster anyone?

 

Think about it, if you were trying to win only popular votes, why would you ever leave the 6 county area around Chicago?  How many rural issues would ever get heard when urban areas would be the only ones that mattered?

 

I just don't think that removing the electoral college will curtail states' rights at all, nor do I think that small states would be marginalized.

 

First, regarding small states being marginalized, let's give this some thought. Right now, if Wyoming goes to a candidate, they get a whole 3 electoral votes (making all WY votes fairly meaningless). On the other hand, if we have an actual national vote (since the Presidency is a NATIONAL office, not a state office), then every vote in Wyoming has the same value as every vote in California. That's the idea, isn't it? The electoral ration between CA and WY is what, 53 to 3? Roughly the same as the population ratio? Except that ultimately, the votes in CA are overvalued in the electoral system because of the bulking of all those votes. Remove the electoral college, and the system becomes MORE fair for smaller states.

 

Second, regarding the curtailing of states' rights, the state doesn't execute a right in the election anyway. The popular vote in each state decides the electoral college vote, so what rights exactly are being lost?

 

Finally, as far as large urban areas becoming more dominant, that's also not the case. Why? Because large urban areas themselves have a specific bias in most cases (generally to the left, as it happens). Candidates won't be campaigning by state anymore - they'll be campaigning to a certain set of political views, which might be urban, or rural. Either way, they are forced to go to those areas all over the country, in either case. Again, removing the electoral college makes the system more fair, and as far as I can tell, increases the importance of votes in the states which are currently considered gimmes for one party or the other (like, say, WY and other small states, as well as some big ones).

[Rex Kickass]

That's a good point. When was the last time a Presidential candidate actually considered Hawaiian issues? Besides Dennis Kucinich?

 

Beyond that, so many of these small states vote so reliably in one direction that they are ignored to begin with. Who campaigns in Montana? Who listens to the issues of Nebraska?

[southsider2k5]

I just don't think that removing the electoral college will curtail states' rights at all, nor do I think that small states would be marginalized.

 

First, regarding small states being marginalized, let's give this some thought.  Right now, if Wyoming goes to a candidate, they get a whole 3 electoral votes (making all WY votes fairly meaningless).  On the other hand, if we have an actual national vote (since the Presidency is a NATIONAL office, not a state office), then every vote in Wyoming has the same value as every vote in California.  That's the idea, isn't it?  The electoral ration between CA and WY is what, 53 to 3?  Roughly the same as the population ratio?  Except that ultimately, the votes in CA are overvalued in the electoral system because of the bulking of all those votes.  Remove the electoral college, and the system becomes MORE fair for smaller states.

 

Second, regarding the curtailing of states' rights, the state doesn't execute a right in the election anyway.  The popular vote in each state decides the electoral college vote, so what rights exactly are being lost?

 

Finally, as far as large urban areas becoming more dominant, that's also not the case.  Why?  Because large urban areas themselves have a specific bias in most cases (generally to the left, as it happens).  Candidates won't be campaigning by state anymore - they'll be campaigning to a certain set of political views, which might be urban, or rural.  Either way, they are forced to go to those areas all over the country, in either case.  Again, removing the electoral college makes the system more fair, and as far as I can tell, increases the importance of votes in the states which are currently considered gimmes for one party or the other (like, say, WY and other small states, as well as some big ones).

 

Actually that is completely wrong. Because of the guarentee of a certian number of electoral votes, the states at the bottom of the population ladder actually are over represented when it comes to people per electoral vote. California had almost 34 million people as of the last election. Wyoming had just under 500,000. So in other words it takes about 650,000 people to equal one electoral vote in Cali, where as it is about 166,000 in Wyoming. Wyoming wouldn't even have one electoral vote if they were a part of California.

 

And please spare me the ideal that people will travel all over the country for votes. In a system where cash is king, canditates are looking for places they can raise the largest amount of cash the quickest. The system is already geared towards the big states as is. Canditates know that they can gather a large amount of people quickly and make a buck. They stop in small states now only to put on a dog and pony show. If you reduce the value of small states even further, why would they stop there at all now. At least the system we have overvalues them in the electoral college to provide some inducement, get rid of that and you water them down even more.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually that is completely wrong.  Because of the guarentee of a certian number of electoral votes, the states at the bottom of the population ladder actually are over represented when it comes to people per electoral vote.  California had almost 34 million people as of the last election.  Wyoming had just under 500,000.  So in other words it takes about 650,000 people to equal one electoral vote in Cali, where as it is about 166,000 in Wyoming.  Wyoming wouldn't even have one electoral vote if they were a part of California.

 

And please spare me the ideal that people will travel all over the country for votes.  In a system where cash is king, canditates are looking for places they can raise the largest amount of cash the quickest.  The system is already geared towards the big states as is.  Canditates know that they can gather a large amount of people quickly and make a buck.  They stop in small states now only to put on a dog and pony show.  If you reduce the value of small states even further, why would they stop there at all now.  At least the system we have overvalues them in the electoral college to provide some inducement, get rid of that and you water them down even more.

 

I simply don't agree with your assessment here.

 

As far as the ratio of importance of small states to large states, the fact that Wyoming has 3 instead of 1 isn't terribly relevant. Either way, it looks unimportant to a candidate. What would make WY residents MORE important to a candidate is if that candidate's views played well to that political profile. Again, the focus moves from states to issues. That's positive for WY's residents. If you leave it as-is, a candidate is likely to avoid WY entirely, since A) it's a given R state usually anyway and B) 3 votes or 1 vote in the electoral college isn't a lot. On the other hand, you remove the electoral college, and suddenly the residents of that state are as important as those in CA.

 

People WILL travel all over the country for votes if their political profile requires them to. If they are appealing to a group of people that tend to be rural, well then, they'll travel a lot in rural states. It's pretty clear to me. Removing the electoral college enhances the power of all individual voters, and for that matter makes the smaller states more important as well because they actually count for something. Plus as stated, it changes the focus from geography to actual issues, and further, it removes some of the randomness of state importance (the imbalance caused by a few given states getting all the attention as "swing" states in that given election year).

[southsider2k5]

There is no positive for small states here. Due to the fact that their population densities there is no way that you can convince me that a canditate will listen MORE to people whose votes would be more expensive to gather, vs somewhere they can raise both cash and campaign issues to a much larger group of people. I don't understand how you can dismiss the small amount of electoral votes from a state, but then try to honestly tell me that they will be MORE important, with statistically LESS influence per capita? That makes zero sense to me. You are honestly trying to tell me that if Wyoming had 1/3 the influence of a national election that canditates would make more of an effort to win their votes?

 

With limited resources and more limited by time, canditates are looking for the biggest bang for their buck. Dilluding the influence of someone isn't going to help them at all.

 

Plus like I said earlier, these kinds of checks against majority power are present all over our government. We have the filibuster to give the minority a chance to be heard. On budget bills they need a 60% majority for passage, and have to start in a certian house of congress. We have a complex system for updating the constitution to insure that one party getting into power can't rewrite whatever rules for society that they want.

 

Our forefathers were enlightened enough in many respects to know that 50% +1 might not always be the best thing. I don't see this being any different.

[NorthSideSox72]

There is no positive for small states here.  Due to the fact that their population densities there is no way that you can convince me that a canditate will listen MORE to people whose votes would be more expensive to gather, vs somewhere they can raise both cash and campaign issues to a much larger group of people.  I don't understand how you can dismiss the small amount of electoral votes from a state, but then try to honestly tell me that they will be MORE important, with statistically LESS influence per capita?  That makes zero sense to me.  You are honestly trying to tell me that if Wyoming had 1/3 the influence of a national election that canditates would make more of an effort to win their votes?

 

With limited resources and more limited by time, canditates are looking for the biggest bang for their buck.  Dilluding the influence of someone isn't going to help them at all.

 

Plus like I said earlier, these kinds of checks against majority power are present all over our government.  We have the filibuster to give the minority a chance to be heard.  On budget bills they need a 60% majority for passage, and have to start in a certian house of congress.  We have a complex system for updating the constitution to insure that one party getting into power can't rewrite whatever rules for society that they want.

 

Our forefathers were enlightened enough in many respects to know that 50% +1 might not always be the best thing.  I don't see this being any different.

 

I think there are a lot of positives for small states here, but obviously you don't see what I do. I'll just point at my previous posts and say that those are valid arguments.

 

And yes, I am honestly telling you that without the electoral system, people in small "gimme" states will actually get more influence. Again, as I stated earlier.

 

Thing is, I am very much a states-rights person. The 10th amendment was actually the one that caused the most debate and controversy during the constitutional convention, and it's key this federation. The Feds have taken over a lot of things from the states where they should not have.

 

But I don't believe for a second that the electoral college does anything to aid states' rights. The US Senate, and more so the 10th amendment itself, protect states' rights. The fact that the US government has done run-arounds of the 10th is more my concern from a states' rights perspective.

[mr_genius]

I'm not a winger.

 

thats good to know

 

 

 

^^^

Winger

[southsider2k5]

thats good to know

 

^^^

Winger

 

Nice well thought out contribution...

[mr_genius]

Nice well thought out contribution

 

 

thanks, tinkerbell

[NorthSideSox72]

thats good to know

 

^^^

Winger

 

I did always want hair like that. Feathered and dangerous! :rolly

[mmmmmbeeer]

I simply don't agree with your assessment here.

 

As far as the ratio of importance of small states to large states, the fact that Wyoming has 3 instead of 1 isn't terribly relevant.  Either way, it looks unimportant to a candidate.  What would make WY residents MORE important to a candidate is if that candidate's views played well to that political profile.  Again, the focus moves from states to issues.  That's positive for WY's residents.  If you leave it as-is, a candidate is likely to avoid WY entirely, since A) it's a given R state usually anyway and B) 3 votes or 1 vote in the electoral college isn't a lot.  On the other hand, you remove the electoral college, and suddenly the residents of that state are as important as those in CA.

 

People WILL travel all over the country for votes if their political profile requires them to.  If they are appealing to a group of people that tend to be rural, well then, they'll travel a lot in rural states.  It's pretty clear to me.  Removing the electoral college enhances the power of all individual voters, and for that matter makes the smaller states more important as well because they actually count for something.  Plus as stated, it changes the focus from geography to actual issues, and further, it removes some of the randomness of state importance (the imbalance caused by a few given states getting all the attention as "swing" states in that given election year).

 

 

Wyoming is rural. Nebraska is rural. Utah rural. Montana rural. Kansas rural. Etc. You tell me what would happen if all these "given R states" caught wind that a Republican was going to abolish any and all farm subsidies. With 3 electoral votes each, do you think that they'd have a pretty big f***ing effect on the outcome of the election?

 

Those states aren't ignored, they are pacified. If each of those "given R states" only had 1 electoral vote each then combined they wouldn't have the power of California. The politicians would s*** on those rural states both on the campaign trail and in policy matters knowing that rural states are completely powerless to enact change or resistance.

 

The only change I could see, which could only happen on a state-by-state basis, would be to give states the choice to choose electors proportionate to the popular vote within each state. I believe Maine and Nebraska have a somewhat similar policy in place now.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wyoming is rural.  Nebraska is rural.  Utah rural.  Montana rural.  Kansas rural. Etc.  You tell me what would happen if all these "given R states" caught wind that a Republican was going to abolish any and all farm subsidies.  With 3 electoral votes each, do you think that they'd have a pretty big f***ing effect on the outcome of the election? 

 

Those states aren't ignored, they are pacified.  If each of those "given R states" only had 1 electoral vote each then combined they wouldn't have the power of California.  The politicians would s*** on those rural states both on the campaign trail and in policy matters knowing that rural states are completely powerless to enact change or resistance.   

 

The only change I could see, which could only happen on a state-by-state basis, would be to give states the choice to choose electors proportionate to the popular vote within each state.  I believe Maine and Nebraska have a somewhat similar policy in place now.

 

I told you what would happen in my earlier posts. They would vote on their political beliefs - on the issues. And you are wrong about their power being diminished. In both states, the people whose votes were not in the majority still actually count. Right now, that's not the case. In states like NE, KS, etc., the number of actual farmers is actually the minority, not the majority. If the issue was farm subsidies, right now, their votes are not as important, because they are the minority in a bunch of states, never getting the electoral votes. Their votes are worthless. If you remove the electoral college, you instead turn those farmers into hundreds of thousands of votes nationally, and that can make a difference.

 

So again, the electoral college does NOT help states rights, not does it help minorities (electoral). The electoral college really only helps the few states with very large urban populations (and it only helps those urban parts of them).

[Rex Kickass]

Plus the founders created the electoral college so that the President wouldn't be elected by direct mandate at all, but rather - in most cases - by the state legislatures of each individual state. What if your state decided to determine its electoral votes that way again? Would that also be acceptable to you?

 

Before you say "that'll never happen," it almost did. One of the hidden stories of the 2000 election was that if the recount had turned out that Bush had indeed lost the state, the Florida legislature was ready to pass legislation that would bypass the popular vote and assign its electors itself.

[NorthSideSox72]

Plus the founders created the electoral college so that the President wouldn't be elected by direct mandate at all, but rather - in most cases - by the state legislatures of each individual state. What if your state decided to determine its electoral votes that way again? Would that also be acceptable to you?

 

Before you say "that'll never happen," it almost did. One of the hidden stories of the 2000 election was that if the recount had turned out that Bush had indeed lost the state, the Florida legislature was ready to pass legislation that would bypass the popular vote and assign its electors itself.

 

That's another reason why the electoral college is dangerous - there is room for various entities to screw things up. Wasn't there some individual electoral rep in one state in 2004 that decided to vote for Kerry, against's his states vote? The electoral college is just a little too derivative for my tastes.

[Rex Kickass]

In 1976, Ronald Reagan got one electoral vote.

in 2004, one elector didn't fill out his ballot properly and did NOT vote for Kerry like he was supposed to.

In 2000, one of the D.C. electors chose not to submit a ballot as a protest for statehood. And there was fears of the "rogue elector" who would shift the electoral process into a tie.

[mr_genius]

That's another reason why the electoral college is dangerous - there is room for various entities to screw things up.  Wasn't there some individual electoral rep in one state in 2004 that decided to vote for Kerry, against's his states vote?  The electoral college is just a little too derivative for my tastes.

 

 

I think there was some speculation that a certain Electoral College rep would vote against the popular vote in their respective state, but I don't think it happened (I could be wrong).

 

But I think you're exactly right, that could possibly be what finally puts an end to the Electoral College.