Presidential Election Reform

[HuskyCaucasian]

But those 250,000 votes are nothing compared to what you can get by concentrating on a place like LA where you can get that amount in 1 city.

no doubt. but the candidates would be forced to play the entire country. This is why I hope Obama's 50 state plan will eventually lead to the National Popular Vote bill gaining momentum when people see that politicians will actually visit the "minor" states.

[southsider2k5]

that's basically my stance too. If Obama had not decided to run a 50 state campaign, the people of Texas and Illinois would really see or hear from the candidates. There's no point. McCain should win TX easily and Obama IL. But with a national system, they have to visit. what about the small states? Same thing. 50,000 votes in Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming is 250,000 more votes.

 

A national election also means that EVERY vote counts and i really believe voter turn out would go up. In 2004, i would have voted for Kerry, but i never registered. what was the point? He was going to win IL anyways. At the time I wasn't really vested in local politics to make an educated vote.

 

Out of curiousity Obama is going to win IL pretty easily in 2008, then what is the point this year?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Out of curiousity Obama is going to win IL pretty easily in 2008, then what is the point this year?

 

One, i believe in him and want to show my support. I wasn't nearly as motivated in 2004. I still considered myself a republican back in 2004, i just didnt like Bush.

Two, I registered to vote in the primaries and I now have more understanding on local politics.

[southsider2k5]

But those 250,000 votes are nothing compared to what you can get by concentrating on a place like LA where you can get that amount in 1 city.

 

Exactly, the population centers take on an even heavier weight than they do now. You could totally minimize your travel activity by consentrating on just the main big cities. You would never ever visit a rural anything. Think about it you could get more votes in New York City versus the entire state of Indiana.

[lostfan]

Exactly, the population centers take on an even heavier weight than they do now. You could totally minimize your travel activity by consentrating on just the main big cities. You would never ever visit a rural anything. Think about it you could get more votes in New York City versus the entire state of Indiana.

The flip side to that - aside from symbolic or purely strategic reasons (as with Obama spending money in TX) - under the current system, why would a Republican waste any time campaigning in places like NYC, Chicago, Boston, the Bay Area, etc.? There are significant amounts of Republicans living in those places, but they more or less get ignored and left to the Democrats, and they become perpetual liberal strongholds (before I left Chicago I could count the number of Republicans I knew on one hand, thinking of the people I know in Chicago, still can). The same goes for the Democrats in places like TX, and much of the South. Why bother? You won't win the state. Basically, by shifting to population centers, it means a different group of people gets ignored. So it's the same thing either way.

[vandy125]

no doubt. but the candidates would be forced to play the entire country. This is why I hope Obama's 50 state plan will eventually lead to the National Popular Vote bill gaining momentum when people see that politicians will actually visit the "minor" states.

 

I still don't understand how this would cause the candidates to play the entire country. If I were a politician with just a popular vote, I would limit myself to places that have over 1,000,000 people (or some number like that). It's just not worth the travel and time to go anywhere else.

[vandy125]

The flip side to that - aside from symbolic or purely strategic reasons (as with Obama spending money in TX) - under the current system, why would a Republican waste any time campaigning in places like NYC, Chicago, Boston, the Bay Area, etc.? There are significant amounts of Republicans living in those places, but they more or less get ignored and left to the Democrats, and they become perpetual liberal strongholds (before I left Chicago I could count the number of Republicans I knew on one hand, thinking of the people I know in Chicago, still can). The same goes for the Democrats in places like TX, and much of the South. Why bother? You won't win the state. Basically, by shifting to population centers, it means a different group of people gets ignored. So it's the same thing either way.

How would that be any different then what would happen if we switched to a popular vote? In both cases, the strongholds get ignored. The difference is not in how strongholds are approached (I would think that would stay consistent no matter which system was involved), but in how much say different population centers in different areas with completely different concerns get.

[BigSqwert]

Get rid of the electoral college and only allow ballots to people with a 90 I.Q. or higher.

[BigSqwert]

Get rid of the electoral college and only allow ballots to people with a 90 I.Q. or higher.

http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html

[kapkomet]

People do realize that the electoral college is not totally related to "voting", right? There's a lot to be learned about the Great Compromise... and the actual structure of our entire government as a result. So, it's more then just electing a president - it's a part of how the checks and balances in the constitution works.

[lostfan]

How would that be any different then what would happen if we switched to a popular vote? In both cases, the strongholds get ignored. The difference is not in how strongholds are approached (I would think that would stay consistent no matter which system was involved), but in how much say different population centers in different areas with completely different concerns get.

Most population centers tend to lean Democratic, but that doesn't mean there aren't Republicans in those cities. There's actually millions and millions of Republicans living in cities, and to ignore them and get weak turnout as a result of dismissing them would be a critical mistake. With a popular vote the idea is to maximize turnout and get as many people as possible to vote for you, not to worry about what party is going to carry a certain area.

[mr_genius]

The electoral college issue is nothing but hypocrisy based on the results of the most recent election. Case in point: All the democrats cried and whined over the electoral college since it kept the popular vote winner Al Gore out of office in 2000, but then in 2004 they whined about Ohio voter fraud costing John Kerry the electoral college, even though he lost the popular vote by 3 million. Double talk at it's finest. As for primaries, I agree with what I think Balta is saying, which is this is a state political party issue on both sides, so I'm not sure how a national proposal does anything.

 

This is exactly correct. The Democrats only want which system favors them at any given moment. If it was the other way around, the Dems would be saying the electoral college is key to a strong union of states. The electoral college is ok, and it does represent what we are, a union of states.

[mr_genius]

Get rid of the electoral college and only allow ballots to people with a 90 I.Q. or higher.

 

the Democrats would lose every election in a landslide

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is exactly correct. The Democrats only want which system favors them at any given moment. If it was the other way around, the Dems would be saying the electoral college is key to a strong union of states. The electoral college is ok, and it does represent what we are, a union of states.

I've thought the electoral college was silly since I was learning about it in Junior High. That and lobbyists. Neither made much sense to me.

[southsider2k5]

The flip side to that - aside from symbolic or purely strategic reasons (as with Obama spending money in TX) - under the current system, why would a Republican waste any time campaigning in places like NYC, Chicago, Boston, the Bay Area, etc.? There are significant amounts of Republicans living in those places, but they more or less get ignored and left to the Democrats, and they become perpetual liberal strongholds (before I left Chicago I could count the number of Republicans I knew on one hand, thinking of the people I know in Chicago, still can). The same goes for the Democrats in places like TX, and much of the South. Why bother? You won't win the state. Basically, by shifting to population centers, it means a different group of people gets ignored. So it's the same thing either way.

 

It is not the samething, and all you really have to do is look at the population per electoral vote in each state to understand how things would change. Right now there is a protection of the small states built into the system that gives them more value than if they were strictly based on population. This was not an accident. The founders of the electoral college wanted those same small state protections built into the Presidential process to protect their rights and interests against the disproportion of population. We have never been a 50% +1 democracy. The founders realized that complete mob rule wouldn't always work on its own. There needed to be some built in protections of everyone's interests.

[kapkomet]

It is not the samething, and all you really have to do is look at the population per electoral vote in each state to understand how things would change. Right now there is a protection of the small states built into the system that gives them more value than if they were strictly based on population. This was not an accident. The founders of the electoral college wanted those same small state protections built into the Presidential process to protect their rights and interests against the disproportion of population. We have never been a 50% +1 democracy. The founders realized that complete mob rule wouldn't always work on its own. There needed to be some built in protections of everyone's interests.

And not only the presidential process. It's one of the main reasons the senate exists.