Early voting starts today in IL & WI

[NorthSideSox72]

You'll just be choosing different patches of land to over represent.

Not in the slightest - one vote means no one cares about the land, or the where. I will be choosing individuals over groups - which I thought was a core principle of the Republican Party.

 

[southsider2k5]

Well yeah, Congress is intended to be a representative body - of both individuals, and states, in a federation.

 

And the President is to represent everyone, not just highly populated areas.

[Jake]

For those thinking of electing a third party as a sure-fire way of fixing things, realize the problem is in our winner-take-all system of representation. I can tolerate it on the national level, but not for our legislative bodies.

 

 

Here's a simple example of an alternative (aptly named). This even provides a scenario as if it was implemented into our own bipolar system.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Jake

[southsider2k5]

Not in the slightest - one vote means no one cares about the land, or the where. I will be choosing individuals over groups - which I thought was a core principle of the Republican Party.

 

One vote means areas of higher population concentration get more representation. Ohio gets traded in for NYC.

[StrangeSox]

Well yeah, Congress is intended to be a representative body - of both individuals, and states, in a federation.

 

I'm inclined to think it's a flawed model. Perhaps it made better sense in 1790.

 

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/05/0080035

 

In America today, U.S. senators from the twenty-six smallest states, representing a mere 18 percent of the nation’s population, hold a majority in the United States Senate, and, therefore, under the Constitution, regardless of what the President, the House of Representatives, or even an overwhelming majority of the American people wants, nothing becomes law if those senators object. The result has been what one would expect: The less populous states have extracted benefits from the rest of the nation quite out of proportion to their populations. As Frances E. Lee and Bruce I. Oppenheimer have demonstrated in their Sizing Up the Senate, the citizens of less populous states receive more federal funds per capita than the citizens of the more populous states.11. Many federal entitlement programs, once distributed to the American people in proportion to their needs and entitlements, have been converted to block grants for lump-sum distributions to the states, disguising the fact that citizens of smaller states get more of these benefits per capita than an equitable “entitlement” would allow. And what happens if the larger states, with a majority of the people, object? Not much. Today, the nine largest states, containing a majority of the American people, are represented by only 18 of the 100 senators in the United States Senate.

 

There's some Madison quotes, too, about the Senate being an explicitly aristocratic restraint on the democracy of the masses.

[bmags]

Do I really need to tell you that Illinois, New York, etc have already pretty much made up their mind? There is a reason that a big part of the state of Illinois would like to split off from Chicago. It is because their concerns are not addressed. In Illinois, it is all about Chicago. Chicago/Cook county picks everything regardless of the concerns of those in the other parts of the state. That in itself is a small subset of exactly what would happen in the National election.

 

There are all kinds of examples of this exact thing happening within individual states. See New York City and the rest of New York as well as East Washington State vs West Washington State as more examples.

 

It wouldn't matter if "New York" made up their mind if we didn't have the electoral college. If the, say, Republican candidate, worked to more in NY to get 47% of the vote, that would be huge to to add to their coalition of republican voters across the country.

 

New York and Illinois dont' vote 100% democrat, California has a HUGE Republican base and Texas has a much larger amount of democrats than Montana has republicans. This way those people can be more motivated to participate. Instead their votes are largely null.

 

To conclude, the rest of Illinois can cry me a river about getting bullied by chicago area.

[StrangeSox]

One vote means areas of higher population concentration get more representation. Ohio gets traded in for NYC.

 

Only if we're concerned about chunks of land or "settings" getting representation and not actual citizens.

 

How much would Romney really campaign in NYC, anyway?

[bmags]

Only if we're concerned about chunks of land or "settings" getting representation and not actual citizens.

 

How much would Romney really campaign in NYC, anyway?

 

He could solidify upstate new york a lot more than he has. He could fly into manhattan and make even more loads of cash.

[southsider2k5]

Only if we're concerned about chunks of land or "settings" getting representation and not actual citizens.

 

How much would Romney really campaign in NYC, anyway?

 

Except that there isn't an even distribution of people of actual citizens across the country, so geography is going to be playing a part.

[vandy125]

It wouldn't matter if "New York" made up their mind if we didn't have the electoral college. If the, say, Republican candidate, worked to more in NY to get 47% of the vote, that would be huge to to add to their coalition of republican voters across the country.

 

New York and Illinois dont' vote 100% democrat, California has a HUGE Republican base and Texas has a much larger amount of democrats than Montana has republicans. This way those people can be more motivated to participate. Instead their votes are largely null.

 

To conclude, the rest of the country can cry me a river about getting bullied by metropolitan areas.

 

LOL, changed it for better accuracy on your opinion from what I have read so far.

Edited October 23, 2012 by vandy125

[Jake]

And the President is to represent everyone, not just highly populated areas.

 

As the video I posted explains, the top 100 cities combined still only cover 20% of our population. From a strategic standpoint, one will have to remember that very few cities are actually very competitive so there will be a strategic issue in determining where it is that undecided voters live. Do they live in cities? Do they live in my city that is 80% democrat at >1M people? Probably not, but who knows. They would be spreading campaign dollars EVERYWHERE to try to get every last vote. This change, IMO, should have a tremendous effect on turnout since so many people would no longer have the feeling of being disenfranchised. The myth that everyone has an equal voice would become truth.

[StrangeSox]

Do I really need to tell you that Illinois, New York, etc have already pretty much made up their mind? There is a reason that a big part of the state of Illinois would like to split off from Chicago. It is because their concerns are not addressed. In Illinois, it is all about Chicago. Chicago/Cook county picks everything regardless of the concerns of those in the other parts of the state. That in itself is a small subset of exactly what would happen in the National election.

 

There are all kinds of examples of this exact thing happening within individual states. See New York City and the rest of New York as well as East Washington State vs West Washington State as more examples.

 

Right, so why should so much of the election hinge on people who happen to live in states where other people haven't strongly decided for one candidate?

[StrangeSox]

And the President is to represent everyone, not just highly populated areas.

 

Everyone would be represented with exactly an equal vote. How would someone living in Chicago get more voting power than someone living in Strawn?

 

If it is an issue, how does this not already happen e.g. Chicago dominates Illinois' votes, NYC dominates NY's votes.

Edited October 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jake]

It's the damn information age. Even if it is not expedient for a candidate to drive to my hometown in Pontiac, IL...they sure as hell care about that kind of people's votes and they will make efforts to get those votes.

[bmags]

LOL, changed it for better accuracy on your opinion from what I have read so far.

 

You think that we should grant people in rural areas more powers because...I haven't heard a good answer. You act like cities are some homogenous block that all votes a single way. This way if a city is 53% republican and 47% democratic, all get their voices heard. Cities wouldn't be over represented, they would get perfectly represented because more Americans live there.

[StrangeSox]

Except that there isn't an even distribution of people of actual citizens across the country, so geography is going to be playing a part.

 

How will geography be playing a part? Your vote will be exactly as impactful regardless of where you live, unlike now. Rural Illinoisians essentially have no say in how the states' EC votes will go*.

 

*EC voters aren't bound to their states' votes anyway, which is a whole separate problem with the EC.

[vandy125]

Right, so why should so much of the election be determined by a select group of people who happen to live in cities that in no way represent nor have similar concerns to the rest of the country?

 

It is a farce to say that their voice is not heard in those areas already. That was what I was specifically was addressing. I can easily turn that question around like so.

[StrangeSox]

It is a farce to say that their voice is not heard in those areas already. That was what I was specifically was addressing. I can easily turn that question around like so.

 

That's not really analogous to what I said.

 

Why should individual Ohio voters (in both rural and urban areas) have the power of being in what's most likely to be the deciding state while rural voters in Illinois will essentially have no voice?

 

edit: It's also not a "select group" but a "majority of the citizens of the country" who, generally speaking, choose where they want to live. I can decide if I want to live in Chicago or Strawn and which issues I care about regardless of where I live. What I can't do is choose that my state is close enough that my vote will have any meaningful impact on the race.

Edited October 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[vandy125]

You think that we should grant people in rural areas more powers because...I haven't heard a good answer. You act like cities are some homogenous block that all votes a single way. This way if a city is 53% republican and 47% democratic, all get their voices heard. Cities wouldn't be over represented, they would get perfectly represented because more Americans live there.

 

And because more Americans live there, they should always have the biggest say, right? I'll take note of this for any arguments that you make in favor of minority rights.

 

Also, let's take a look at a map:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...tical_landscape

 

Just Google rural vs metro concerns and you have a whole list.

 

I answered your question already about getting a more diverse representation from the whole nation. It has been ignored.

[southsider2k5]

How will geography be playing a part? Your vote will be exactly as impactful regardless of where you live, unlike now. Rural Illinoisians essentially have no say in how the states' EC votes will go*.

*EC voters aren't bound to their states' votes anyway, which is a whole separate problem with the EC.

 

How many times in history has this actually happened? It isn't even worth mentioning honestly.

[StrangeSox]

And because more Americans live there, they should always have the biggest say, right? I'll take note of this for any arguments that you make in favor of minority rights.

 

Also, let's take a look at a map:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...tical_landscape

 

Just Google rural vs metro concerns and you have a whole list.

 

I answered your question already about getting a more diverse representation from the whole nation. It has been ignored.

 

Your pronoun is unclear here. If "they" is referring to the actual majority of individual Americans who happen to live in a city, then yes, they should have the biggest say. If "they" is referring to cities or states with the biggest cities, then no, and getting rid of the EC would ensure that every vote has equal say regardless of what particular piece of land you live on.

[StrangeSox]

How many times in history has this actually happened? It isn't even worth mentioning honestly.

 

A handful, but it shows that the underpinnings of the system are rotten. You aren't voting for Obama or Romney, you're voting for designated electors who may or may not follow your preference. How does that make any sense?

[StrangeSox]

And because more Americans live there, they should always have the biggest say, right? I'll take note of this for any arguments that you make in favor of minority rights.

 

Also, let's take a look at a map:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...tical_landscape

 

Just Google rural vs metro concerns and you have a whole list.

 

I answered your question already about getting a more diverse representation from the whole nation. It has been ignored.

 

I see an awful lot of solid-red "country" landscape there, meaning it gets ignored because it's solidly for one side and the individual votes don't really matter.

 

Ohio is the 7th-most populous state in the country. Simply by fluke of what the current political makeup of the population is, Ohio may very well decide the election and individual voters in that state have tremendous influence. How does the EC benefit rural states, which are by-and-large solidly red, in this case?

[southsider2k5]

That's not really analogous to what I said.

 

Why should individual Ohio voters (in both rural and urban areas) have the power of being in what's most likely to be the deciding state while rural voters in Illinois will essentially have no voice?

 

edit: It's also not a "select group" but a "majority of the citizens of the country" who, generally speaking, choose where they want to live. I can decide if I want to live in Chicago or Strawn and which issues I care about regardless of where I live. What I can't do is choose that my state is close enough that my vote will have any meaningful impact on the race.

 

On one hand you equate the ability to vote how you want, but because most of the state has a specific opinion that doesn't change it somehow negates that voice. That won't change if you get rid of the electoral college. Blocks of people will still hold over-representation based on certain specialized demographics. Just the boundaries of how those inequities get expressed will change.

[vandy125]

That's not really analogous to what I said.

 

Why should individual Ohio voters (in both rural and urban areas) have the power of being in what's most likely to be the deciding state while rural voters in Illinois will essentially have no voice?

 

edit: It's also not a "select group" but a "majority of the citizens of the country" who, generally speaking, choose where they want to live. I can decide if I want to live in Chicago or Strawn and which issues I care about regardless of where I live. What I can't do is choose that my state is close enough that my vote will have any meaningful impact on the race.

So, you can choose where to live, but not where you live?...

 

Anyhow, it is a select group because metropolitan people have different issues and concerns that they deal with compared to rural people. So, they have certain concerns that are selected out of a larger subset of possible concerns.

 

If you really wanted diversity, you would strive to get more diverse opinions on the issues from a wider range of groups. Instead this is more of a how come "MY" opinion doesn't count more than it already does? Why does someone with a different viewpoint have an affect on what "I" want? It's a good thing to have more viewpoints. That's my opinion as to why the electoral college appears to help out with that (I haven't looked at Jake's responses yet, but I am all for anything that advances a wider range of diverse opinions being heard).