StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) 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. That boundary will change from state to nation. That's an important distinction for a national office. What actual benefit does the EC provide here? Rural states are still mostly ignored because they're solidly Republican. Rural areas in strongly-democratic states are largely ignored because it doesn't matter if you get 49.9% and your opponent gets 50.1%, they win every EC vote. Urban areas in strongly-Republican states are ignored for the same reason. Focus is instead given to states that just happen to have a close split politically in this particular race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) So, you can choose where to live, but not where you live?... Swing-states change. Should I move to another state every four years based on what polls shows may be a swing-state? Why shouldn't I have equal say in the Presidency regardless of where I 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. But there's nobody doing this "selecting." Everyone gets one vote regardless of where you live and what your concerns are. The voting population is self-selecting what issues are the most important. That is the core of democracy. 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). I don't see how the EC actually advances any new viewpoints and I haven't seen any good arguments in this thread for that case. What viewpoints does focusing so heavily on Ohio bring (11.5M) that having some campaigning in Illinois (12.8M) wouldn't? Why should Romney have to write off every Republican vote in Illinois and ignore the state entirely? What good does this do for anyone besides those who happen to be living in what is a swing-state in this particular election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) 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? It shows the system has flaws, not that the system is rotten. If the system saw wholesale changes of votes that legitimately didn't represent what people voted for, then we could talk. It also ignores that a true one vote system without any built in protections would have its flaws as well. It wouldn't mean the whole system was "rotten". In the last 20 (1992-2008, or five elections) years exactly one electoral college vote wasn't cast for the person it was supposed to be cast for. That is one out of 2675 votes. As far as I can tell 156 votes have been changed in the entire history of the electoral college. 30 of them were because of a Vice President, which is no longer separately contested as it used to be. Since 1900 all of 16 votes have been unfaithfully cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) That boundary will change from state to nation. That's an important distinction for a national office. What actual benefit does the EC provide here? Rural states are still mostly ignored because they're solidly Republican. Rural areas in strongly-democratic states are largely ignored because it doesn't matter if you get 49.9% and your opponent gets 50.1%, they win every EC vote. Urban areas in strongly-Republican states are ignored for the same reason. Focus is instead given to states that just happen to have a close split politically in this particular race. It will change from state to region/urban area. It won't be "national" because we do not have a uniform population distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 How people are "distributed" is irrelevant for a single, national office. The best and only way to give every person the same rights and same weight is to have one vote equal one vote. All the other arguments about urban vs rural, etc., are just political plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) It will change from state to region/urban area. It won't be "national" because we do not have a uniform population distribution. It will be the very definition of national to have a simple popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) It will change from state to region/urban area. It won't be "national" because we do not have a uniform population distribution. It will change to "where actual people actually vote because they're people." Your vote will have the exact same impact regardless of where you live. That more people live in urban areas than rural areas is a tautology and doesn't change the actual impact of your individual vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) How people are "distributed" is irrelevant for a single, national office. The best and only way to give every person the same rights and same weight is to have one vote equal one vote. All the other arguments about urban vs rural, etc., are just political plays. In theory, sure. In reality, never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) It will change to "where actual people actually vote because they're people." Your vote will have the exact same impact regardless of where you live. That more people live in urban areas than rural areas is a tautology and doesn't change the actual impact of your individual vote. If your actual vote isn't for a majority population theory, then yes, your impact would be just at muted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 08:58 PM) 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). There is no diverse options right now. Every debate is dominated by coal and manufacturing. Tailoring all our elections to these two industries is ridiculous. If they paid more attention to the problems of companies in San Franciso and New York you'd see a lot better policies. But regardless, the idea that cities are a homogenous voting class is ridiculous. Dallas is not the same as Seattle, Portland is not the same as Washington DC. Yet all are marginalized in the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) If your actual vote isn't for a majority population theory, then yes, your impact would be just at muted. Will a Republican living in Illinois have a meaningful vote in this year's Presidential election? Would they in a national election system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) There is no diverse options right now. Every debate is dominated by coal and manufacturing. Tailoring all our elections to these two industries is ridiculous. If they paid more attention to the problems of companies in San Franciso and New York you'd see a lot better policies. But regardless, the idea that cities are a homogenous voting class is ridiculous. Dallas is not the same as Seattle, Portland is not the same as Washington DC. Yet all are marginalized in the current system. Only because of what states happen to be contested this round, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) In theory, sure. In reality, never. Can you expand on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:11 PM) Will a Republican living in Illinois have a meaningful vote in this year's Presidential election? Would they in a national election system? Would a fiscal conservative and social liberal have a voice in the one vote system? No. So what changes for them? In your world view, their vote has no meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:12 PM) Can you expand on this? As I have said a million times, there still won't be equal weight to votes for many reasons. Go back and read the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) Would a fiscal conservative and social liberal have a voice in the one vote system? No. So what changes for them? In your world view, their vote has no meaning. Yes, they would. They would have exactly the same voice as everyone else. In winner-take-all EC votes, they do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) As I have said a million times, there still won't be equal weight to votes for many reasons. Go back and read the thread. I haven't seen you actually make an argument aside from population density ones. Why should where I happen to live dictate the power of my individual vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) Swing-states change. Should I move to another state every four years based on what polls shows may be a swing-state? Why shouldn't I have equal say in the Presidency regardless of where I live? But there's nobody doing this "selecting." Everyone gets one vote regardless of where you live and what your concerns are. The voting population is self-selecting what issues are the most important. That is the core of democracy. I don't see how the EC actually advances any new viewpoints and I haven't seen any good arguments in this thread for that case. What viewpoints does focusing so heavily on Ohio bring (11.5M) that having some campaigning in Illinois (12.8M) wouldn't? Why should Romney have to write off every Republican vote in Illinois and ignore the state entirely? What good does this do for anyone besides those who happen to be living in what is a swing-state in this particular election? Illinois Urban % - 88.49 Ohio Urban % - 77.92 http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html There are some interesting statistics out there. In the whole US population, 80% lives in Urban locations. It would be very easy to override any concerns that a rural area would have (ie farming). IMO the EC flattens out the curve so that the biggest loudest group doesn't always override what could be very legitimate concerns from another segment of the population. Everybody's voice should be heard regardless of whether or not there is a bigger group advocating their voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Where is the evidence of the EC actually doing that, though? What issues are brought to the table by focusing so much on Ohio and Pennsylvania and Nevada, and what other issues important to the other 90% of America are ignored or overridden because of that? The swing-states in this election are relatively populous states, not rural farming states. And on top of that, states like California and Illinois have an awful lot of farming themselves but are otherwise ignored. Edited October 23, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:15 PM) Yes, they would. They would have exactly the same voice as everyone else. In winner-take-all EC votes, they do not. The election is still a winner take all process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) The election is still a winner take all process. Well, yeah. There can only be one winner of an elected office. Why throw additional and arbitrary "winner-take-all" steps in the process, though? It only distorts the value of each individual vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) Well, yeah. There can only be one winner of an elected office. Why throw additional and arbitrary "winner-take-all" steps in the process, though? It only distorts the value of each individual vote. Which has been purposefully done all over the US governance system as a protection of minority rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) Which has been purposefully done all over the US governance system as a protection of minority rights. Examples? Aside from the US Senate, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:37 PM) Examples? Aside from the US Senate, of course. Anti-Discrimination laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) I think if you got rid of the electoral college, you would just disenfranchise a different sector of the country. I have said before that we as a country did built in minority (as in not the majority of the votes) protections. I think the electoral college was another method, much like the senate, to try to limit the power of urban areas in a country that has a large agrarian history. btw this was not the original intention nor usage of the EC. What we do now, with political parties and nominees and electors selected by popular vote, is not at all similar to what was first put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts