electorate and people's votes [Archive]

erole

10-15-2003, 07:26 PM

may have been discussed before...but indulge me here.
after this whole thing about the under God discussion...Gore won the popular vote, but Bush gets the trump card with the electorate.
now I know the peoples view is reflected in who they elect and how the electors elect, but hold the phone. shouldn't the people hold that trump card. if more people vote for the next president then the electorate is moot.
it seems to make more sense to me. don't abolish the electorate, but rather have the people's vote count more because this is what we're all about.
we stuck 'under God' in, now we want to take it out. how about something else, turn the vote power around.
Someone help me out with this old argument. Maybe someone can describe why the electorate holds more power than the vote count in a constitutional sense.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hometown.aol.com/frigginbooger/myhomepage/rensig.jpg">
~he knows a little

Doogie

10-15-2003, 07:48 PM

Gore won the popular vote, but Bush gets the trump card with the electorate.

Gore is not the first nor the last prez to win the popular but lose the electorate. It has been happening for years. Hell in the early days there were sometimes ties or no majority winners. It happened to Thomas Jefferson in his 2nd bid for Presidency (His 1st he became VP under the old election system), where the vote went to the house. And due to instincts on the personal agenda of Aaron Burr from Alexander Hamilton, led to Jefferson's election. And to the 12th amendment seperating the voting for Prez and VP.

It happened again in 1824 when Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the electorate college. Correction. He didnt win a majority of the electorate college. Vote went to house, John Quincy Adams "logrolled" and won presidency.

There are other elections that I am not listing, but the electorate was a way of keeping balance and control over the southern states. Since it has been used since 1789 it is our tradition, albeit it is a lil screwed up. I think reforms are in order with the electorate, but for the most part it does work.

***interesting lil side note, Of the father/son, grandfather/grandson combos that have been elected. They both have served only one term. John Adams was the 1st one term prez and so was his son. William Henry Harrison ("Ole Tippacanoe") was a 1 termer as was his grandson Benjamin Harrison. To be fair though, William Henry died 49 days into his term of office. And George H. Bush is a one termer...so we have to see if history repeats itself...***

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/doogie.gif>
ADF Fan since day one...this sig rocks

TheMojoPin

10-15-2003, 07:53 PM

What are some other freakishly close elections in American history? I know Kennedy vs. Nixon in '60 was about as close as they come...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

shamus mcfitzy

10-15-2003, 08:22 PM

the founding fathers never intended the people to have a real say in elections. Madison primarilly feared that the people would be fooled by charismatic politicians, and therefore he thought national elections should go through the people's representation. He thought that representatives would be noble and vote for the right candidate even if it meant going against the people's votes. That's why we were to become a republic and not a democracy.

Doogie

10-15-2003, 08:26 PM

Give me two secs to look up in my Book Mojo, but Kennedy/Nixon was as close as 500,000 votes in Kennedy's favor. The controversy was in Mayor Daly of Chicago apparently allowing 200,000 dead people vote

EDIT: Here is a composite of the 1824 election, enjoy while I gather my info.

<img src=http://www.utep.edu/kc3312/clymer/images/big29.jpg width=500 height=300>

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/doogie.gif>
ADF Fan since day one...this sig rocks

This message was edited by Doogie76 on 10-16-03 @ 12:30 AM

A.J.

10-16-2003, 04:53 AM

What are some other freakishly close elections in American history?

The one that is most often compared to the 2000 election:

The Election of 1876 (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h221.html)

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

TheMojoPin

10-16-2003, 06:38 AM

TILDEN'S A RAILROAD-LOVER!!!

I knew about the shadiness in Chicago in the 1960 election, but I had always heard that there was question as to how many of the votes were legit in West Virginia, too...that the mob had played a few "favors" there for JFK's dad...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

phixion

10-16-2003, 06:45 AM

the electoral college was included to the constitution to keep stupid people from voting, or to make sure their vote doesnt mean that much. but now, we as a nation are more intelligent than what we were once. thusly, theres no point to the electoral college in this day and age.

<IMG SRC="http://www.southparkx.net/images/fbad.gif">
"Go sit on the toilet and pull and tug on your weiner until white stuff comes out."

erole

10-16-2003, 06:29 PM

To be fair though, William Henry died 49 days into his term of office.

That's totally fair. If I was President for only 49 days...like it or not ya'll are callin' me Mr. President. If I played hide the salami with the Olson twins for 49 minutes...hey, I'm going to be called Mr. Lucky Bastard for the rest of my life. If I was in a room alone with Pedro Martinez with a hammer in my hand for 49 seconds...I'm calling the shots on the rest of his career via a broken, mangled hand. Oh it's fair.

Madison primarilly feared that the people would be fooled by charismatic politicians, and therefore he thought national elections should go through the people's representation. He thought that representatives would be noble and vote for the right candidate even if it meant going against the people's votes. That's why we were to become a republic and not a democracy.

but now, we as a nation are more intelligent than what we were once. thusly, theres no point to the electoral college in this day and age.

So far I think I'm on a good track. Damn you guys are the History dream team. So basically, with the growth of America and the growth and education of it's people, it is safe to assume the free people of the United States are ready for a mature change in the election process.
Now the electorate and it's power (because it is historically proven to be power at times) is Constitutional correct? Could this process be reversed by Amendment?

<IMG SRC="http://members.hometown.aol.com/frigginbooger/myhomepage/rensig.jpg">
~he knows a little

furie

10-16-2003, 06:34 PM

I too am tired of people mentioning the fact that bush didn't win the popular vote. It's happened many times before. I posted a link to a page that listed all the close elections, but now can't find the thread. oh well.

I like the electoral college, because like our founding fathers, I don't trust the public to make their own decisions.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/asoh.jpg" height=100 width=300>

shamus mcfitzy

10-16-2003, 06:42 PM

Damn you guys are the History dream team.

i call John Stockton.

As far as I know, a change from the electoral college would take 3/4 of the Senate. And small states that get 3 or 4 electoral votes (2 senators and 1 or 2 Reps) would never agree to that, so the electoral college is probably here to stay.

NewYorkDragons80

10-16-2003, 08:49 PM

What are some other freakishly close elections in American history? I know Kennedy vs. Nixon in '60 was about as close as they come...
That was a true moment of grace in Nixon's career. He could have challenged some questionable voting practices in Illinois, but instead opted to take the classy route.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

El Mudo

10-16-2003, 09:11 PM

thusly, theres no point to the electoral college in this day and age.

Of course there is. The electoral college makes every state important. If we went by simple majority, why would candidates bother to worry about smaller states? They would just spend their time among the big population centres of the country and millions of people would basically be disenfranchised simply because the population of their state isn't very high...

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

erole

10-17-2003, 05:09 PM

Of course there is. The electoral college makes every state important. If we went by simple majority, why would candidates bother to worry about smaller states? They would just spend their time among the big population centres of the country and millions of people would basically be disenfranchised simply because the population of their state isn't very high...

It's a good point, but the small states have small electoral votes don't they? And at election night, all people seem to care about is the big states with the big votes. The small states can sway the election when it's close. 'Course not all the time. But, wouldn't be the same with the popular vote? Campaign hard in the largely populated states...like they do already, and run through the other states decisively...like they do already.
MT - 3 electoral votes
WY - 3
ND - 3
SD - 3

The plan: Combine Montana, Wyoming, and North and South Dakota into the Great State of Wymonkota for a nice 12 votes
I mean, what canidate would really want to go through there? They call it Big Country up there. No. The whole country is a big country. Your just big states with no internet access.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hometown.aol.com/frigginbooger/myhomepage/rensig.jpg">
~he knows a little

TooCute

10-17-2003, 05:51 PM

Of course there is. The electoral college makes every state important. If we went by simple majority, why would candidates bother to worry about smaller states?

But that's kind of the point. Where the candidates "bother to worry about" is irrelevant. Eliminating the electoral college would make everyone's vote equal.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute2.gif">

furie

10-17-2003, 06:10 PM

I don't think everyone's vote should be equal. I want candidates paying more attention to NY , CA, and TX than RI or WY, and deservedly so. Large states contribute more to the whole.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/furie.jpg" height=100 width=300>

TooCute

10-17-2003, 07:41 PM

WOO HOO!!
I live in NY so I'm more important!

TAKE THAT, YOU NEW JERSEYITES!

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute2.gif">

jamesdiggy

10-17-2003, 07:46 PM

So size does matter? Damn you Dr. Ruth. Time for some Electoral Elongate.

<IMG SRC="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/diggy.gif">

A Ted Knight in Shining Armor
I am now blessed with an ADF sigpic

El Mudo

10-17-2003, 07:48 PM

The plan: Combine Montana, Wyoming, and North and South Dakota into the Great State of Wymonkota for a nice 12 votes
I mean, what canidate would really want to go through there? They call it Big Country up there. No. The whole country is a big country. Your just big states with no internet access.

The sum equals to the whole part.....You can win Cali, NY, Penn, and Ohio, and still lose the election like Gore did...those small states add up....

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

TheMojoPin

10-17-2003, 07:51 PM

Middle America doesn't count.

All those farmers on the federal teet, getting paid NOT to farm...fuckin' pinkos...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Se7en

10-17-2003, 10:22 PM

Eliminating the electoral college would make everyone's vote equal.

No, actually, it would not.

As I explained here:

It's the very first post even. (http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/87/Topic/31447/currentpage/5/page/Bush_administration_officials_out_CIA_operative.ht m#bottom)

All a presidential candidate would need to do campaign in and "win big" in the top ten most populous states, with marginal showing in the other 40, to win the election.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

HBox

10-18-2003, 08:04 AM

The current all-or-nothing system would count a win in a state for the same amount of electoral votes regardless of the margin of victory. Whether a candidate wins by one vote or one million, it doesn't matter, the outcome is the same. So, the bigger the margin of victory, the less a vote counts.

And don't talk about ignoring areas. Exactly how much time do you think these candidates are spending in Montana and Wyoming right now? But I'll tell you about areas that are being ignored. I remember one or two token visits by Bush and Gore in NJ in 2000. How much time do you think was spent campaigning in Texas? Zilch. Why would either waste their time in a state where they know the outcome? The only states that are paid any attention are states in play.

Under the current system, states where the vote is anticipated to be close are the only ones paid major attention. States like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Illinois will see lots of campaigning. States like NY, NJ, TX, and Washington will be largely ignored.

In a popular vote system, I think that would be different.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

TooCute

10-18-2003, 09:10 AM

All a presidential candidate would need to do campaign in and "win big" in the top ten most populous states, with marginal showing in the other 40, to win the election

If we were to go by strict popular vote, the density of voters in an area still would not make any single person's vote more or less important. The actual voters themselves are all equal. You're making the point that the areas which are densest in voters will be the most important for candidates to campaign in. This still does not mean that the votes themselves do not carry equal weight.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute2.gif">

furie

10-18-2003, 09:16 AM

It's the very first post even.

assuming of course you've set your prefrences to show 25 posts per page and not some other number.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/furie.jpg" height=100 width=300>

Doogie

10-18-2003, 10:11 AM

Damn you guys are the History dream team

If this is so then I am the Joe DiMaggio of the team. Making sure that all my facts and figures are as accurate as possible. A perfectionist...

EDIT: Love or hate the guy you gotta love this helatial asswhomping laid down by Ronnie in the 1984 election...

<img src=http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1984.gif>

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/doogie.gif>
ADF Fan since day one...this sig rocks

This message was edited by Doogie76 on 10-18-03 @ 2:14 PM

TheMojoPin

10-18-2003, 03:02 PM

All a presidential candidate would need to do campaign in and "win big" in the top ten most populous states, with marginal showing in the other 40, to win the election.

But aren't they the "top ten" for a REASON? More people, more money, more important...it IS that simple. All states are NOT created equal...

And let's stop fooling ourselves on this "campaigning" bunk. In this mass-media age, the majority of the public gets their dose of the candidates in ANY election, even local ones, from the TV, radio, newspapers or internet, NOT in person. These outlets can potentially reach every single voter in America, with the probable exception of the lowest percent...so unless we're catering the entire system to the lowest of the low (Wow, what a liberal state of mind...curious...), I just don't get why it's still practical.

And on the same topic, kinda...which president won the office by the largest electoral (or individual vote) margin? Reagan obviously whomped ass in '84, but I could swear it was actually Nixon when he won his second term...which would make the reasoning behind what caused his downfall so much more horribly ironic...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 10-18-03 @ 7:05 PM

NewYorkDragons80

10-18-2003, 03:55 PM

I think LBJ had the biggest Electoral Margin, but I could be wrong.

The electoral college is a good system, IMO, it just needs some serious reforms. The current system discourages a Republican in NY, like myself, or a Democrat in Oklahoma from voting. However, the idea of regional electorates is an intelligent concept. I just don't think it should be "all or nothing" when it comes to states. Instead, it should be divided up among congressional districts. Candidates win one electoral vote if they win the majority of a congressional district. If they earn the majority of votes in a state, it is worth 2 electoral votes. It prevents the alienation of middle America, while at the same time ensuring that the votes of all Americans is equal (or at least as equal as their Congressional representation).

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

phixion

10-18-2003, 05:15 PM

All states are NOT created equal

but the founding fathers wanted some kind of balance. thats the reason for us having a 2 house legislature. in the senate each state has 2 representatives no matter their size, economic stature, or population. but in the house the states with large populations have more representatives. their should be some kind of balance, similar to this in voting. but i myself lean toward a popular vote, heres why: i myself will most likely never have to vote. im a democrat, no surprise there, but NY usually votes democratic in presidential elections so my vote means nothing really since my candidate is already getting NY's votes. now if we had a popular vote id get my ass to the polls. because my vote means as much as some dumbass in mississippi.

more voters=more gooder

<IMG SRC="http://www.southparkx.net/images/fbad.gif">
"Go sit on the toilet and pull and tug on your weiner until white stuff comes out."

HBox

10-18-2003, 05:35 PM

1. California - 33 million.
2. Texas - 20 million.
3. New York - 18 million.
4. Florida - 15 million.
5. Illinois - 12 million.
6. Pennsylvania - 12 million
7. Ohio - 11 million.
8. Michigan - 9 million
9. New Jersey - 8 million.
10. Georgia - 8 million.

Another thing I was thinking about. There are some very diverse staes up there. Let's just look at California and Texas. I don't think you can find two states as opposite as Texas and California. If a candidate wins big in those two states, its a pretty good sign that the election would be a landslide no matter which system you use.

And its pretty ironic that the three biggest, most important states were largely ignored in the last election. Texas was Bush country, and Gore won California and New York easily. And its likely to remain that way in 2004. Meanwhile, most of the campaign time and cash will be poured into states 4 through 8.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

TheMojoPin

10-18-2003, 05:42 PM

I still can't wrap my head around how one person=one vote would put anyone at a disservice. Like I said, modern campaigning is focused on media outlets, not in person. The idea that a candidate needs to travel from city to city and even state to state is woefully outdated...which is apparent by how little the candidates do it and only focus on the "key" states anyway. If a single vote holds more weight, wouldn't this encourage MORE broad campaigning? And wouldn't an individual voter only lose any "power" if they chose NOT to vote?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

NewYorkDragons80

10-18-2003, 08:32 PM

Yes, we live in an age where our nation "shrinks" due to modern technology. However, the reality is that the candidate who campaigns locally gives his or herself the opportunity to address issues unique to that region and it does make an impression on that community that television can't.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

El Mudo

10-19-2003, 04:49 PM

more voters=more gooder

meh....that just means more indifferent people that don't care enough to vote....the turnout in elections in this country are laughably low...to use an example i was reading in my 20th Century history class about some of the elections in Germany in the 20's, and they got something like 88% turnout, even if those Weimar governments lasted about 5 seconds each....

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

TheMojoPin

10-19-2003, 06:11 PM

meh....that just means more indifferent people that don't care enough to vote....

And you're basing this assumption on the results of the CURRENT system...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

shamus mcfitzy

10-19-2003, 10:15 PM

States such as Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming - all massive in size, but low in population, less than a million each - would be absolutely fucked. If everyone in those three states voted unanimously for one candidate, their votes COMBINED would still be insufficient to cancel out all of the potential voters in California alone. Their voices would most definitely not be heard.

well if you don't use California in that example and use NH, then essentially 51% of New Hampshirans (?) have more clout than 90% of Alaskans for example. I'm all for state unity, but i think that it should stop in the Senate if we want to call ourselves a true democracy.

Also, Bush and Gore were fighting for the Hispanic vote for the early part of the campaign and therefore were obviously valuing Hispanic votes over those of other racial groups. If a candidate gets the Hispanic vote in a state they could essentially win an election because of the swing that they would get in their favor. So i'd say in many states racial groups are totally losing their vote.

And I think the largest differential in electoral college votes would have to be either Washington (who got a unanimous vote) or if you look at post-12th Amendment elections, Monroe, who would've gotten elected I believe 170-0, if one representative didn't want to preserve Washington's election as the only unanimous one.

furie

10-20-2003, 06:33 AM

in the Senate if we want to call ourselves a true democracy.

The US is not a democracy, doesn't even pretend to be one. We live in a Republic.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/tjfurie.jpg" height=100 width=300>

TooCute

10-20-2003, 07:01 AM

well if you don't use California in that example and use NH, then essentially 51% of New Hampshirans (?) have more clout than 90% of Alaskans for example

Except that New Hampshire has a higher population than Alaska does. What matters in this discussion is do 100 residents of New Hampshire have more clout that 100 residents of Alaska?

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute2.gif">

high fly

10-20-2003, 12:02 PM

Uhhhhhhhhh.

Damn, TOOCUTE always has them tough questions....

" and they ask me why I drink"

shamus mcfitzy

10-20-2003, 06:49 PM

furie, then why would 90% or more of the population call us a democracy. I was just discrediting one of the stupider arguments against the electoral college in saying that.

TooCute, that's what I was getting at. I just used a bad comparison. 51% of Alaskans have as much power as 90% New Hampshirans works the same way for my argument. I'm saying that 100 people of one state can have more power than 100 of another if the state they vote in has a clear majority versus a contested election. Which is what you're saying I think. The (?) was for the term that describes someone from New Hampshire.

El Mudo

10-20-2003, 08:33 PM

furie, then why would 90% or more of the population call us a democracy

We live in a "representative democracy" which is the same as a republic. He meant that we don't live in a "true" democracy, which would require a unanimous vote by the people on every single piece of legislation proposed, which is a practical impossiblity due to the size(geographically and population wise) and logistics of our country. That's why we elect people to "represent" us at the goverment level to propose/enact legislation

When the New Jersey compromise happened(the using of population of states to determine House representation and the Senate as equal) it was because small states feared their voices wouldn't be heard. I mean, states like Wyoming and Montana really don't have too many people in them, but their votes and voices should count just as much as those who live in DC, and that's why we've got to stick with the electoral college

http://www.csa-dixie.com/cflagt.jpg
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

TheMojoPin

10-20-2003, 11:45 PM

I mean, states like Wyoming and Montana really don't have too many people in them, but their votes and voices should count just as much as those who live in DC, and that's why we've got to stick with the electoral college

Why can't anyone explain to me how if I vote in, say, Virignia in one election, and then in Montana the next, that I somehow lose the "power" of my individual vote if there's no electoral college? I vote, it's counted, boom, done. So I supposedly missed out on some face-to-face campaigning by the candidate...so what?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

shamus mcfitzy

10-21-2003, 12:16 AM

We live in a "representative democracy" which is the same as a republic. He meant that we don't live in a "true" democracy, which would require a unanimous vote by the people on every single piece of legislation proposed, which is a practical impossiblity due to the size(geographically and population wise) and logistics of our country. That's why we elect people to "represent" us at the goverment level to propose/enact legislation

I know that. My comment had nothing to do with any argument for or against the electoral college. I even said earlier in the thread that we're a republic. I was merely making a comment about how people in this country don't know that we're a republic. I was saying that the national elections that those people vote in totally reflect a republic and therefore they should know better and that more state equality would make us even less of a democracy.

And the electoral college stays around for no other reason than the fact that small states have a larger say in the country than they really deserve. 100 of the electoral college votes are based solely on the fact that we have 50 states and I think that has gotten lost in the thread. Only 440 votes are actually based on population distribution and the remaining 100 are why the electoral college stays. Winning Alaska and other small states is the whole reason why Bush won the electoral college and Gore won the popular vote. If you eliminate the senators' votes then Gore would've won the election 225-211 in the electoral college. Right now someone in Wyoming actually gets 3.64 times the vote of someone in California as shown here (banzhaf.net/ec2000.html)

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 10-21-03 @ 4:24 AM

TheMojoPin

10-21-2003, 12:34 AM

then Gore would've won the election

BLARGH!

<img src="http://www.meditech.com/tsonneborn/vomit.jpg"width=450>

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

shamus mcfitzy

10-21-2003, 12:41 AM

i'm not saying that's a good thing, just a true thing.

furie

10-21-2003, 08:05 AM

furie, then why would 90% or more of the population call us a democracy.

Ignorance.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/tjfurie.jpg" height=100 width=300>

TooCute

10-21-2003, 08:47 AM

I'm saying that 100 people of one state can have more power than 100 of another if the state they vote in has a clear majority versus a contested election

I know. I was clarifying. If you haven't figured it out, I like to ask quetsions so people have to figure it out for themselves.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute2.gif">

shamus mcfitzy

10-21-2003, 07:02 PM

furie, then why would 90% or more of the population call us a democracy.

Ignorance.

yeah it is.

I like to ask quetsions so people have to figure it out for themselves.

who are you to question people? :)

UnknownPD

10-22-2003, 10:24 AM

And the electoral college stays around for no other reason than the fact that small states have a larger say in the country than they really deserve

To say that the small states don't deserve this "larger" say is a misunderstanding. If the smaller states did not have this bigger say they would have no reason to continue being a part of the "United" states.
This differential in the electoral college gives the smaller states the opportunity to not be overwhelmed by the more populous states.
If there were no electoral college differential then states like Montana or the Dakotas would never have any chance of affecting the outcome of a presidential election and therefore no reason to continue to be part of the country. Their interests would not be represented and the larger states could easily dump on them. The makeup of the electoral college is a way to level the playing field.

TooCute

10-22-2003, 11:12 AM

If there were no electoral college differential then states like Montana or the Dakotas would never have any chance of affecting the outcome of a presidential election and therefore no reason to continue to be part of the country.

Meanwhile, in the cases where the majority of people vote for a candidate but just happen to be in certain state when they vote, they affected th outcome of a presidential election right?

If almost nobody lives in Wyoming or Alaska, why should those people have a chance to affect the outcome of an election when someone from New York doens't? Because they live in a state where there aren't any people? Yes, I suppose a less populous state is more important than a populous one.

If I'd voted for Gore in the last election (which I didn't), yeah, I'd be trying to secede right now. No, I'd have no reason to stay part of this country. Nosiree Bob.

wow, am I inarticulate today or what?

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute2.gif">

shamus mcfitzy

10-22-2003, 11:32 AM

To say that the small states don't deserve this "larger" say is a misunderstanding.

nope that's an opinion

If the smaller states did not have this bigger say they would have no reason to continue being a part of the "United" states.
This differential in the electoral college gives the smaller states the opportunity to not be overwhelmed by the more populous states.
If there were no electoral college differential then states like Montana or the Dakotas would never have any chance of affecting the outcome of a presidential election and therefore no reason to continue to be part of the country. Their interests would not be represented and the larger states could easily dump on them. The makeup of the electoral college is a way to level the playing field.

this is isn't 1795, it's not like seceding can even be a threat anymore. Montana and the Dakotas aren't going to join Canada. And the people of these states (who I believe should have more power than thei states themselves) will have power of an election, just their share and not an inordinate amount of power. There's no reason that someone from Wyoming should have the power of 3.64 Californians (more if you consider that Californian is an automatic Democratic win most of the time.)

TheMojoPin

10-22-2003, 12:04 PM

If one vote equals one vote, why would it matter where I voted from in this country?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

high fly

10-22-2003, 01:14 PM

There you go again with your damned common sense again, MOJO, just when things were getting ridiculously snarled and confusing.

Thanks, for nothing!

" and they ask me why I drink"

furie

10-22-2003, 01:20 PM

If one vote equals one vote, why would it matter where I voted from in this country?

Because then, candidates would be even less inclined to pay attention to area of a small population. And I don't mean, "pay attention" in terms of the campaign. Candidates plan to run for president long before they actually run. So a senator might make themselves instrumental in a package effecting a large populated area well outside of his/her state, so that their name was in the paper in that effected state in a favorable way, in the hopes that the population will remember it and vote accordingly.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/tjfurie.jpg" height=100 width=300>

shamus mcfitzy

10-22-2003, 01:33 PM

Because then, candidates would be even less inclined to pay attention to area of a small population.

why should they be inclined to pay attention to a small population? It's a small population. Ultimately I don't think that states are so different that a Montanian couldn't relate to a Dakotan. I know that I feel comradery with someone from Connecticuit and to a greater extent someone from NJ. Ultimately the thinly populated states in the Midwest vote as a bloc anyway. I can understand their worries, but they wouldn't lose all that much power. A president couldn't be effective if he was completely ignoring the small states once he took office so ultimately they'd have nothing to worry about. It seems like less of a fear issue and more of a power issue.

high fly

10-22-2003, 02:14 PM

Most of the states with small populations have a large percentage of ranchers and/or farmers. I like for them to not be ignored.

" and they ask me why I drink"

CaptClown

10-22-2003, 02:26 PM

If one vote equals one vote, why would it matter where I voted from in this country?

For the determination of pork your reps and senators can get for your district. That way they can say, "See what I did for my district. Don't I deserve to get re-elected and give myself a raise again?"

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

This message was edited by CaptClown on 10-22-03 @ 6:28 PM

TooCute

10-22-2003, 03:53 PM

Great, this is going in circles and circles. Someone somewhere apparently isn't understanding the other side's statements.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute2.gif">

furie

10-22-2003, 04:09 PM

why should they be inclined to pay attention to a small population? It's a small population. Ultimately I don't think that states are so different that a Montanian couldn't relate to a Dakotan. I know that I feel comradery with someone from Connecticuit and to a greater extent someone from NJ. Ultimately the thinly populated states in the Midwest vote as a bloc anyway. I can understand their worries, but they wouldn't lose all that much power. A president couldn't be effective if he was completely ignoring the small states once he took office so ultimately they'd have nothing to worry about. It seems like less of a fear issue and more of a power issue.

what the hell are you talking about? if you're going to quote my posts, please read them too. When did I say people from other states can't relate? ofcourse we can relate. We're all Americans.
I'm talking about the allocation of funds by candidates looking to gain favor.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/tjfurie.jpg" height=100 width=300>

TheMojoPin

10-22-2003, 07:57 PM

Because then, candidates would be even less inclined to pay attention to area of a small population. And I don't mean, "pay attention" in terms of the campaign. Candidates plan to run for president long before they actually run. So a senator might make themselves instrumental in a package effecting a large populated area well outside of his/her state, so that their name was in the paper in that effected state in a favorable way, in the hopes that the population will remember it and vote accordingly.

Which is different from what we have now...how? Most of the major states, as alreayd stated, tend to vote one way or the other. So those states are usually dicked over because they're considered "gimme's".

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

shamus mcfitzy

10-22-2003, 10:53 PM

I'm talking about the allocation of funds by candidates looking to gain favor.

i don't think you ever came out and said that. And if you did I'm sorry. I still don't think that giving small states power is a bigger issue than taking away the equality of the people's votes.

furie

10-23-2003, 05:46 AM

Which is different from what we have now...how?

sigh...toocute's right. we're going in circles.

it's diffrent from what we have now because, wyoming, new hampshire, etc are "worth more" under the electoral college than they would be 1 man 1 vote. therefore, a candidate is more apt to parly favor with the low population states.

i don't think you ever came out and said that.

i didn't use the phrase allocation of funds. but I still explained it as such. I still don't know where you got the "we can't relate" thing.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/tjfurie.jpg" height=100 width=300>

This message was edited by furie on 10-23-03 @ 9:50 AM

Doogie

10-23-2003, 06:26 AM

Alrighty I have been reading everyones arguments and what not, and have gotten a headache reading it all. Lay out the main questions that you would like me to answer regarding the electorate and people's voting. As I have a lot of knowledge on the electorate and the history of it, and I will attempt to answer all questions...

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/doogie.gif>
ADF Fan since day one...this sig rocks

TheMojoPin

10-23-2003, 07:38 AM

furie

10-23-2003, 09:48 AM

therefore, a candidate is more apt to parly favor with the low population states.

How is that happening NOW?

I will readily admit, I just do NOT get this at all. If a state is broken from being an entity of electorate votes to individual votes, how could a candidate cater to them? Look at California and it's recent election...wouldn't divesting it of its electorate votes make it a MORE viable state for ALL candidates as opposed to jsut a Democratic gimme?

there's that circle again. I've answered this already.

You're taking that quote out of context. My point has been, that if it was one man one vote, then area's with a smaller population density would suffer as compared to the current system because: candidates plan their run for the presidency early. They start making themselves nationally know months and years before running. A candidate will often help pass legislation, help out a neighboring state, whatever, to get his/ her name known. They'll help get funds allocated to a depressed area with a lot of electoral votes or a swing state.

I'll give you an example. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) is based out of Georgia and New Mexico. Why then did house democrats push to have a new FLETC base opened up in NC outside of Charleston? To dump tens of millions into a sagging area, to gain favor with the local population. No other reason. That base was used only for the Boarder Patrol, and I can't imagine a worse place for them to train than NC. This is the type of action I'm talking about.

If we did away with the electoral one thing that might happen, is that the same tactic would be employed with a change. Instead of placing these types of packages in small swing states that have a disproportionate electoral vote when compared to they're voting power per capita, The powers that be, would try to get more bang with their buck, and impact a higher population density. Swaying the large urban areas, leaving the smaller areas to become disenfranchised, and eventually apathetic.

This scenario is not all that much different from what happens now, just exasperated.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/tjfurie.jpg" height=100 width=300>

high fly

10-23-2003, 11:54 AM

Anyone have the lyrics to "The Circle Game" by Judy Collins?

" and they ask me why I drink"

TheMojoPin

10-23-2003, 01:43 PM

I simply don't get it.

Bigger area...more people...more money...more attention.

It doesn't mean smaller sreas get left in the cold...they just get less attention and money...because they're SMALLER.

Why does that only make sense to me?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox

10-23-2003, 01:49 PM

Anybody who says that smaller areas will be ignored is themselves ignoring a huge point: The Senate. Every state has 2 senators, and some of the biggest, most powerful senators are from small states. John McCain from Arizona, Ted Stevens from Alaska, Tom Daschle from South Dakota.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

high fly

10-23-2003, 01:50 PM

That's too easy, too sensible.
Ain't no way to argue, then.

What's gotten into you, MOJO, that you gotta go and make things simple and easy to understand?

(still waiting for those "Circle Game" lyrics.)

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 10-23-03 @ 5:50 PM

furie

10-23-2003, 01:52 PM

your just missing one part. it's not just bigger area more money, smaller area smaller money, with the electorial college, the smaller areas get a disproportion larger vote, giving them more wieght, and they get more of a share of the pie, then they would otherwise get.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/tjfurie.jpg" height=100 width=300>

TheMojoPin

10-23-2003, 01:56 PM

Wait, wait...furie, are you arguing for or againt the electoral college? That last post makes it sound like you're opposed to it, which I am as well, which would make things kinda silly...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."