PDA

View Full Version : Non-Partisan political question... yes it can happen.


Preacher
10-12-2008, 01:21 AM
Please... Read this article concerning how we vote... then give me your opinion.


Personally, even though I am in California, and my converative vote almost NEVER matters, I am completely opposed to this stand.

What do you all think?

And let's keep Obama, McCain, Bush, and Gore out of this.

In other words, what do think about the electoral system METHODOLOGY?

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/11/think-your-vote-matters-think-again/

augustashark
10-12-2008, 01:35 AM
I agree, you live in California and because of the way your state leans your vote will not count. I live in Ohio and it's alittle different here. This has to be one of the cons that comes with living in a lopsided state. Sorry.

Oh yea, I personally don't think the electoral college is going anywhere soon. Just have to live with it. Me I like the the way we do it and to change it it would take a hell of alot.

Preacher
10-12-2008, 01:43 AM
I actually want to keep the electoral college... AND the winner take all idea.

I LIKE the fact that we vote for president by STATE, not by individual. It reminds me that we are NOT a democracy, but a Republic of states that join together to accomplish certain things.

Godfather
10-12-2008, 04:37 PM
One big problem with the Electoral College is you get states like Florida that are grossly incompetent, but they can decide who the most powerful person in the world is.

I also don't like having my vote not count--in my case I'm running up the score in Mississippi for J-Mac but I wish it had more meaning.

Borski
10-12-2008, 04:48 PM
Personally I dont think a candidate thats wins a state by 51% deserves all of the votes from it. I would like to see at least some votes go to the other candidate in a close state.

fansince'76
10-12-2008, 04:51 PM
I would rather have a national popular vote, but since it would take an amendment to the constitution to make the necessary changes for it to happen, I don't see it happening anytime too soon. I don't like the idea of some states being "more important" than others.

Preacher
10-12-2008, 04:58 PM
I would rather have a national popular vote, but since it would take an amendment to the constitution to make the necessary changes for it to happen, I don't see it happening anytime too soon. I don't like the idea of some states being "more important" than others.

I don't see it as more important.... i see it as recognizing two things...

1. The states with a much larger population SHOULD get a little more say (notice I say that even when most of those states go democrat and I am a conservative), but it also puts the small states in a very important position. My fear is that by going to a national vote, candidates can Just hit the I 5 corridor plus the bay area of California, texas, florida, and the East coast. This way they at least have to pay SOME attention to the middle.

2. it recognizes that the primary govt. entities in this nation is NOT the fed. govt, but the state govt.

Of course, this is all my opinion.

X-Terminator
10-12-2008, 04:59 PM
I would rather have a national popular vote, but since it would take an amendment to the constitution to make the necessary changes for it to happen, I don't see it happening anytime too soon. I don't like the idea of some states being "more important" than others.

Problem is, you would still have that situation if you went to a popular vote system. The big states with big populations would still mean more than the little states with small populations, which means the Presidency would be decided by just a handful of states, even fewer states than now. California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois would pretty much decide the Presidency, and the other states would be almost an afterthought. The Electoral College system isn't perfect, but I'd rather stick with it.

fansince'76
10-12-2008, 05:00 PM
My fear is that by going to a national vote, candidates can Just hit the I 5 corridor plus the bay area of California, texas, florida, and the East coast. This way they at least have to pay SOME attention to the middle.

Problem is, you would still have that situation if you went to a popular vote system. The big states with big populations would still mean more than the little states with small populations, which means the Presidency would be decided by just a handful of states, even fewer states than now. California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois would pretty much decide the Presidency, and the other states would be almost an afterthought.

Good points - never really thought of it that way....

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 05:06 PM
Problem is, you would still have that situation if you went to a popular vote system. The big states with big populations would still mean more than the little states with small populations, which means the Presidency would be decided by just a handful of states, even fewer states than now. California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois would pretty much decide the Presidency, and the other states would be almost an afterthought. The Electoral College system isn't perfect, but I'd rather stick with it.

Not so, winning California by 60% still leaves a large number of votes that go to conservatives. Winning those big states big is the only way that you could pull that off...and states like Ohio (though large) are still relatively close in the deciding votes.

I have never liked the Electoral College and never will. If I remember right, there have been several presidents who lost the election even though they had a larger number of votes nationally.

A republic of states is great and all, but the President is not about states...but the head of the nation as an entity...and the electoral college takes away from that IMO.

Why should a small handful of states determine who leads our country?

Preacher
10-12-2008, 05:08 PM
Good points - never really thought of it that way....

That's why these threads are fun....

I am even questioning some of my answers.

Because California comes back into play. It doesn't take 50.001 percent to win the state, just 25 percent instead of 23 percent... in other words, every vote becomes important to directly elect the president.

Hmmm

FS... did we just switch positions here?? :hunch:

Preacher
10-12-2008, 05:10 PM
Not so, winning California by 60% still leaves a large number of votes that go to conservatives. Winning those big states big is the only way that you could pull that off...and states like Ohio (though large) are still relatively close in the deciding votes.

I have never liked the Electoral College and never will. If I remember right, there have been several presidents who lost the election even though they had a larger number of votes nationally.

A republic of states is great and all, but the President is not about states...but the head of the nation as an entity...and the electoral college takes away from that IMO.

Why should a small handful of states determine who leads our country?

Actually, there have only been 2 presidents that won the pop. vote, but lost the election.

The question I would as you is, is the nation the people, or is it the states united? I see it as the states united, not as the people themselves. That is why States rights is so important, because each state can choose to do what they want.

fansince'76
10-12-2008, 05:12 PM
That's why these threads are fun....

I am even questioning some of my answers.

Because California comes back into play. It doesn't take 50.001 percent to win the state, just 25 percent instead of 23 percent... in other words, every vote becomes important to directly elect the president.

Hmmm

FS... did we just switch positions here?? :hunch:

Looks like it. :chuckle:

Seriously though, there are compelling arguments both for and against the Electoral College.

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 05:18 PM
Actually, there have only been 2 presidents that won the pop. vote, but lost the election.

The question I would as you is, is the nation the people, or is it the states united? I see it as the states united, not as the people themselves. That is why States rights is so important, because each state can choose to do what they want.

I knew that there was at least one who had gone through that.

I look at the it like this. There is this phrase that's pretty well known in our history.

We the people...

That alone tells me that there is a difference in Federal and State governments. Because we're electing a leader for the National level, it should be a national vote.

X-Terminator
10-12-2008, 05:22 PM
Not so, winning California by 60% still leaves a large number of votes that go to conservatives. Winning those big states big is the only way that you could pull that off...and states like Ohio (though large) are still relatively close in the deciding votes.

I have never liked the Electoral College and never will. If I remember right, there have been several presidents who lost the election even though they had a larger number of votes nationally.

A republic of states is great and all, but the President is not about states...but the head of the nation as an entity...and the electoral college takes away from that IMO.

Why should a small handful of states determine who leads our country?

But in a state like California, with let's say 20 million registered voters out of 40 million people, an 80-20 split could mean a difference of about 10 million votes. That's a pretty significant number and more total votes than nearly 1/3 of the country combined. To me, it wouldn't make any difference - the number of registered voters in the most populous states would still hold all of the cards if you went to a popular vote. Why would candidates need to campaign in Montana or Wyoming when those states would mean jack when it comes to electing the President? Their votes in the grand scheme of things would mean absolutely nothing, because you'd basically be telling them that they don't matter.

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 05:25 PM
But in a state like California, with let's say 20 million registered voters out of 40 million people, an 80-20 split could mean a difference of about 10 million votes. That's a pretty significant number and more total votes than nearly 1/3 of the country combined. To me, it wouldn't make any difference - the number of registered voters in the most populous states would still hold all of the cards if you went to a popular vote. Why would candidates need to campaign in Montana or Wyoming when those states would mean jack when it comes to electing the President? Their votes in the grand scheme of things would mean absolutely nothing, because you'd basically be telling them that they don't matter.

How much of that 80-20 split is because republicans don't bother to vote at all knowing that their vote doesn't matter?

Also, the electoral college is based (partially) on the size of a states population.

Preacher
10-12-2008, 05:28 PM
How much of that 80-20 split is because republicans don't bother to vote at all knowing that their vote doesn't matter?

Also, the electoral college is based (partially) on the size of a states population.

I gotta admit, that is a VERY fair question.

I know I am going to vote, but feel it is a waste of my time. I am only voting because it IS my civic duty.

MasterOfPuppets
10-12-2008, 05:33 PM
Actually, there have only been 2 presidents that won the pop. vote, but lost the election.

The question I would as you is, is the nation the people, or is it the states united? I see it as the states united, not as the people themselves. That is why States rights is so important, because each state can choose to do what they want.then it should be changed from "we the people" to "we the states" ......:noidea:

X-Terminator
10-12-2008, 05:35 PM
How much of that 80-20 split is because republicans don't bother to vote at all knowing that their vote doesn't matter?

Also, the electoral college is based (partially) on the size of a states population.

That's a good point, especially in California, which is so heavily Democratic that I don't know why Republican presidential candidates even bother running (though Gov. Ahhhh-nold is an R).

Yes, the Electoral College is partially based on state population, but a full national election would cause the same problem, though on a larger scale, IMO, that you say the EC causes. So what do you do? Also, the incidence of voter fraud would grow exponentially if you had a national election - something else to consider.

Preacher
10-12-2008, 05:42 PM
That's a good point, especially in California, which is so heavily Democratic that I don't know why Republican presidential candidates even bother running (though Gov. Ahhhh-nold is an R).

Yes, the Electoral College is partially based on state population, but a full national election would cause the same problem, though on a larger scale, IMO, that you say the EC causes. So what do you do? Also, the incidence of voter fraud would grow exponentially if you had a national election - something else to consider.


I gotta admit. Part of the reason I don't want it to change is the antiquity and rarity of such a system.

For some reason, it just seems to be very Americaneusqe.

cubanstogie
10-12-2008, 05:44 PM
I gotta admit, that is a VERY fair question.

I know I am going to vote, but feel it is a waste of my time. I am only voting because it IS my civic duty.

I also live in CA, and I get very frustrated when I go to the polls. I have a wife and 5 year old daughter and vote against the minor able to have abortion with no parental consent proposition, yet 18 year old kids or people who don't even have a daughter can vote the other way and my vote means squat. On the other side of it, thats why I would vote pro choice if given opportunity even though I don't agree with abortion. I am a male and don't carry a child so why would I tell a woman what to do.

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 05:47 PM
I gotta admit. Part of the reason I don't want it to change is the antiquity and rarity of such a system.

For some reason, it just seems to be very Americaneusqe.

LOL I was thinking hypocritcal to the American way...which many foreigners feel ties in nicely with their views of this great nation.

IDK

It really does come down to viewpoint...and while the electoral college has gotten it right all but two times...I'm still not sold.

As for voter fraud...my guess is that it we would see it happen more only because it would be looked at more closely. Each state would still tasked with running it's own state votes.

Preacher
10-12-2008, 05:50 PM
LOL I was thinking hypocritcal to the American way...which many foreigners feel ties in nicely with their views of this great nation.

IDK

It really does come down to viewpoint...and while the electoral college has gotten it right all but two times...I'm still not sold.

As for voter fraud...my guess is that it we would see it happen more only because it would be looked at more closely. Each state would still tasked with running it's own state votes.


See, that is where I would disagree. I think the electoral college got it right pretty much every time.

By balancing the individual and the state in the votes, it doesn't allow for power to be centralized in any one location... state or locality. I would only agree with you if the electoral college broke rank and voted against their states' wishes, which they ARE allowed to do in about half the states.

State laws disallow it in the rest (it has happened a couple times).

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 06:01 PM
See, that is where I would disagree. I think the electoral college got it right pretty much every time.

By balancing the individual and the state in the votes, it doesn't allow for power to be centralized in any one location... state or locality. I would only agree with you if the electoral college broke rank and voted against their states' wishes, which they ARE allowed to do in about half the states.

State laws disallow it in the rest (it has happened a couple times).

As of 2006
36.5 M people live in California.
299.4M people live in the US.

That's about 12%

55 Electoral Votes for California
538 total Electoral Voters

10.2%

The two systems tie in fairly closely. The difference is, if 53% of the votes are democratic, the electoral college give the president 10% of the total vote regardless.

Preacher
10-12-2008, 06:05 PM
As of 2006
36.5 M people live in California.
299.4M people live in the US.

That's about 12%

55 Electoral Votes for California
538 total Electoral Voters

10.2%

The two systems tie in fairly closely. The difference is, if 53% of the votes are democratic, the electoral college give the president 10% of the total vote regardless.

Yep...

which means that the state as a whole is represented by just 2 percent under thier population. And that is the issue I think. it is about state representation, instead of personal.

And thus, the disagreement. Though your question about people not voting has me thinking.

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 06:17 PM
And thus, the disagreement. Though your question about people not voting has me thinking.

You'd see a greater number of voters at the polls if they felt their votes counted...which would likely sway some of the great disparity we have in states like California.

The issue I have is with the logic involved to argue keeping the system. Regardless of whether we go to a population vote or electoral college vote, there are still going to be key states that politicians look at. California will get looked at harder by republicans, because then the state will actually matter to them.

The difference is that the people truly make a difference outside of the electoral college IMO.

Preacher
10-12-2008, 06:23 PM
You'd see a greater number of voters at the polls if they felt their votes counted...which would likely sway some of the great disparity we have in states like California.

The issue I have is with the logic involved to argue keeping the system. Regardless of whether we go to a population vote or electoral college vote, there are still going to be key states that politicians look at. California will get looked at harder by republicans, because then the state will actually matter to them.

The difference is that the people truly make a difference outside of the electoral college IMO.


The middle ground to this question is splitting the votes of the college. THe good part of that all votes in all states will represent at least some.

The bad part... is that a state like California, a persons vote would rate (making up numbers) .90 of a vote while a vote from say, Wyoming may rep. 1.2 percent of a vote.
(12 percent of people, 10 percent of college, vs. (again, making up numbers) 2 percent of people, 5 percent of college).

However, that may be a good middle ground nonetheless.

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 06:29 PM
I could go with a split of the Electoral College, because it would be more closely linked with what the population actually wants...as well as the place value on the state as a separate entity.

Preacher
10-12-2008, 06:36 PM
I could go with a split of the Electoral College, because it would be more closely linked with what the population actually wants...as well as the place value on the state as a separate entity.


So what other national issues can we solve today? :rofl:

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 06:56 PM
So what other national issues can we solve today? :rofl:

Get rid of political parties all together. They cause far more problems than they solve...and there are very few people who don't have some issues that line up with the other parties way of thinking.

Get rid of the parties...and then we can literally have the candidates talk about the issues, instead of talking about their parties flawed views.

T&B fan
10-12-2008, 07:08 PM
Get rid of political parties all together. They cause far more problems than they solve...and there are very few people who don't have some issues that line up with the other parties way of thinking.

Get rid of the parties...and then we can literally have the candidates talk about the issues, instead of talking about their parties flawed views.

you got it dead on ... :thumbsup: :hatsoff:

MasterOfPuppets
10-12-2008, 07:12 PM
Get rid of political parties all together. They cause far more problems than they solve...and there are very few people who don't have some issues that line up with the other parties way of thinking.

Get rid of the parties...and then we can literally have the candidates talk about the issues, instead of talking about their parties flawed views.RIGHT ON !!! :thumbsup:

Preacher
10-12-2008, 07:14 PM
OK.

there's two.


Do we have a third??

MasterOfPuppets
10-12-2008, 07:59 PM
OK.

there's two.


Do we have a third??
actually the original poster makes 3 .......:popcorn:

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 08:24 PM
OK.

there's two.


Do we have a third??

Sheesh, I'm a Browns fan...there's only so much I can do! LOL

Preacher
10-12-2008, 09:47 PM
Sheesh, I'm a Browns fan...there's only so much I can do! LOL

Well, you made two points...

sure is better than your team!


THA DUMP!!! :nana::grin:

Crushzilla
10-12-2008, 10:07 PM
OK.

there's two.


Do we have a third??

The.... Bengals suck? :noidea:

Blitzburgh_Fever
10-13-2008, 12:27 AM
We actually talked about this in my political science class two semesters ago. The question really falls down to if you consider your elected congressmen to vote how they feel, and how they feel represents their constituencies, or if they should vote on how their constituencies feel.

To step to the side for a second, I just wanna say screw the Senate. I do not feel Rhode Island deserves the same representation as Texas, California, et cetera on a national scale, simply because they're a state. I do, however, feel the people of Rhode Island deserve the same representation percentage-wise as the people of California; they get that (more or less) in the House. But then my opinion is that what matters are the people, not that you're a state (on a federal scale, I 100% support state's rights).

On the electoral college, to paraphrase the famous cynical description of Western democracy, it's the worst system ever designed, except for every other system. The electoral college gets it right often enough, almost certainly more often than any other method would.

revefsreleets
10-13-2008, 08:04 AM
Well, one thing to point out is that when we all vote November 4th, it's not JUST the Presidency we are voting for. There will be lots of local issues and state positions that are being voted on as well, and in a state like NY or CA where the presidential race is predetermined, those local elections illustrate just how much weight the individuals vote really carries. It's the old "Think globally, act locally" thing...If you stay home because you are a McCain supporter in CA, you are hurting every GOP local and state politician with your inaction, as well as the conservative cause in your local and state issues.

To say that your vote doesn't matter is very irresponsible...

Godfather
10-13-2008, 09:10 AM
Get rid of political parties all together. They cause far more problems than they solve...and there are very few people who don't have some issues that line up with the other parties way of thinking.

Get rid of the parties...and then we can literally have the candidates talk about the issues, instead of talking about their parties flawed views.

And as a bonus, everyone would have to try to make an informed decision instead of just voting for their "team".

Godfather
10-13-2008, 09:21 AM
Actually, there have only been 2 presidents that won the pop. vote, but lost the election.


There were 4...

1824--Jackson/Adams/Clay cluster of an election, where Jackson won a plurality and it got thrown to the House which elected Adams.

1876--Tilden won both the popular vote and the Electoral College but Hayes stole the election by bringing in his own set of votes from three states.

1888--Cleveland won the popular vote but Harrison won the election.

2000--Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the election.

Preacher
10-13-2008, 02:41 PM
There were 4...

1824--Jackson/Adams/Clay cluster of an election, where Jackson won a plurality and it got thrown to the House which elected Adams.

1876--Tilden won both the popular vote and the Electoral College but Hayes stole the election by bringing in his own set of votes from three states.

1888--Cleveland won the popular vote but Harrison won the election.

2000--Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the election.

the 24 elections and 76 elections don't count in this discussion, because we are talking specifically of the disparity between the electoral college and the electorate, not having it thrown into the house nor fiddling with the college.

But thanks for the info..it is interesting.