|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/12/2004 : 08:17:12 [Permalink]
|
The thought occurs: perhaps we already have the basis for a much more diverse selection of candidates within our two party system. We have, after all, primary elections. But how many of us actually vote in them?
Here is where the Naders and the LaRouchs, et al. could build their bases and their campaigns.
Won't happen due to egos and idiot idologies and lack of interest, of course, but the thought occured.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 10:06:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now for the flaw in your proposal that I can see. By splitting the electoral votes by percentage of popular vote, it reduces it to a merely popular vote. The flaw the founding fathers saw with this and the reason for the electoral college is that it marginalizes small states. Why would candidates care about small states when they could carry all the large ones?
This "flaw" is something that I have never understood. Should it not be majority rules? Why should you count for more if live in a small state? Now the small states still get less electoral votes, so the candidates are still going to focus more on the larger states. So it really doesn't fix the problem by any means. And besides, now with T.V., radio, internet, etc, you could pretty much run an entire campain remotely, there is not so much emphasis on going from state to state campaining. (Note: I'm not stated that it is no longer needed, nor am I saying that it no longer happens, but just not as much) |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 10:45:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Now for the flaw in your proposal that I can see. By splitting the electoral votes by percentage of popular vote, it reduces it to a merely popular vote. The flaw the founding fathers saw with this and the reason for the electoral college is that it marginalizes small states. Why would candidates care about small states when they could carry all the large ones?
This "flaw" is something that I have never understood. Should it not be majority rules? Why should you count for more if live in a small state? Now the small states still get less electoral votes, so the candidates are still going to focus more on the larger states. So it really doesn't fix the problem by any means. And besides, now with T.V., radio, internet, etc, you could pretty much run an entire campain remotely, there is not so much emphasis on going from state to state campaining. (Note: I'm not stated that it is no longer needed, nor am I saying that it no longer happens, but just not as much)
No. It should not be majority rules, IMHO. Majority rules (or mob rule) rarely gives the other states involved a fair hearing. This leads to the smaller states getting screwed and marginalizes their representation.
The small states do get a smaller say, but enough where they can't be completely ignored. Their issues are just as valid and pressing as the large states. Even though it is possible to run a campaign remotely, the voting public still likes to see a visit from the candidates to show they take their issues seriously. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 11:37:50 [Permalink]
|
| Small states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes, no matter how few people live in them. Provided that doesn't change, why does it marginalize them any more if that vote can be split between three candidates if there's a 3-way split in the voting public? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 13:00:43 [Permalink]
|
The system we use now is set up like it is because nobody ever thought the federal gov would become the huge monster it is now.
The original idea was to have a central authority to mediate between states, set up certain minimum laws for all (the Constitution) and provide a way to pool resources for defense. The electoral system lets smaller states have some voice. States allow for regional governing that can adapt to the specific conditions in each state. One large central government that controlled everything would be unable to respond quickly to crisis (like this freakin hurricane bearing down on me now). And a ton of tother advantages that go along with the state system.
If we wanted to just go with a simple direct democracy, we might as well just do away with state governments as well. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 13:12:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Small states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes, no matter how few people live in them. Provided that doesn't change, why does it marginalize them any more if that vote can be split between three candidates if there's a 3-way split in the voting public?
Because without the selection process allowing the district style or winner takes all, a candidate can reasonably expect that they will gain 1-2 electoral votes with no effort. How important will that state's issues be to that President? If it gets split between three candidates, it further marginalizes that state. I'm all for all states using the district style of electoral college assignment, but going to a simple most popular vote ignores the majority opinion of congressional districts. In Illinois, the population center of Chicago is overwhelmingly Democratic. The downstate and collar county area is overwhelmingly Republican. The number of electoral college votes under a district system would give Republicans 10 electoral college votes and Democrats 11. If a candidate doesn't win a single popular vote in a congressional district, they don't deserve any electoral college votes because they aren't representative of a majority of any population.
Giving small states a minimum of three electoral votes (a bigger deal back in colonial times), normalizes their importance. The battleground states (smaller) currently get heard. Under mob rule, screw them, who needs em. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 16:36:32 [Permalink]
|
It appears that the discussion has now turned to the electoral college, but I just want to reiterate my original point: that if we want to fix the problems we see in our political system, we're not going to do it by rejecting possible solutions out of hand. And it's not going to be done by the two major parties. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
If we want to fix the political system in this country (U.S.), we must get off our butts and do it ourselves. We must stop watching the f**king polls and letting others decide what is pragmatic and what is "idealistic." In short, we must stop being followers - and decide, here and now, to become leaders in reclaiming our own political destinies.
As for me, I choose to take the lead. I'm canvassing, campaigning and voting for Nader, who, in my mind, offers the best hope for a solution. If others choose not to follow, that's their choice. Let them wallow in the deteriorating and corrupt duopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties. If, after a few more Clintons and Bushes, perhaps they'll come around. If they don't, we'll still keep fighting for a better America. Somebody has to. Polls be damned.
Incidentally, to the poster who provided a number of supposed significant differences between Kerry and Bush, I must disagree. I don't want to move the current discussion back into another tangent, but if you wish, I can offer a litany of significant SIMILARITIES between the two, including some that are contrary to a couple you mentioned.
I'll be busy most of the weekend, but I'll do my best to gather the information, just in case...
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 06:39:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Small states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes, no matter how few people live in them. Provided that doesn't change, why does it marginalize them any more if that vote can be split between three candidates if there's a 3-way split in the voting public?
Because without the selection process allowing the district style or winner takes all, a candidate can reasonably expect that they will gain 1-2 electoral votes with no effort. How important will that state's issues be to that President? If it gets split between three candidates, it further marginalizes that state. I'm all for all states using the district style of electoral college assignment, but going to a simple most popular vote ignores the majority opinion of congressional districts. In Illinois, the population center of Chicago is overwhelmingly Democratic. The downstate and collar county area is overwhelmingly Republican. The number of electoral college votes under a district system would give Republicans 10 electoral college votes and Democrats 11. If a candidate doesn't win a single popular vote in a congressional district, they don't deserve any electoral college votes because they aren't representative of a majority of any population.
Giving small states a minimum of three electoral votes (a bigger deal back in colonial times), normalizes their importance. The battleground states (smaller) currently get heard. Under mob rule, screw them, who needs em.
But under the system you describe, if the electorate is split 3 ways, like this for example:
35% for A
33% for B
32% for C
Then A wins the election with support from barely 1/3 of the population. First, how is that Democracy? And second, why do you think this gives the state any more influence in national politics than it would have if the votes were split 3 ways? It doesn't make any sense. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 08/13/2004 06:40:37 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 06:57:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Then you schedule a run-off election between the top two of the first election. This way you don't marginalize a third party candidate. Unfortunately, those in power now have every reason to try and marginalize an attempted 3rd party. 
Anyone here think this is a bad idea? If so, I'd like to hear details of the problem.
Well, it works to an extent. This way, no one feels like she or he is "wasting" a vote by voting Green or Libertarian. However, in the end, aren't we always just going to end up with the duopoly of Rep-Dem?
Somehow, there has to be an alternative where there are more than two choices, but fewer than the 100 or so you seen in places like Italy.
Wasn't there a movement to have a bunch of Libertarians move to a town in New Hampshire or something so that they could vote their guy to Congress or some such? |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 07:07:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Small states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes, no matter how few people live in them. Provided that doesn't change, why does it marginalize them any more if that vote can be split between three candidates if there's a 3-way split in the voting public?
Because without the selection process allowing the district style or winner takes all, a candidate can reasonably expect that they will gain 1-2 electoral votes with no effort. How important will that state's issues be to that President? If it gets split between three candidates, it further marginalizes that state. I'm all for all states using the district style of electoral college assignment, but going to a simple most popular vote ignores the majority opinion of congressional districts. In Illinois, the population center of Chicago is overwhelmingly Democratic. The downstate and collar county area is overwhelmingly Republican. The number of electoral college votes under a district system would give Republicans 10 electoral college votes and Democrats 11. If a candidate doesn't win a single popular vote in a congressional district, they don't deserve any electoral college votes because they aren't representative of a majority of any population.
Giving small states a minimum of three electoral votes (a bigger deal back in colonial times), normalizes their importance. The battleground states (smaller) currently get heard. Under mob rule, screw them, who needs em.
But under the system you describe, if the electorate is split 3 ways, like this for example:
35% for A
33% for B
32% for C
Then A wins the election with support from barely 1/3 of the population. First, how is that Democracy? And second, why do you think this gives the state any more influence in national politics than it would have if the votes were split 3 ways? It doesn't make any sense.
The electorate is rarely split this way. Also, it is likely in such a race all three candidates will carry at least one congressional district. If they don't garner the most votes in a Congressional district, they don't deserve the one electoral vote from it. Candidate A would get two more electoral votes by virtue of getting the most votes. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 12:39:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The electorate is rarely split this way. Also, it is likely in such a race all three candidates will carry at least one congressional district. If they don't garner the most votes in a Congressional district, they don't deserve the one electoral vote from it. Candidate A would get two more electoral votes by virtue of getting the most votes.
Come on Val, twice as many people voted for someone else and you call this candidate the winner by virtue! You cannot possibly think this is the way we should be electing our political 'representatives.' |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 12:41:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
[quote]Originally posted by chaloobi
Well, it works to an extent. This way, no one feels like she or he is "wasting" a vote by voting Green or Libertarian. However, in the end, aren't we always just going to end up with the duopoly of Rep-Dem?
Somehow, there has to be an alternative where there are more than two choices, but fewer than the 100 or so you seen in places like Italy.
Wasn't there a movement to have a bunch of Libertarians move to a town in New Hampshire or something so that they could vote their guy to Congress or some such?
Of course it's impossible to say for sure without actually doing it, but I think this would give 3rd parties a bigger say. People will be willing to vote for them in the initial election, knowing they won't be risking the catapulting of some Satan's Spawn into power. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 13:00:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The electorate is rarely split this way. Also, it is likely in such a race all three candidates will carry at least one congressional district. If they don't garner the most votes in a Congressional district, they don't deserve the one electoral vote from it. Candidate A would get two more electoral votes by virtue of getting the most votes.
Come on Val, twice as many people voted for someone else and you call this candidate the winner by virtue! You cannot possibly think this is the way we should be electing our political 'representatives.'
I didn't call the candidate the winner. I said that under the district style of selecting electors, the winner of the popular vote would get two electoral votes in addition to any electoral votes gained by district wins. The other candidates still get electoral votes. The electoral college requires that a candidate get a simple majority of all electoral college votes. If there is a three way tie or one candidate does not have a majority of electoral votes, other processes of selecting a President, which have never been used, get activated. I believe it then goes to Congress, which makes the decision.
It's the best we got. Without breaking the election into two parts (of which it technically is already) how do you get a run-off condition? I'd have severe problems with two back-to-back general elections. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 22:10:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The electorate is rarely split this way. Also, it is likely in such a race all three candidates will carry at least one congressional district. If they don't garner the most votes in a Congressional district, they don't deserve the one electoral vote from it. Candidate A would get two more electoral votes by virtue of getting the most votes.
Come on Val, twice as many people voted for someone else and you call this candidate the winner by virtue! You cannot possibly think this is the way we should be electing our political 'representatives.'
I didn't call the candidate the winner. I said that under the district style of selecting electors, the winner of the popular vote would get two electoral votes in addition to any electoral votes gained by district wins. The other candidates still get electoral votes. The electoral college requires that a candidate get a simple majority of all electoral college votes. If there is a three way tie or one candidate does not have a majority of electoral votes, other processes of selecting a President, which have never been used, get activated. I believe it then goes to Congress, which makes the decision.
It's the best we got. Without breaking the election into two parts (of which it technically is already) how do you get a run-off condition? I'd have severe problems with two back-to-back general elections.
The run-off would have to be a separate election. The method is used elsewhere in the world and it appears to work fine. Takes a little longer of course, but it'd be patient for a better democracy. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 06:35:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The electorate is rarely split this way. Also, it is likely in such a race all three candidates will carry at least one congressional district. If they don't garner the most votes in a Congressional district, they don't deserve the one electoral vote from it. Candidate A would get two more electoral votes by virtue of getting the most votes.
Come on Val, twice as many people voted for someone else and you call this candidate the winner by virtue! You cannot possibly think this is the way we should be electing our political 'representatives.'
I didn't call the candidate the winner. I said that under the district style of selecting electors, the winner of the popular vote would get two electoral votes in addition to any electoral votes gained by district wins. The other candidates still get electoral votes. The electoral college requires that a candidate get a simple majority of all electoral college votes. If there is a three way tie or one candidate does not have a majority of electoral votes, other processes of selecting a President, which have never been used, get activated. I believe it then goes to Congress, which makes the decision.
It's the best we got. Without breaking the election into two parts (of which it technically is already) how do you get a run-off condition? I'd have severe problems with two back-to-back general elections.
The run-off would have to be a separate election. The method is used elsewhere in the world and it appears to work fine. Takes a little longer of course, but it'd be patient for a better democracy.
But the United States isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. True democracy consists primarily of mob rule. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
