What would it take ....

[bushidomartialarts]

i vote most of the time, but the people who run this country (major economic players, the leadership of the republican and democratic parties) are all in positions our votes can't touch.

that said, i'm a big believer in voting in my local elections.

 

[Cryozombie]

Now, y'see, I'm somewhat torn on this issue....

On the one hand, I know why the Electoral College was set up in the first place. It was esablished to act as a "buffer" between the power imbalance between the large and small states. In fact, the founding American government had quite a bit of debate and argumentation about this very issue.

For example, if we were today to remove the Electoral College, then Florida, Texas, and California would be even more powerful (politically speaking) than they are now. And smaller states such as Maine and Rhode Island would become even more of a tiny blip on the radar than they are right now.

The issue I have with that thinking is this: With the electoral college in place the STATES have the power. With the Electoral college gone, the PEOPLE do... so the STATE of California, Texas and Florida wouldnt have diddly, except more INDIVIDUALS voting than say... Rhode Island. Who is to say all the INDIVIDUALS in those states are gonna vote the same?

 

[heretic888]

The issue I have with that thinking is this: With the electoral college in place the STATES have the power. With the Electoral college gone, the PEOPLE do... so the STATE of California, Texas and Florida wouldnt have diddly, except more INDIVIDUALS voting than say... Rhode Island. Who is to say all the INDIVIDUALS in those states are gonna vote the same?

The problem with your argument, Technopunk, is the assumptions you make.

While it is a wonderful ideal to invoke federalism, the truth of the matter is that these states do exist and the populations living within them have vested interests and agendas that the populations in other states may not have. If you don't believe this, live a week in New York and then live a week in Alabama. See if you notice any differences in the priorities people have.

Your argument presumes people would tend to vote along individual lines. People, however, are not just individuals they are also citizens of their states. What you are proposing would put even more power into the larger states and even less power into the smaller states.

That being said, I am open to an electoral reform. But I think the balance between the states needs to be maintained in some form.

Laterz.

 

[Stealth]

Gee, have the ability to vote by phone toll free and text voting.. works for American Idol .. more votes than any American President.. now that's rather messed up ..

American's lead busy lives, getting to the polls may interfere with life.. so make it easier for starters.. Unfortunately we are an electronic populous.

And yes, I'm registered

Hey, we can have the phone records to prove who voted what. The NSA already keeps that info :lol:

 

[crushing]

Hopefully, the performance of this last administration will spur more participation at the polls.

As well as the current one.

 

[Cryozombie]

The problem with your argument, Technopunk, is the assumptions you make.

While it is a wonderful ideal to invoke federalism, the truth of the matter is that these states do exist and the populations living within them have vested interests and agendas that the populations in other states may not have. If you don't believe this, live a week in New York and then live a week in Alabama. See if you notice any differences in the priorities people have.

Your argument presumes people would tend to vote along individual lines. People, however, are not just individuals they are also citizens of their states. What you are proposing would put even more power into the larger states and even less power into the smaller states.

That being said, I am open to an electoral reform. But I think the balance between the states needs to be maintained in some form.

Laterz.

Yeah, I hear what you are sayin, and there is no easy answer, to be sure... But if I OVERsimplify the way it SEEMS to work to me...

Assume there are only 3 states, say the State of Confusion with 1000 voting residents, State of Grace with 3000, and State of Drunkeness... with a whopping 6000.

Lets say there is an election...

Results in Confusion: 600 for Ted, 400 for Roy
Results in Grace: 500 for Ted 2500 For Roy.
Results in Drunkeness: 3500 for Ted, 2500 for Roy.

Assume, because of the small populations, each state gets a single electoral vote, AND the Electorates vote based on the highest number of votes in their state... Ted Wins the Election... because more people in Confusion and Drunkenness voted for him...

But if you Tally the peoples votes, Roy should be in office because its what the people want...

I have to wonder... did the people really choose their leader?

 

[heretic888]

I have to wonder... did the people really choose their leader?

Again, Technopunk, your argument is flawed in large part because of the assumptions you make. Your largest state has only six times the population of your smallest state. If our country was like that, perhaps we wouldn't be having this debate right now.

However, the populations of, say, Texas or California are far greater than, say, those of Maine or Rhode Island. Your analogy doesn't even come close. . .

Large states:
- Texas has a population of around 20.85 million.
- California has a population of around 38.87 million.
- Florida has a population of around 15.98 million.
- New York has a population of around 19.25 million.

Small states:
- Rhode Island has a population of around 1.04 million.
- Main has a population of around 1.27 million.
- Wyoming has a population of around 0.51 million.
- Vermont has a population of around 0.62 million
- Alaska has a population of around 0.66 million.

Medium states:
- Alabama has a population of around 4.56 million.
- Louisiana has a population of around 4.52 million.
- Kentucky has a population of around 4.17 million.

Our largest state isn't six times the population of our smallest state. Our largest state is more than sixty times the population of our smallest state. Once again, your analogy doesn't even come close. In fact, if you added all of the small states and all of the medium states together that I listed (collectively 8 different states) they still would only equal about half the population of Texas alone.

As I said before, there was a reason our founding government wanted to balance the political power of the large and small states. I just showed you why.

Now, I'm not saying the electoral college is perfect or is not in need of reformation. But, this "let's just do a popular vote!" thinking is, in my opinion, horribly misguided (if well-intentioned).

Laterz.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Now, y'see, I'm somewhat torn on this issue....

On the one hand, I know why the Electoral College was set up in the first place. It was esablished to act as a "buffer" between the power imbalance between the large and small states. In fact, the founding American government had quite a bit of debate and argumentation about this very issue.
But, what to do? What to do?

WHAT?? The Electoral College was set up initially (making us a Republic..not a Democracy BTW) because the Founding Fathers knew that news traveled slowly and the general population did not have knowledge of current issues affecting the country. Therefore, the college was created to represetn their best interest consisiting of well informed and educated people. With the mass media we have today...there's no excuse for it... other than our public education system being extremely crappy and most people not having a clue as to how the process works. A result, I might add, that was incurred by repeated legislation passed by the very people we supposely voted for cutting funds to education. Shoot, if I was in power and wanted to keep it I'd do my best to keep the population "dumb and docile" too!

That being said...the Electoral College actually does cause an imbalance. The number of votes each state has as part of the EC is based on the number of Senators (2 from each state) + the number of Representatives (Depends on the POPULATION). For instance. GA has 13 votes. That's 2 (for our Sentators)+ 11 (the number of Representatives we have in the house...which is based on POPULATION.) That's why California, Texas, and New York are sooooo important. Because of their POPULATION they have the most Electoral VOTES! And that's why states like Mississippi are so poor and often forgotten.

That is why the popular vote doesn't matter. The people making up the Electoral College are put there by members of the 2 parties because they're friends of politiicians, major campaign contributers, business partners...etc. THEY ARE ALL WEALTHY. So....unless you're wealty... who really represents you? People like Kennedy? The man never worked a day in his life. What does he know about your daily struggles to pay the bills (like your student loan LOL). If you or I got drunk and ran our vehicles into a river killing a women then left the scene and not report it for several hours we'd be in jail...still.

Major reform is needed if there is going to be a change. That requires you to vote. I'm a registered Libertarian and often times we can't even get our candidate on the ticket! Doesn't matter that there are quite a few of us to warrent it either. So what do you do? Write the candidates name in! You can't stop, and you can't give up... unless you're happy with the way things are (like paying $3 for a gallon of gas so Cheney and his oil buddies can get even richer) You must remain persistant, and VOTE! Vote their collective arses out of office! It's a long process, but if you don't act now it will take even longer and things will get progressively worse and you will loose more and moore of your rights. Being passive and not taking part is what got us in this mess in the first place.

 

[heretic888]

WHAT?? The Electoral College was set up initially (making us a Republic..not a Democracy BTW) because the Founding Fathers knew that news traveled slowly and the general population did not have knowledge of current issues affecting the country.

I have no doubt that is true, but the current system was also established to balance power between the large states (who wanted a straight-up popular vote) and the small states (who wanted an equal weight from all the states). It was a compromise.

That being said...the Electoral College actually does cause an imbalance. The number of votes each state has as part of the EC is based on the number of Senators (2 from each state) + the number of Representatives (Depends on the POPULATION). For instance. GA has 13 votes. That's 2 (for our Sentators)+ 11 (the number of Representatives we have in the house...which is based on POPULATION.) That's why California, Texas, and New York are sooooo important. Because of their POPULATION they have the most Electoral VOTES! And that's why states like Mississippi are so poor and often forgotten.

You should check your math there, celtic_crippler.

For all your criticizing of the electoral system, the situation would be even worse with a straight-up popular vote. Those extra two votes (representing members in the Senate) are across the board, and more than the double the political power of some of the states (such as Wyoming or Rhode Island). By contrast, those two extra votes are less than a 10% increase in voting power to a state like California.

Sure, the larger states still have more power, but the current system was erected as a compromise, not as an equivalency. If we abolished the electoral college (as you seem to be implying), then the population of states like Wyoming and Rhode Island might as well not bother voting in national elections, because their voices will be all but mute.

Major reform is needed if there is going to be a change. That requires you to vote.

Agreed.

Laterz.

 

[Phoenix44]

My son would like to see the eradication of the Congress in favor of a REAL democracy. My son's 14 years old.

 

[Ceicei]

My son would like to see the eradication of the Congress in favor of a REAL democracy. My son's 14 years old.

So how does he define REAL democracy?