U.S. Democracy in need of Upgrade?

[Danoff]

The fact that more people can vote for the loser of an election than vote for the winner, as in 2000, is as blindingly obvious a reason as any I can think of.

No.

Let's pretend for a moment that one could win the election in the US with only California, New York, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. (That's probably not all that far from the truth).

All a candidate would likely have to do to win the election is simply say he will change the tax structure such that people in those states pay no taxes - everyone in the smaller states will be forced to pick up the check.

Oh, and we'll make sure that all federal prisons and waste dumps are located in Montana.


Even if you won with the popular vote in that instance I think it would be fair to give the smaller states more of a voice. The fact is there needs to be a balance between states' interests and the popular vote.

Famine was talking about a system where each state got one vote. If that were the case I can gaurantee you that the popular vote would almost never elect the president.

So there needs to be a compromise between "all states get one vote" and "all people get one vote" so that states (which is just a regional representation of individuals) and individuals together elect the president through some sort of composite score.

That's the electoral college and I think it makes far more sense than a popular vote. That's why the election results from 2000 don't bother me.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

That may have been necessary a hundred years ago but that arguement is out-dated. I believe they have television, radio, newspapers and the internet in America now...

There still wouldn't be enough people in the state to make a difference...

They had newspapers and telegraphs over a hundred years ago

the internet... what a source of news that is, all it does it spew out conspiracy theory, and BS based on nothing. There is no regulatory body for the internet, anyone can publish anything and claim it to be fact, as you have so skilfully demonstrated

 

[Danoff]

There is no regulatory body for the internet, anyone can publish anything and claim it to be fact, as you have so skilfully demonstrated

And yet it works increadibly well. Proof perhaps that regulatory bodies are not as necessary as everyone seems to think?

 

[okoj]

No.

Let's pretend for a moment that one could win the election in the US with only California, New York, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. (That's probably not all that far from the truth).

All a candidate would likely have to do to win the election is simply say he will change the tax structure such that people in those states pay no taxes - everyone in the smaller states will be forced to pick up the check.

Oh, and we'll make sure that all federal prisons and waste dumps are located in Montana.


Even if you won with the popular vote in that instance I think it would be fair to give the smaller states more of a voice. The fact is there needs to be a balance between states' interests and the popular vote.

Famine was talking about a system where each state got one vote. If that were the case I can gaurantee you that the popular vote would almost never elect the president.

So there needs to be a compromise between "all states get one vote" and "all people get one vote" so that states (which is just a regional representation of individuals) and individuals together elect the president through some sort of composite score.

That's the electoral college and I think it makes far more sense than a popular vote. That's why the election results from 2000 don't bother me.

Well it's a democracy Jim, but not as we know it.

So what you're basically saying is that Americans are all heartless ***** (insert expletive of choice) who can't be trusted not to do each other over given half a chance?

 

[Danoff]

So what you're basically saying is that Americans are all heartless ***** (insert expletive of choice) who can't be trusted not to do each other over given half a chance?

My post goes well beyond the specific example that I showed. I exaggerated the situation so that you would understand the point clearly.

What I am basically saying is that regional issues and individual issues need to be balanced and that that is what the electoral college is.

 

[okoj]

My post goes well beyond the specific example that I showed. I exaggerated the situation so that you would understand the point clearly.

What I am basically saying is that regional issues and individual issues need to be balanced and that that is what the electoral college is.

So not everyone in the US is equal or are some just more equal than others?

 

[Danoff]

So not everyone in the US is equal or are some just more equal than others?

Everyone in the US has equal rights and protection under law. But votes are weighted according to state's population and the weighting is not quite linear. Voters in smaller states get a little bias in the voting process. But anyone who wants their vote to count a little more can just go move to New Hampshire. Eventually it'll get big enough that they'll need to move somewhere else.

...again, this is done for a good reason.

 

[okoj]

...again, this is done for a good reason.

Which is?

 

[emad]

what I don't get is why in some states, all the Electoral votes go towards the winner of the popular vote. In order to get a fair representation of the popular vote, shouldn't EVERYONE's voice be heard by requiring the electoral votes to go in as a ratio (is that the word i'm looking for?) - so if x candidate got 60% of the popular vote, he gets 60% of the electoral votes for that state.

 

[Danoff]

Which is?

Like I said.

regional issues and individual issues need to be balanced and that that is what the electoral college is.

regional issues and individual issues need to be balanced and that that is what the electoral college is.

That would be a popular vote. I have been explaining why that is not the best way to go.

 

[okoj]

Like I said.







That would be a popular vote. I have been explaining why that is not the best way to go.

But it still doesn't make sense, unless you are saying that Americans are heartless ***** (insert own expletive) as I previously mentioned.

 

[Danoff]

But it still doesn't make sense, unless you are saying that Americans are heartless ***** (insert own expletive) as I previously mentioned.

I already responded to that.

My post goes well beyond the specific example that I showed. I exaggerated the situation so that you would understand the point clearly.

 

[Duke]

My post goes well beyond the specific example that I showed. I exaggerated the situation so that you would understand the point clearly.

You have to recognize, danoff, that Mr. Okoj has absolutely zero interest in understanding you (or anything else) clearly. He only wants to understand things that support his a priori assumptions and opinions. Nothing else will be considered, so I repsectfully suggest you quit wasting your time.

Now, if you're up for toying with the guy and are seeking a little relaxation, then by all means, have at it.

 

[Danoff]

Now, if you're up for toying with the guy and are seeking a little relaxation, then by all means, have at it.

I really just wanted to stick his nose in it for a little while. He was stinking up the forum so I figured I'd call him on it.

 

[Duke]

I really just wanted to stick his nose in it for a little while. He was stinking up the forum so I figured I'd call him on it.

👍 👍 👍
I understand completely.

 

[ledhed]

Your time would be better spent teaching a blind dude to paint potraits.

 

[livemusic]

The direct vote? Where all the Presidents would come from the largest states and the smaller ones would never be heard.

But doesn´t the Electoral Vote work the same way? If a large state has 30 electoral votes and a small one has 3 I can´t see what chance he has to make a difference.

 

[Danoff]

But doesn´t the Electoral Vote work the same way? If a large state has 30 electoral votes and a small one has 3 I can´t see what chance he has to make a difference.

If the large state (eg: California) is effectively locked up then the candidates will spend time in the smaller states campaigning to get those 3 votes.

If it were a popular vote the candidates would campaign and cater to only the most heavily populated areas.

In other words, the electoral college gives smaller states more of a voice because it allows them to concentrate their votes into a sizeable quantity and gives them a slightly disproportionate voice.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

But doesn´t the Electoral Vote work the same way? If a large state has 30 electoral votes and a small one has 3 I can´t see what chance he has to make a difference.

From what I understand the smaller states are better represented.
I think it was danoff, or maybe daan, who better explained it, but if a state has five times the population it may only have twice as many Electoral votes, so in the smaller state the people are proportionally better represented.

Edit: See..it was danoff, I think he's your man for the technical bits on this

 

[livemusic]

But the direct vote divides the votes better IMO. With the electoral vote it doesn´t matter if Candidate A made 200 thousand votes and Candidate B made 190 thousand in some State, all the votes goes to Candidate A. With direct vote there wouldn´t be such a problem, cause hardly a hole State is gonna vote to the same candidate, I guess?

 

[Jim X]

what I don't get is why in some states, all the Electoral votes go towards the winner of the popular vote. In order to get a fair representation of the popular vote, shouldn't EVERYONE's voice be heard by requiring the electoral votes to go in as a ratio (is that the word i'm looking for?) - so if x candidate got 60% of the popular vote, he gets 60% of the electoral votes for that state.

Yes that's how it should be done as far as I am concerned. That way the smaller states votes still have more "weight" in the election, but all the states are represented more fairly. It still would not clear up the popular vote thing though, not as long as their is an electoral college.

 

[Arwin]

In other words, the electoral college gives smaller states more of a voice because it allows them to concentrate their votes into a sizeable quantity and gives them a slightly disproportionate voice.

Before I get into this language mess again, please indulge me how you define 'slightly'?

 

[ledhed]

a little bit.

 

[Silverzone]

Hell, No. The U.S democracy is fine the way it is. and just to show how much most Americans are for it, most the people that oppose it don't live in the U.S. And you can't really trust the popular vote, There are people who will vote for anyone that will say anything for a vote, and will never follow through. Which is why I believe The electrial college is in place to protect America from people who are just "settling" or making un-informed votes. Just think, If there was a direct election, Gore would've been voted in. No telling how it would've gone if Gore won. It could be possible that the U.S would have been attacked many more times than one. When the towers were hit, George Bush took direct action and went right after the terrorists, and do you think the terrorists are really brave enough to go and attack America now? No, they are cowards. And Bin Laden hiding somewhere off in a cave hiding proves it. Unlike John Kerry Said that he would reduce terrorism to a nuicencse(sp?), We already have. But a nuicencse is still way too much to keep terrorism at. So Bush is slowly destroying terrorism. And All that makes me wonder If Gore could handle that. George Bush has done a superior job, But is always criticised for fast decisions, When these decisions have made America safer. America is slowly getting back to the way it used to be. And that wouldn't have happened if the electrial college is gone.

 

[livemusic]

Ok then.......

 

[wheellift]

Long live the Repubilcan party.....