RE: What if...

RE: What if... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

igor2003 -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 7:01:45 AM)
--FR-- Personally, I'd like to see some kind of change in the way voting is counted. Here's why. I live in a low population state (Idaho) which leans very heavily to the right, though I think this problem would be the same in any state regardless of size if it leans heavily one way or the other. Here in Idaho the electoral votes have not gone Democratic since Lyndon Johnson in '64. Everyone KNOWS that regardless of whether their personal vote is for the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee the electorals are going to go to the Republicans. This leaves people with a "why bother to vote at all" attitude. If you plan on voting "R" there is no point in bothering to vote because you know your guy is getting the electorals. And if you plan on voting "D" there is no point in bothering because you know your vote isn't going to make any difference. I, personally, continue to vote, not because of the presidential election, but because of the House and Senate races, and local issues. But I do wish my presidential vote had some kind of actual weight to it, which under the present system it does not.

Yachtie -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 7:16:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't know that it's based on "Total" population. Does the Census count illegals and other non-citizens? The gist of DomKen's ranting is the Senate's 2/state representation. The more populous states are getting shafted in per capita representation in the EC because of that. I worked the Census in 2000. It counts everyone. Legal, illegal, prison population. Every person. States with large numbers of non citizens have a disproportionate number of reps compared to their voting population. Cali has 53 congressional reps for about 37 million people If you deleted all the non citizens from the population this would reduce that total by 19% My reference is below http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/5989 This would strip about 10 electoral votes from California. Those 10 votes represent non citizens. Didn't know that. Thanks! You're very welcome. I just don't understand why most conservative folk I know locally are so dead set against eliminating the electoral college. It would partially defang the left leaning state of Cali and make it one CITIZEN one vote instead of one citizen or felon or immigrant or illegal or.......one vote. The Right is running around whinging and screeching about a half dozen alleged cases of voter fraud (we've had a thread or 2 about it [8D]) while ignoring 7.5 Million noncitizens who effectively 'vote' for a Democrat in only one state. I see what you're saying. One way around that dilemma would be direct voting (remove the EC). Another would be re-establishing the nature of representation where illegals are not counted for any purpose. Thus the intent of the EC would be maintained. Could an argument be made that illegals are effectively citizens because they are represented in Congress? (And even the EC no matter they cannot vote?)

DomKen -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 7:56:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: That is simply not true. Without the electoral college every voters vote counts the same. With the college small state voters are far more valuable. For instance a voter in wyoming is one of 565k (roughly) and decides the fate of 3 electoral votes while a I, a voter in Illinois, am one of 12.9M and decide the fate of 20 electoral votes. So around 25 times as many people are worth less than 7 times as many votes. How is that right? That would be true only if everybody had the same interests, but the concerns of big city folk are not the same as the concerns of country folk. To win an election all a candidate would have to do is address the concerns of urbanites... they need pay no attention at all to rural folk. Has there been an election in your lifetimewhere a Presidential candidate paid any attention to rural voters besides Iowa?

Marc2b -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 8:00:56 AM)
quote: Has there been an election in your lifetimewhere a Presidential candidate paid any attention to rural voters besides Iowa? All of them. If you can't get the big states like New York and California et al, then you try to collect all of the "lesser" states.

cloudboy -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 8:47:57 AM)
quote: Another would be re-establishing the nature of representation where illegals are not counted for any purpose. Thus the intent of the EC would be maintained. What are you talking about?

DNAHelicase -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 9:08:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 --FR-- Personally, I'd like to see some kind of change in the way voting is counted. Here's why. I live in a low population state (Idaho) which leans very heavily to the right, though I think this problem would be the same in any state regardless of size if it leans heavily one way or the other. Here in Idaho the electoral votes have not gone Democratic since Lyndon Johnson in '64. Everyone KNOWS that regardless of whether their personal vote is for the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee the electorals are going to go to the Republicans. This leaves people with a "why bother to vote at all" attitude. If you plan on voting "R" there is no point in bothering to vote because you know your guy is getting the electorals. And if you plan on voting "D" there is no point in bothering because you know your vote isn't going to make any difference. I, personally, continue to vote, not because of the presidential election, but because of the House and Senate races, and local issues. But I do wish my presidential vote had some kind of actual weight to it, which under the present system it does not. FR, haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if I repeat something somebody else has already said. I completely agree with Igor, although my state's issues are different. I live in Georgia and we have a lot of diversity between the large metropolitan areas, the coastal cities, the military posts, the college towns, the small cities, and the rural areas; we have a huge mixture of people of various backgrounds, and they have different interests and values. GA usually goes R, but there have been a few elections since 1960 when it's gone D ('92, '80, '76, '60) and '68 went to an independent. Taking a closer look at the last five presidential elections, the popular vote has been between 41-47% D and 47-55% R between '96 and '08, and in '92 Clinton won the state with a popular vote of 43.5% while Bush got 42.9%. That's a significant chunk of people here whose votes get translated into the opposite of what they want by the electoral college in every presidential election regardless of which way it goes. A winner take all system has not been representative of at least 40% of the state's votes in every election for the last two decades. Even if the electoral college isn't abolished, getting rid of the winner take all rule and splitting each state's votes proportionally would be more fair. Like Igor, I've voted in every presidential election since I turned 18 (and most others, too) because even though I know my vote may be totally ignored for president under the electoral college, I care about the local issues and races.

Hillwilliam -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 9:23:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Could an argument be made that illegals are effectively citizens because they are represented in Congress? (And even the EC no matter they cannot vote?) Fucking scarey and ridiculous huh? The wierd thing is that the portion of Kool-aid drinkers who are on the far right don't want to change this. They'd rather jump up and down and yell about a half dozen alleged cases of voter fraud involving fewer than a hundred people while literally millions of non citizens and jail inmates are represented by the electoral college.

Moonhead -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 9:34:51 AM)
It's been suggested that the EC has had a hand in at least one voter fraud that was illegal under both State and Federal law, come to that. [;)]

DomKen -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 10:05:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Has there been an election in your lifetimewhere a Presidential candidate paid any attention to rural voters besides Iowa? All of them. If you can't get the big states like New York and California et al, then you try to collect all of the "lesser" states. ? Don't you mean never? What campaign in your life time has concentrated on winning rural states? What actually gets contested are states which have signiicant EC votes, i.e. high population states which by definition are not rural.

Zonie63 -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 10:33:25 AM)
I think the main problem with the Electoral College is that the states operate on a winner-take-all system, when it might be better if the electoral votes are split, divided proportionately to the vote tally within the state. The way it is now, if a candidate wins by just a single vote in a state, they get all the electoral votes, which nullifies all those who voted for the other guy. So, they could still keep the Electoral College, but just have it structured so the votes can be split within states to more accurately reflect the popular vote. As for the needs of rural voters, I was wondering how it might be for rural populations in some of the big states, such as California, Texas, or New York. Are their needs ignored or rolled over by the large urban centers in those states? Also, a lot of the more urbanized Eastern states are losing their electoral votes to states in the South and West. Ohio lost two electoral votes, and so did New York. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/2012-Electoral-Votes-By-State.htm quote: Alabama - 9, unchanged. The state's population increased by 332,636 or 7.5 percent to 4,779,736 in 2010. Alaska - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 83,299 or 13.3 percent to 710,231 in 2010. Arizona - 11, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 1,261,385 or 24.6 percent to 6,392,017 in 2010. Arkansas - 6, unchanged. The state's population increased by 242,518 or 9.1 percent to 2,915,918 in 2010. California - 55, unchanged. The state's population increased by 3,382,308 or 10 percent to 37,253,956 in 2010. Colorado - 9, unchanged. The state's population increased by 727,935 or 16.9 percent to 5,029,196 in 2010. Connecticut - 7, unchanged. The state's population increased by 168,532 or 4.9 percent to 3,574,097 in 2010. Delaware - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 114,334 or 14.6 percent to 897,934 in 2010. District of Columbia - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 29,664 or 5.2 percent to 601,723 in 2010. Florida - 29, an increase of 2 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 2,818,932 or 17.6 percent to 18,801,310 in 2010. Georgia - 16, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 1,501,200 or 18.3 percent to 9,687,653 in 2010. Hawaii - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 148,764 or 12.3 percent to 1,360,301 in 2010. Idaho - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 273,629 or 21.1 percent to 1,567,582 in 2010. Illinois - 20, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 411,339 or 3.3 percent to 12,830,632 in 2010. Indiana - 11, unchanged. The state's population increased by 403,317 or 6.6. percent to 6,483,802 in 2010. Iowa - 6, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 120,031 or 4.1 percent to 3,046,355 in 2010. Kansas - 6, unchanged. The state's population increased by 164,700 or 6.1 percent to 2,853,118 in 2010. Kentucky - 8, unchanged. The state's population increased by 297,598 or 7.4 percent to 4,339,367 in 2011. Louisiana - 8, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 64,396 or 1.4 percent to 4,533,372 in 2010. Maine - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 53,438 or 4.2 percent to 1,328,361 in 2010. Maryland - 10, unchanged. The state's population increased by 477,066 or 9 percent to 5,773,552 in 2010. Massachusetts - 11, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 198,532 or 3.1 percent to 6,547,629 in 2010. Michigan - 16, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population fell by 54,804 or 0.6 percent to 9,883,640 in 2010. Minnesota - 10, unchanged. The state's population increased by 384,446 or 7.8 percent to 5,303,925 in 2010. Mississippi - 6, unchanged. The state's population increased by 122,639 or 4.3 percent to 2,967,297 in 2010. Missouri - 10, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 393,716 or 7 percent to 5,988,927 in 2010. Montana - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 87,220 or 9.7 percent to 989,415 in 2010. Nebraska - 5, unchanged. The state's population increased by 115,078 or 6.7 percent to 1,826,341 in 2010. Nevada - 6, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 702,294 or 35.1 percent to 2,700,551 in 2010. New Hampshire - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 80,684 6.5 percent to 1,316,470 in 2010. New Jersey - 14, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 377,544 or 4.5 percent to 8,791,894 in 2010. New Mexico - 5, unchanged. The state's population increased by 240,133 or 13.2 percent to 2,059,179 in 2010. New York - 29, a decrease of 2 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 401,645 or 2.1 percent to 19,378,102 in 2010. North Carolina - 15, unchanged. The state's population increased by 1,486,170 or 18.5 percent to 9,535,483 in 2010. North Dakota - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 30,391 or 4.7 percent to 672,591 in 2010. Ohio - 18, a decrease of 2 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 183,364 or 1.6 percent to 11,536,504 in 2010. Oklahoma - 7, unchanged. The state's population increased by 300,697 or 8.7 percent to 3,751,351 in 2010. Oregon - 7, unchanged. The state's population increased by 409,675 or 12 percent to 3,831,074 in 2010. Pennsylvania - 20, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 421,325 or 3.4 percent to 12,702,379 in 2010. Rhode Island - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 4,248 or 0.4 percent to 1,052,567 in 2010. South Carolina - 9, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 613,352 or 15.3 percent to 4,625,364 in 2010. South Dakota - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 59,336 or 7.9 percent to 814,180 in 2010. Tennessee - 11, unchanged. The state's population increased by 656,822 or 11.5 percent to 6,346,105 in 2010. Texas - 38, an increase of 4 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 4,293,741 or 20.6 percent to 25,145,561 in 2010. Utah - 6, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 530,716 or 23.8 percent to 2,763,885 in 2010. Vermont - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 16,914 or 2.8 percent to 625,741 in 2010. Virginia - 13, unchanged. The state's population increased by 922,509 or 13 percent to 8,001,024 in 2010. Washington - 12, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 830,419 or 14.1 percent to 6,724,540 in 2010. West Virginia - 5, unchanged. The state's population increased by 44,650 or 2.5 percent to 1,852,994 in 2010. Wisconsin - 10, unchanged. The state's population increased by 323,311 or 6 percent to 5,686,986 in 2010. Wyoming - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 69,844 or 14.1 percent to 563,626 in 2010.

mnottertail -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 10:36:09 AM)
But then the proportional vote might just as well go for a popular vote and quit fucking the dog here.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 11:14:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie I see what you're saying. One way around that dilemma would be direct voting (remove the EC). Another would be re-establishing the nature of representation where illegals are not counted for any purpose. Thus the intent of the EC would be maintained. Could an argument be made that illegals are effectively citizens because they are represented in Congress? (And even the EC no matter they cannot vote?) What kind of racist psycho-babble is that?!?!? Not count non-American Citizens when tallying how many American Citizens are living here?!?!? And then, I'm guessing you'd want to base the representation of American Citizens on the xenophobic counts that don't include non-Citizens. [8D] It's too simple a solution to not count illegals and other non-Citizens. And, I will also add, it doesn't get anyone any political capital.

Marc2b -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 1:04:46 PM)
quote: ? Don't you mean never? What campaign in your life time has concentrated on winning rural states? What actually gets contested are states which have signiicant EC votes, i.e. high population states which by definition are not rural. The Democrats usually pick up the high count states (like New York and California) so the Republicans usually try to sweep up the less populous states.

DomKen -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 2:41:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: ? Don't you mean never? What campaign in your life time has concentrated on winning rural states? What actually gets contested are states which have signiicant EC votes, i.e. high population states which by definition are not rural. The Democrats usually pick up the high count states (like New York and California) so the Republicans usually try to sweep up the less populous states. That's nonsense. Republicans and Democrats compete over the high vote states and ignore the low vote states. It's simply the only way to campaign that makes sense. Look at recent elections, the campaigns have concentrated on the very urban midwest and mid atlantic (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina) while next to no attention is paid to nearby very rural states (Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia) or to rural states in general. In this cycle New Hampshire and Iowa are both within the margin of error in polling but neither campaign is putting much if any effort into either. Dumping the EC makes every vote equally valuable and would actually make rural votes in urban states important. Consider the rural vote in California, New York and Illinois. One man one vote. Why isn't this the way we elect our leader?

Yachtie -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 2:57:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen One man one vote. Why isn't this the way we elect our leader? Because the folks who designed this country thought the EC best. Want to change it? Amend the Constitution.

DomKen -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 2:59:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen One man one vote. Why isn't this the way we elect our leader? Because the folks who designed this country thought the EC best. Want to change it? Amend the Constitution. So why do so few people care that their vote for President doesn't matter?

dcnovice -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 3:27:02 PM)
quote: That would be true only if everybody had the same interests, but the concerns of big city folk are not the same as the concerns of country folk. To win an election all a candidate would have to do is address the concerns of urbanites... they need pay no attention at all to rural folk. So is the EC a form of affirmative action for rural folks? [:)]

graceadieu -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 8:42:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I think the main problem with the Electoral College is that the states operate on a winner-take-all system, when it might be better if the electoral votes are split, divided proportionately to the vote tally within the state. The way it is now, if a candidate wins by just a single vote in a state, they get all the electoral votes, which nullifies all those who voted for the other guy. So, they could still keep the Electoral College, but just have it structured so the votes can be split within states to more accurately reflect the popular vote. Yeah, I agree with this. If we're going to keep the Electoral College, they should either divide the votes proportionally, or just do "winner-takes-all" in each Congressional district instead of the whole state. I think that would better represent the diverse voting population and also get rid of some of the obsessive focus on just a few states.

dcnovice -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 9:14:55 PM)
quote: Because the folks who designed this country thought the EC best. Want to change it? Amend the Constitution. Amazing as they were, the Founders weren't perfect. We tweaked the voting process with the 12th Amendment and again with the 17th. It may be time to consider doing so again.

DomKen -> RE: What if... (11/1/2012 10:07:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Because the folks who designed this country thought the EC best. Want to change it? Amend the Constitution. Amazing as they were, the Founders weren't perfect. We tweaked the voting process with the 12th Amendment and again with the 17th. It may be time to consider doing so again. The 12th radically changed the EC. Clearly the original intent was for the electors to be elected directly in each state and then they would all meet and choose a President and Vice President, that is, basically, how Washington was chosen. The 12th is where the concept of the candidates running campaigns nationally was enshrined. It is clear that back then the difficulties of long distance travel and communication were still very serious concerns. Now of course those reasons for having the EC no longer apply.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125