On another note, I run across articles all the time I think are pertinent, but I don’t know if I should just email them to Kavon or post them in the latest thread even if it’s not related. Kavon?
Emtee, I have no idea where you stand on this issue, but I think it’s a supremely dumb move to move away from the electoral college. As for people who might think they can’t do this, think again. The Constitution doesn’t require a vote every four years to determine the President, it requires every state to send electors. It’s just been tradition that they’ve been sent based on an election.
Why isn’t the popular vote as good as the electoral college? Easy. Going to a straight popular vote would take the focus off large portions of this country (“flyover country”) and concentrate all focus on the 10 largest cities (because their populations would be enough to create a lead the other candidates couldn’t overtake). Realistically, that means only “city issues” would matter to the politicians, and the rest of the country could just go fly a kite, because there just aren’t enough votes in those areas to make up the difference.
The electoral college was created with the expess purpose of making sure that the majority doesn’t always squeeze out the minority (or put another way, that 5 wolves and 4 sheep don’t get equal votes on what’s for dinner). A candidate has to address the concerns of a multitude of interest groups, and actually represents a broader spectrum of the voting populous.
Emtee #9: Have the Iowa legislators lost their minds? They want to disenfranchise future Iowa voting majorities if the national electorate disagrees with them? Oh, and if Bush v. Gore is the reason given, what would the law have required in 2000? The final, last, no-longer-disputed count of the popular vote wasn’t complete for nearly two years, IIRC.
The EC system definitely needs to be fixed though. No reason that places like Alaska and Wyoming with populations less than most major American cities should be overrepresented in relation to their states population.
The popular vote and the EC should be balanced a little better.
“I want to thank the President for nominating me to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. This was a great honor, and I had felt that I could bring some views and ideas that would assist him in governing during this difficult time. I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle.
“However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.”
No reason that places like Alaska and Wyoming with populations less than most major American cities should be overrepresented in relation to their states population.
Except for the fact that states like AK and WY have to live under the regulatory thumb of the Beltway busybodies who control most of those state’s land and consistently ban the exploitation of their resources. And this state of affairs obtains despite the balance afforded by the EC system and the two-per-state distribution of Senators.
Low-pop states’ residents do not obviously benefit from the tyranny of the country’s majority.
Except the EC system is unfairly unbalanced to give the states with smaller populations more say. If you REALLY cared about balanced you’d be talking about how Washington DC has zero senators or voting congressman despite being federally regulated and paying the same taxes that people who live in states pay.
The way the current EC system is set up an Alaskans vote is “worth” more than a Californians vote. Is that fair?
#16, both of those states contribute just over 1% of the needed votes to win the White House. How much less representation should they have? Do away with the Senate votes and go strictly to 435 (which would exclude DC as well)?
No, I like the way it’s set up. Smaller states have a relatively larger impact on the EC in order to give them SOME relevance in the process, for the purpose of trying to prevent a tyranny of the majority from completely ignoring them. They get little enough attention as is!
Oldtop, you don’t understand why we use the Electoral College, do you? The idea isn’t to approximate a popular vote, it’s to allow for a greater variety of views to be shared with the country. It’s also to try and prevent a singular point of view (or a small number of views) from being the premier view of all politicians. If you move to eliminate the Senate seat vote for each state, you will change the midwest’s low priority status for national politicians to no priority status.
Said another way, we want as many cultural groups as possible to have SOME influence on the Presidency. The only way to do that is to make some votes count just a little bit more than others, or they will simply be ignored in the grand scheme of things (they’re already close to that as is).
I’m just saying they are overrepresented. According to this current system a state with 200 people (hypothetically) would get 2 senators and 3 EC’s. I know it’s an extreme example but it’s the truth. This current system is disenfranchising people that live in places like California and New York because their singular votes have less of an impact than a singular vote from Wyoming.
“The only way to do that is to make some votes count just a little bit more than others, or they will simply be ignored in the grand scheme of things (they’re already close to that as is).”
I understand your point but what you say here is what I don’t like. It’s almost like affirmative action for smaller states.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:23 am
This is the best and most succinct posting that I have seen on this site in the last 2 years!!
February 12th, 2009 at 11:58 am
reason rules. all you conservatives are really libertarians, you just dont know it yet…
February 12th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Joe C.,
My first ever vote for President was for Harry Browne in 1996.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Very funny.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Very clever
February 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Hah! Great stuff!
February 12th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Hey, it looks like Judd Gregg pulled his name from consideration! I think that’s what I’m hearing on foxnews right now.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Clever.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
This is unrelated, but I thought worthy of coverage on this site:
Iowa Looking to Break from Electoral College
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/39445212.html
February 12th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
That’s certainly interesting Emtee. Maybe it should be posted as it’s own entry?
February 12th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
On another note, I run across articles all the time I think are pertinent, but I don’t know if I should just email them to Kavon or post them in the latest thread even if it’s not related. Kavon?
February 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Emtee, I have no idea where you stand on this issue, but I think it’s a supremely dumb move to move away from the electoral college. As for people who might think they can’t do this, think again. The Constitution doesn’t require a vote every four years to determine the President, it requires every state to send electors. It’s just been tradition that they’ve been sent based on an election.
Why isn’t the popular vote as good as the electoral college? Easy. Going to a straight popular vote would take the focus off large portions of this country (“flyover country”) and concentrate all focus on the 10 largest cities (because their populations would be enough to create a lead the other candidates couldn’t overtake). Realistically, that means only “city issues” would matter to the politicians, and the rest of the country could just go fly a kite, because there just aren’t enough votes in those areas to make up the difference.
The electoral college was created with the expess purpose of making sure that the majority doesn’t always squeeze out the minority (or put another way, that 5 wolves and 4 sheep don’t get equal votes on what’s for dinner). A candidate has to address the concerns of a multitude of interest groups, and actually represents a broader spectrum of the voting populous.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Iowa is a dumb state.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Richard M – Once again I wholeheartedly agree with you. States like New York, California, Pennsylvania, and Illinois would have way too much power.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Emtee #9: Have the Iowa legislators lost their minds? They want to disenfranchise future Iowa voting majorities if the national electorate disagrees with them? Oh, and if Bush v. Gore is the reason given, what would the law have required in 2000? The final, last, no-longer-disputed count of the popular vote wasn’t complete for nearly two years, IIRC.
Oh, and everything that Richard M said.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
The EC system definitely needs to be fixed though. No reason that places like Alaska and Wyoming with populations less than most major American cities should be overrepresented in relation to their states population.
The popular vote and the EC should be balanced a little better.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Vermont as well.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
OBAMA BURNED: GREGG WITHDRAWS AFTER POLICIES TOO MUCH TO STOMACH
‘I couldn’t be Judd Gregg’
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18794.html
February 12th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Except for the fact that states like AK and WY have to live under the regulatory thumb of the Beltway busybodies who control most of those state’s land and consistently ban the exploitation of their resources. And this state of affairs obtains despite the balance afforded by the EC system and the two-per-state distribution of Senators.
Low-pop states’ residents do not obviously benefit from the tyranny of the country’s majority.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
And now for something completely different … an Obama cabinet nominee withdrawing even though he paid his taxes.
Hooray for Judd Gregg!
February 12th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Except the EC system is unfairly unbalanced to give the states with smaller populations more say. If you REALLY cared about balanced you’d be talking about how Washington DC has zero senators or voting congressman despite being federally regulated and paying the same taxes that people who live in states pay.
The way the current EC system is set up an Alaskans vote is “worth” more than a Californians vote. Is that fair?
February 12th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
#16, both of those states contribute just over 1% of the needed votes to win the White House. How much less representation should they have? Do away with the Senate votes and go strictly to 435 (which would exclude DC as well)?
No, I like the way it’s set up. Smaller states have a relatively larger impact on the EC in order to give them SOME relevance in the process, for the purpose of trying to prevent a tyranny of the majority from completely ignoring them. They get little enough attention as is!
February 12th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Oldtop, you don’t understand why we use the Electoral College, do you? The idea isn’t to approximate a popular vote, it’s to allow for a greater variety of views to be shared with the country. It’s also to try and prevent a singular point of view (or a small number of views) from being the premier view of all politicians. If you move to eliminate the Senate seat vote for each state, you will change the midwest’s low priority status for national politicians to no priority status.
Said another way, we want as many cultural groups as possible to have SOME influence on the Presidency. The only way to do that is to make some votes count just a little bit more than others, or they will simply be ignored in the grand scheme of things (they’re already close to that as is).
February 12th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I’m just saying they are overrepresented. According to this current system a state with 200 people (hypothetically) would get 2 senators and 3 EC’s. I know it’s an extreme example but it’s the truth. This current system is disenfranchising people that live in places like California and New York because their singular votes have less of an impact than a singular vote from Wyoming.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
“The only way to do that is to make some votes count just a little bit more than others, or they will simply be ignored in the grand scheme of things (they’re already close to that as is).”
I understand your point but what you say here is what I don’t like. It’s almost like affirmative action for smaller states.