US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd like to take this opportunity to gripe about the Electoral College system. I think it's deeply, horribly flawed and counterproductive towards democracy.

I remember my reaction when first hearing about the vagaries of the Electoral College system. It was something like --->

On the plus side, it reassured me that even the US can have woefully anachronistic Governmental traditions and practices too.

It does see rather odd when the rest of the US constitution is pretty straightforward. But then you take this into account and it makes more sense.

Getting rid of the Three-Fifths Compromise wasn't too easy. The Electoral College will be even tougher.

People in this country, conservatives especially, have a real knee-jerk reaction to tinkering with anything the Founding Fathers created, as if the country will fall to pieces if we improvise this or do away with that - even if this or that have turned out to be a burden. But the founders didn't all share some glorious, united vision for how our country should work forever. They played politics with each other and compromised their ideas to agree upon a settled package, and the code of laws we have today is the result.

In my opinion, it would be just fine to tinker with the system, provided, however, that a good, demonstrable reason was articulated first. From what I've seen, most of those screaming about the electoral college don't really know how it works and why it was there in the first place.

It's generally the same group of folks who think they are being profound when they say the US was founded by a "bunch of old white guys," when, in the 1770s, most of them (with the exception of Franklin) were in their 30's and 40s.

[Hermit]

I do like some aspects of the way we seem to hold our constitution sacred. It makes it harder to hack away at the Bill of Rights.

I wish we had one of those in Australia, but the Bill of Rights seems a bit overvalued at times. Nice talk about freedoms and rights for everybody, yes, lovely. Wonderful indeed, but when was the Bill conceived? Was that the year slavery was abolished, or when women became enfranchised? Oh, wait, perhaps it was when Indian tribes were no longer herded into those euphemistically named reserves. No no, it was when Joe McCarthy was finally, at long last told that he had done quite enough already. Or was it when ...

[Coito ergo sum]

If I'm still in Utah I plan to vote for the Socialist candidate. Not because I think it'll help, but because the voters here march in lock-step and there's nothing I can do about it. Voting Socialist ensures that my vote will count. Possibly, it'll count for 50%.

I'd like to take this opportunity to gripe about the Electoral College system. I think it's deeply, horribly flawed and counterproductive towards democracy. I've got three main reasons:

1) Disproportionate representation. I don't have exact figures right now (and they'll shift once the 2010 Census is published), but the numbers of Electors is not directly tied to the populations of each state. Voters like to think it's roughly equal, but it's not. For example, in North Dakota there's something like one Elector for every 300k people, whereas in California it's something like one Elector for every 900k. So a single person's vote is three times more likely to sway an Elector's vote in North Dakota than in California. That's a massive injustice, and it's not fair to any state's citizens - certainly not to the under-represented ones like in California.

It's designed to make states like North Dakota something other than irrelevant in Presidential elections. The idea was that we were not a single nation, but a union of independent nations. States like Delaware and Georgia, with less than 50,000 citizens, would never have joined the union without representation as states - they would be at the mercy of New York and Virginia.

It's a very slight shift nowadays, anyway. Wyoming and North Dakota have 3 electoral votes each, and California 55. The only thing the EC really helps with is that a candidate can accumulate, say 10 smaller states instead of needing 12 or 13 smaller states, to match another candidate's win of California.

The EC was a very nice compromise to give some shifting of power from more powerful states to less powerful states. Like the Senate - the same reasons for doing away with the EC would apply even more strongly to doing away with the Senate. The Senators represent States, not populations, therefore North Dakota has 2 senators for it's population of about 2,000,000 (or less, I didn't look it up), and California has 2 Senators for its population of 50 million, or thereabouts. So, when it comes to legislation in the Senate, North Dakotans have a greater impact per capita on the passage of laws than do Californians. One North Dakotan senator represents about a 1,000,000 people, and one Californian Senator represents about 25,000,000 people!

However, since States are political units with independent political interests, it makes sense to make some provision for States to have a representative body and be accounted for in the political process as part of the checks and balances.

2) National campaigns are too battleground-centric. Except for occasional landslide elections, close contests always come down to a handful of battleground states. All things being equal, California and New York vote Democrat, Texas votes Republican, etc. And those examples also happen to be the three biggest states in the union! But often times the political issues in those states aren't addressed as much as industry outsourcing in Ohio or Medicare in Florida, because those smaller states are politically split down the middle. Presidential candidates rarely even show up in thoroughly blue or red states except to do fundraising.

And, they would show up even LESS in those smaller states if the EC was removed. The elections would be even moreso decided by California, NY and Texas. Once a candidate landed the whales, the election would be even LESS likely to turn on winning smaller states. That's because the smaller states would have fewer votes to provide to a candidate if the EC is removed.

But, that's the main reason the EC won't change. You need an amendment to the Constitution which requires ratification by 3/4 of the states. Why would 3/4 of the states vote to give more power to NY, CA and TX? Not gunna happen.

3) Disinclination towards citizen involvement. There are Republicans in places like Massachusets and Maryland, and there are Democrats in places like Utah and Alabama. But how inclined are those minority citizens to become involved in a campaign (or even bother to vote) if their state's Electors are all but guaranteed to vote for the other party's guy? As a Democrat, I sure wouldn't want to knock on doors in Idaho. But if I were only thinking about the national vote instead of my state's Electors, I might actually have that conversation with my neighbor who's on the fence about a candidate.

It would actually make it LESS likely that citizens in Idaho or Utah or Alabama would be involved. They'd say - "shoot, it don't matter who we vote for, them lily-livered liberals in New York and Callyfornia is gonna elect a liberal anyhoo!" That's even the case now, except that the EC provides just that little nudge of electoral power toward states like Allybama, Utah an Idaho, etc. -- it gives the opportunity for fewer of those states to join together to match a bigger state.

The solution? Do away with the Electoral College! If Presidential candidates really do have to win over the national popular vote, they'll have to look beyond which states they can ignore and which states they can win, and concentrate on the people of the entire nation.

Actually, they'd know they need to win New York and California, or they've lost.

More people will become involved, more issues will be addressed in more areas, and it will be truer to the principles of democracy.

No no no - fewer issues will be addressed in fewer areas, because the Presidential candidates would have even less of a reason to care about Wyoming, North Dakota or Utah than they do now.

[Ian]

I think the present occupant is doing an excellent job.

Your opinion.

If you are willing, please explain the basis for your opinion, other than wishful thinking. I've explained the basis for my opinion that he has done an awful job previously.

:sighsm:
OK, the short list:

Above all, having a focus on long-term growth and stability.
Passing the stimulus package (Thank Zeus!!!)
Passing the health care bill
Passing the financial reform bill
(Probably soon) ratifying the New START Treaty
Generally bolstering the US's image around the world (in the long run, this may be his most 2nd most important legacy!)
Being far more intelligent and articulate than the last guy!
Expanding loan programs for small businesses (I'll stop using smilies now)
Requiring health coverage for children
Fully funding the Veterans Administration
Keeping his word about starting to pull troops from Iraq (would McCain? Who knows.)
Keeping his word about putting more troops in Afghanistan
Creating a National Infrastructure Protection Plan
Expanding Pell Grants for college
Reversing restrictions on stem cell research
Investing and encouraging green energy investments (in the long run, this may be his most 1st most important legacy!)
Stimulating private sector investment in space

And of course, it's always difficult to take credit for things that didn't happen. Like, for example, a global depression far worse than what we've seen. I quote Eisenhower after he left the Presidency: "During my time in office, we didn't let a major war erupt up or lose any ground to the enemy. A lot of people ask me how that happened. By God, it didn't just happen, I can tell you that."

I like Obama because he's the right guy for the job. He's intelligent and rational and respected around the world, and I trust him to handle the things that come up. And besides, like it's been said a million times before - he inherited a gigantic stinking pile of shit and has done as well as anyone could have done to fix it. No doubt you disagree, but that's the way it is. I'm probably biased towards seeing in him in a good light, and you've probably been biased towards seeing him negatively ever since he was elected. I'll be happy to let history be the judge after he leaves office in January 2017.

[Ian]

Coito - You completely missed the point of my issue with the electoral college!

Getting rid of the EC wouldn't make smaller states less valuable, or minority-party voters less inclined in those states. It would make state borders meaningless. Candidates would work on wherever people are concentrated - whichever cities or areas they're in, regardless of state - and speak to their issues. Look at a population map of the US, without state borders, and you'll see what I mean. Every vote would be treated equally.

If the election came down to a popular vote, wouldn't each person want their vote to mean something? Think of all those poor Republicans in Massachusets who finally won't be throwing away their Presidential vote on a lost cause!

Sort of a crap example because this is from the website of some Tennessee company, but this is what I mean:http://www.blountindustry.co.uk/images/ ... ee_map.jpg

[Robert_S]

I do like some aspects of the way we seem to hold our constitution sacred. It makes it harder to hack away at the Bill of Rights.

I wish we had one of those in Australia, but the Bill of Rights seems a bit overvalued at times. Nice talk about freedoms and rights for everybody, yes, lovely. Wonderful indeed, but when was the Bill conceived? Was that the year slavery was abolished, or when women became enfranchised? Oh, wait, perhaps it was when Indian tribes were no longer herded into those euphemistically named reserves. No no, it was when Joe McCarthy was finally, at long last told that he had done quite enough already. Or was it when ...

It gave us a good standard to try to live up to.

[Hermit]

I do like some aspects of the way we seem to hold our constitution sacred. It makes it harder to hack away at the Bill of Rights.

I wish we had one of those in Australia, but the Bill of Rights seems a bit overvalued at times. Nice talk about freedoms and rights for everybody, yes, lovely. Wonderful indeed, but when was the Bill conceived? Was that the year slavery was abolished, or when women became enfranchised? Oh, wait, perhaps it was when Indian tribes were no longer herded into those euphemistically named reserves. No no, it was when Joe McCarthy was finally, at long last told that he had done quite enough already. Or was it when ...

It gave us a good standard to try to live up to.

I did say that I wish we had one of those in Australia. Nevertheless, it took decades before slaves benefited from it and over a decade for women to be enfranchised. Have you ever wondered just why it took so long to include either group to be included in that good standard to be lived up to?

[Robert_S]

I do like some aspects of the way we seem to hold our constitution sacred. It makes it harder to hack away at the Bill of Rights.

I wish we had one of those in Australia, but the Bill of Rights seems a bit overvalued at times. Nice talk about freedoms and rights for everybody, yes, lovely. Wonderful indeed, but when was the Bill conceived? Was that the year slavery was abolished, or when women became enfranchised? Oh, wait, perhaps it was when Indian tribes were no longer herded into those euphemistically named reserves. No no, it was when Joe McCarthy was finally, at long last told that he had done quite enough already. Or was it when ...

It gave us a good standard to try to live up to.

I did say that I wish we had one of those in Australia. Nevertheless, it took decades before slaves benefited from it and over a decade for women to be enfranchised. Have you ever wondered just why it took so long to include either group to be included in that good standard to be lived up to?

There are lots of specific reasons, but in general I think it is because humans are generally tribal, racist, sexist and zenophobic. Democracy, universal rights and an appreciation of humans as ends in and of themselves are something we are developing because the smarter ones among us see it as a good thing. It is not the default state.

Also, it is almost always easier to put off drastic societal changes for another generation.

[Ian]

Also, it is almost always easier to put off drastic societal changes for another generation.

:sighsm:
Yeah...

[cowiz]

I do like some aspects of the way we seem to hold our constitution sacred. It makes it harder to hack away at the Bill of Rights.

I wish we had one of those in Australia, but the Bill of Rights seems a bit overvalued at times. Nice talk about freedoms and rights for everybody, yes, lovely. Wonderful indeed, but when was the Bill conceived? Was that the year slavery was abolished, or when women became enfranchised? Oh, wait, perhaps it was when Indian tribes were no longer herded into those euphemistically named reserves. No no, it was when Joe McCarthy was finally, at long last told that he had done quite enough already. Or was it when ...

It gave us a good standard to try to live up to.

I did say that I wish we had one of those in Australia. Nevertheless, it took decades before slaves benefited from it and over a decade for women to be enfranchised. Have you ever wondered just why it took so long to include either group to be included in that good standard to be lived up to?

There are lots of specific reasons, but in general I think it is because humans are generally tribal, racist, sexist and zenophobic. Democracy, universal rights and an appreciation of humans as ends in and of themselves are something we are developing because the smarter ones among us see it as a good thing. It is not the default state.

Also, it is almost always easier to put off drastic societal changes for another generation.

zenophobic xenophobic

Oh yeah, the spelling police will get you every time!

[Robert_S]

I haz an irrational fear of movement.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito - You completely missed the point of my issue with the electoral college!

Getting rid of the EC wouldn't make smaller states less valuable, or minority-party voters less inclined in those states. It would make state borders meaningless. Candidates would work on wherever people are concentrated - whichever cities or areas they're in, regardless of state - and speak to their issues. Look at a population map of the US, without state borders, and you'll see what I mean. Every vote would be treated equally.

If the election came down to a popular vote, wouldn't each person want their vote to mean something? Think of all those poor Republicans in Massachusets who finally won't be throwing away their Presidential vote on a lost cause!

Sort of a crap example because this is from the website of some Tennessee company, but this is what I mean:http://www.blountindustry.co.uk/images/ ... ee_map.jpg

I did not "miss" your point. I disagreed with it.

Getting rid of the EC would absolutely make smaller states less valuable. You yourself explained exactly why - you COMPLAINED about exactly why. The less populace states, you said, are disproportionately represented because of the EC. And, you are right about that - they get a certain number of electors by virtue of being a state, even if they have puny populations. That's why Wyoming has 3 electors, when if they went by population they would LESS THAN ONE! By population, Wyoming is worth a fraction of one elector. Thus, if we did away with the electoral college, their proportionate representation would go down considerably, from 3 to less than 1.

You are right that in the election the state borders would be "meaningless" in the sense that you'd have a direct vote for the President, but you're missing the reality that Wyoming would still have less influence than it has now because it's people now have MORE influence than their proportionate share of the population would give them.

YOu said, "every vote would be treated equally." Yes! And, as such, the people living in Wyoming would lose the extra influence they have now. Therefore, smaller states like Wyoming would LOSE influence in the Presidential election and exactly like I said there would be even less of a reason for candidates to go to states like Wyoming because instead of 3 electoral votes, they AT MOST can get a few tens of thousands of votes out of the 110,000,000.

EDIT: The idea is that the states vote for the President, not the people. And, that's a good thing in many ways. I can see how people can argue the other way, but it is not fair to at least recognize that there are good and wise reasons FOR the EC, as well as against. Too often on these issues people view them as black and white, without acknowledging that the other side has some points in their favor, even if we disagree.

Points in favor of the EC are: (1) It is more difficult for a merely "regional" extremist party to win the Presidency when the election is decided by winning the states, and not merely population centers - that's advantageous for political stability, and helps make the President someone who has appealed to people across the country, (2) the small states get a larger say than they would with a purely popular vote, and (3) the EC is part of the many important "checks and balances" - one check and balance is against the "tyranny of the majority," - see the following:

The United States

rejected "pure democracy," as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10. They knew that with "nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual," blind majoritarianism can become as great a menace to liberty as any king or dictator. The term "tyranny of the majority" was coined for good reason.

That is why the framers went to such lengths to prevent popular majorities from too easily getting their way. They didn't concentrate unlimited power in any single institution, or in the hands of voters. They divided authority among the three branches of the federal government, and subdivided the legislative branch into two chambers. They reserved certain powers to the states. Time and again, the system they devised rejects simple majority rule. It takes only 51 senators (sometimes only 41) to block legislation that hundreds of lawmakers may support. The president can veto a bill passed by both houses of Congress - and it takes two-thirds of both the House and Senate to override his veto.

The Electoral College (like the Senate) was designed to preserve the role of the states in governing a nation whose name - the United States of America - reflects its fundamental federal nature. We are a nation of states, not of autonomous citizens, and those states have distinct identities and interests, which the framers were at pains to protect. Too many Americans today forget - or never learned - that the states created the central government; it wasn't the other way around. The federal principle is at least as important to American governance as the one-man-one-vote principle, and the Electoral College brilliantly marries them: Democratic elections take place within each state to determine that state's vote for president in the Electoral College.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... l_college/

Electoral College empowers Utahns
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Oct 17, 2004 by Jay Evensen Deseret Morning News

12Next
What does New Mexico have that Utah doesn't? It's a desert state with rich American Indian and Hispanic traditions. It is sparsely populated, except for one reasonably large metropolitan area. And it will cast five electoral votes in this year's presidential election.

It is, in many ways, Utah's equal. And yet both President Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry spent part of last week in New Mexico, campaigning with energy, mingling with crowds and tossing verbal grenades at each other. Neither one has so much as glanced at Utah this year, except maybe from 30,000 feet.

The reason, of course, is that this is not a so-called battleground state. The president and everyone else long ago tallied Utah's five electoral votes in the Republican column. It's more of a sure thing even than the Yankees making the playoffs each year.

But there are two more sure things. One is that both candidates would be here right now working the crowds if Utahns were evenly divided over the two candidates. The other is that without the electoral college neither candidate would step foot, ever, in Utah or New Mexico. If the only object were to get as many votes as possible, candidates would spend all their time in major population centers, and they would care even less than they do now about the things important to those of us in small states.

This time of year, it is common to hear people arguing to abolish the Electoral College. This chorus seems especially loud right now because of the problems of the 2000 election and because of how close things look to be right now, but the argument has continued unabated every four years for decades. Pundits here and elsewhere have called it archaic, little more than an afterthought by the Founding Fathers and a holdover from days when people owned slaves and wouldn't let women vote.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... n11485054/

[Hermit]

Getting rid of the EC would absolutely make smaller states less valuable. You yourself explained exactly why - you COMPLAINED about exactly why. The less populace states, you said, are disproportionately represented because of the EC. And, you are right about that - they get a certain number of electors by virtue of being a state, even if they have puny populations. That's why Wyoming has 3 electors, when if they went by population they would LESS THAN ONE! By population, Wyoming is worth a fraction of one elector. Thus, if we did away with the electoral college, their proportionate representation would go down considerably, from 3 to less than 1.

You are right that in the election the state borders would be "meaningless" in the sense that you'd have a direct vote for the President, but you're missing the reality that Wyoming would still have less influence than it has now because it's people now have MORE influence than their proportionate share of the population would give them.

YOu said, "every vote would be treated equally." Yes! And, as such, the people living in Wyoming would lose the extra influence they have now. Therefore, smaller states like Wyoming would LOSE influence in the Presidential election and exactly like I said there would be even less of a reason for candidates to go to states like Wyoming because instead of 3 electoral votes, they AT MOST can get a few tens of thousands of votes out of the 110,000,000.

In short: You are against the principle of One Vote, One Value.

Why am I not surprised?

[Coito ergo sum]

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow ... 2f02afff8/

Obama Loses Support in Poll as Joblessness Prompts Growing U.S. Discontent

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-1 ... ntent.html

[Coito ergo sum]

Getting rid of the EC would absolutely make smaller states less valuable. You yourself explained exactly why - you COMPLAINED about exactly why. The less populace states, you said, are disproportionately represented because of the EC. And, you are right about that - they get a certain number of electors by virtue of being a state, even if they have puny populations. That's why Wyoming has 3 electors, when if they went by population they would LESS THAN ONE! By population, Wyoming is worth a fraction of one elector. Thus, if we did away with the electoral college, their proportionate representation would go down considerably, from 3 to less than 1.

You are right that in the election the state borders would be "meaningless" in the sense that you'd have a direct vote for the President, but you're missing the reality that Wyoming would still have less influence than it has now because it's people now have MORE influence than their proportionate share of the population would give them.

YOu said, "every vote would be treated equally." Yes! And, as such, the people living in Wyoming would lose the extra influence they have now. Therefore, smaller states like Wyoming would LOSE influence in the Presidential election and exactly like I said there would be even less of a reason for candidates to go to states like Wyoming because instead of 3 electoral votes, they AT MOST can get a few tens of thousands of votes out of the 110,000,000.

In short: You are against the principle of One Vote, One Value.

Why am I not surprised?

I don't know, why aren't you?

If you are in favor of a purely democratic system, then why aren't you clamoring about eliminating the Senate?

And, aren't you from France? Don't you have your own problems? Like how In order to even be a candidate in your presidential election a person must receive signed presentations (informally known as parrainages, for "godfathering") from more than 500 elected officials, mostly mayors! LOL -- nice plutocracy you have going there. One vote indeed....one vote for the candidate who receives the imprimatur of the ruling class! LOL

And, I will proudly say that, yes, in certain cases I am not in favor of pure democracy. I don't mind that the President has the right to veto the will of a majority of the elected legislators, even if they are following the will of the people. I don't mind that we have 2 Senators in each state, regardless of population, resulting in the Wyoming (population 250,000) having as much power in the Senate as California (population 50,000,000).

I don't mind that in British and Canadian parliamentary elections for the Prime Minister, not everyone even gets to vote on who becomes the PM. Only voters in a candidate for Parliament's riding or district get to vote for candidates that represent that riding/district - and then the Parliament members or coalition that controls Parliament vote on and appoint the Prime Minister. So, please - let's not pretend like it is some horrid state of affairs that "pure democracy" is not followed in electing a head of state. In every major country, their is some element of temperance relative to the majority vote.

So, you know what you can do with your snarky bullshit "why am I not surprised" nonsense. It's born of ignorance.