|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
WalksWithBlackflies 
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8827
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 8:30 am |
|
   |
Bush won the Presidency although losing the popular vote. It's possible Romney will win the popular vote and lose the election. Should we abolish the electoral college?
I live in NYS, which always votes Democrat (except for Reagan) due to the population center of NYC. My vote does not matter. Plus the Electoral College makes it extremely difficult for a third party to be viable. Thus, I'd like the electoral college to be abolished. According to a Gallup poll, 62% of my fellow countrymen agree with me.
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2379
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
 |
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 9:35 am |
|
 |
I seriously doubt Romney will win the popular vote.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Bateauxdriver
Group: Members
Posts: 1742
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 9:49 am |
|
|
I say abolish. I live in a red state with only 8 EC votes. We have seen little attention this year. I think Obama will win the popular vote by a few % and will win the EC in the range of about 290. As I stated in another thread, when Texas turns more of a shade of blue, it will get difficult for a republican EC win in coming decades. They likely will push for change. Then, as stated above 3rd parties have a fighting chance.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8827
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 11:02 am |
|
|
(kyle2193 @ Oct. 19 2012, 9:46 am)
QUOTE
(WalksWithBlackflies @ Oct. 19 2012, 8:30 am)
QUOTE I live in NYS, which always votes Democrat (except for Reagan) due to the population center of NYC. My vote does not matter. People say this statement all the time and it makes no sense. How does it not matter?
Regardless of how I vote, Obama will win NY. It's a foregone conclusion. There aren't enough republicans/independents in Upstate to counter the huge democrat presence in NYC (and other urban areas of Upstate).
I'll still vote, but I'll "waste" it on a third-party. Perhaps that third party will garner enough votes to be eligible for Federal funding during the next election.
PS - This only applies to the Presidential race. Congressional and State races are close. Actually, this also typically applies to local races, which almost always go republican.
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
GoBlueHiker
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Group: Members
Posts: 14203
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 11:21 am |
|
|
(kyle2193 @ Oct. 19 2012, 9:18 am)
QUOTE
(WalksWithBlackflies @ Oct. 19 2012, 11:02 am)
QUOTE Regardless of how I vote, Obama will win NY. It's a foregone conclusion. There aren't enough republicans/independents in Upstate to counter the huge democrat presence in NYC (and other urban areas of Upstate).
I'll still vote, but I'll "waste" it on a third-party. Perhaps that third party will garner enough votes to be eligible for Federal funding during the next election.
PS - This only applies to the Presidential race. Congressional and State races are close. Actually, this also typically applies to local races, which almost always go republican. So you are voting for a canidate you percieve is going to lose, so it is wasted? By that argument, isn't every vote for a canidate that loses a "wasted" vote?
That's not even close to what he said, and your response completely ignores his actual point. I think you know better, Kyle. Feigning ignorance of the counter-arguments doesn't strengthen your point.
In a popular election, his vote would count the same whether it came from a so-called red state or a blue state. In the electoral college (in his case in NY), his vote for a "red" presidential candidate is completely wasted (irrelevant in the national total) if the state goes "blue". Which happens frequently in his state. It doesn't end up mattering in the national totals whether 10% of the state voted red or 49.9% of the state voted red, even though that might matter a lot in a national popular election. It's not that hard to comprehend.
--------------
Wealth needs more. Happiness needs less. Simplify.
www.RainForestTreks.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2379
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 11:35 am |
|
|
(kyle2193 @ Oct. 19 2012, 11:18 am)
QUOTE
(WalksWithBlackflies @ Oct. 19 2012, 11:02 am)
QUOTE Regardless of how I vote, Obama will win NY. It's a foregone conclusion. There aren't enough republicans/independents in Upstate to counter the huge democrat presence in NYC (and other urban areas of Upstate).
I'll still vote, but I'll "waste" it on a third-party. Perhaps that third party will garner enough votes to be eligible for Federal funding during the next election.
PS - This only applies to the Presidential race. Congressional and State races are close. Actually, this also typically applies to local races, which almost always go republican. So you are voting for a canidate you percieve is going to lose, so it is wasted? By that argument, isn't every vote for a canidate that loses a "wasted" vote?
Your brain processes information in a very odd way. Millions of people believe in ghosts Kyle, therefore you shouldn't vote.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
kyle2193
Group: Members
Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2008
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 12:02 pm |
|
|
(GoBlueHiker @ Oct. 19 2012, 11:21 am)
QUOTE That's not even close to what he said, and your response completely ignores his actual point. I think you know better, Kyle. Feigning ignorance of the counter-arguments doesn't strengthen your point.
In a popular election, his vote would count the same whether it came from a so-called red state or a blue state. In the electoral college (in his case in NY), his vote for a "red" presidential candidate is completely wasted (irrelevant in the national total) if the state goes "blue". Which happens frequently in his state. It doesn't end up mattering in the national totals whether 10% of the state voted red or 49.9% of the state voted red, even though that might matter a lot in a national popular election. It's not that hard to comprehend.
A "red" or "blue" state is only that because the majority of the people vote for a canidate a majoirty of the time.
As he stated, Reagan took New York both times, did his vote not count then? (Assuming he could have voted)
You are stating an end result, the state went blue, and his vote didn't count because he voted red. Does it count if he votes blue?
72% of congressmen and both senators are democrats in New York. Is it fair to say that New York prefers democrats and if they vote for a democratic president, does that not refelct the plurality views of the state?
Do R votes in a historically democratic district count? The same argument could be applied stating that the R votes there don't matter, they only matter in contested districts.
Every person's vote counts as much as everyone elses. Your vote doesn't count on a federal level, not for any office. People forget, we are a republic, not a democracy, for good reason.
--------------
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
-Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39795
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 12:16 pm |
|
|
"Your vote doesn't count on a federal level, not for any office."
United States Congressional House members are elected by popular vote: "Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." ,
though historically that wasn't always true for United States Senators who were initially chosen by the state legislature. Article 1, Section 3
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
That actually lasted longer than I had expected to see:
"AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
GoBlueHiker
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Group: Members
Posts: 14203
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 12:29 pm |
|
|
(kyle2193 @ Oct. 19 2012, 10:15 am)
QUOTE
(TehipiteTom @ Oct. 19 2012, 12:05 pm)
QUOTE Wrong. In presidential elections, a Wyoming voter's vote counts about twice as much as a Montanan's, and about four times as much as a Californian's. How so?
Sigh. Alright.
Wyoming has a population of 568,000, and has 3 electoral college votes. That means, proportionally, one electoral college vote represents about 189,000 citizens of that state.
Montana has a population of 998,000, and also has only 3 electoral college votes. Despite having 75% more people, MT has no more electoral college votes. Each EC vote, proportionally, represents about 333,000 citizens there.
Californa has 37,692,000 people, with 55 EC college votes. Each EC vote in CA represents 685,000 people. It takes 3.6 times as many people to comprise one single EC vote in California as it does in Wyoming.
Most people understand there's no rhyme nor reason to that.
The "it's a Republic!" bumper-sticker line doesn't comprise any actual argument at all, for or against. Even with a popular presidential vote, we'd remain a republic. That's irrelevant to the argument.
--------------
Wealth needs more. Happiness needs less. Simplify.
www.RainForestTreks.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 12:57 pm |
|
|
It's just one of the things that needs to be reformed out of existence.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Bateauxdriver
Group: Members
Posts: 1742
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 1:06 pm |
|
|
There is no danger to our Republic in using the popular vote to elect our leaders. We still elect representatives and senators that we send to Washington.
In the year 2012 with the information age firmly footed, the president can be elected by popular vote with almost no threat of fraud.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8827
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 1:34 pm |
|
|
(kyle2193 @ Oct. 19 2012, 12:02 pm)
QUOTE
(GoBlueHiker @ Oct. 19 2012, 11:21 am)
QUOTE That's not even close to what he said, and your response completely ignores his actual point. I think you know better, Kyle. Feigning ignorance of the counter-arguments doesn't strengthen your point.
In a popular election, his vote would count the same whether it came from a so-called red state or a blue state. In the electoral college (in his case in NY), his vote for a "red" presidential candidate is completely wasted (irrelevant in the national total) if the state goes "blue". Which happens frequently in his state. It doesn't end up mattering in the national totals whether 10% of the state voted red or 49.9% of the state voted red, even though that might matter a lot in a national popular election. It's not that hard to comprehend. A "red" or "blue" state is only that because the majority of the people vote for a canidate a majoirty of the time. As he stated, Reagan took New York both times, did his vote not count then? (Assuming he could have voted) You are stating an end result, the state went blue, and his vote didn't count because he voted red. Does it count if he votes blue? 72% of congressmen and both senators are democrats in New York.
Whether I vote for the democrat or republican candidate for President, the result is the same... all of NY's electoral college votes are going for the democrat candidate. My only choice is to vote for the "winning team" or "losing team". The end has already been decided.
Here's a good analogy Kyle... predict who will win last year's Super Bowl?
QUOTE Is it fair to say that New York prefers democrats and if they vote for a democratic president, does that not refelct the plurality views of the state?
This is actually my main issue. NY is very divided between the liberal urban cities and the conservative rural, well, remainder of the state (plus suburban Long Island). The map below illustrates this well. The only blue areas are the main cities (NYC, Albany, Buffalo, and Syracuse), Tompkins County (VERY liberal due to Cornell, etc.), and the two northern counties because they "behave" like Canadians (obviously due to French Canadians crossing the border and committing voter fraud). The rural districts just don't have the population to influence Senate/Presidential elections.
QUOTE Do R votes in a historically democratic district count? The same argument could be applied stating that the R votes there don't matter, they only matter in contested districts.
That is correct... assuming that by "historically" you mean that it is obvious that the democratic candidate is a shoe-in. There is always the odd election where a democrat candidate (given your example) is exceptionally weak, which results in a contested election (ex - Reagan's wins). There is one caveat, though... the smaller the district, the more influence the "nay" votes have in shaping future primaries/elections... because each vote carries more weight.
QUOTE Every person's vote counts as much as everyone elses. Your vote doesn't count on a federal level, not for any office. People forget, we are a republic, not a democracy, for good reason.
What is the good reason? Are you referring only to elections or day-to-day governmental operations?
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2379
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 1:59 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Oct. 19 2012, 12:55 pm)
QUOTE
(GoBlueHiker @ Oct. 19 2012, 9:29 am)
QUOTE .....The "it's a Republic!" bumper-sticker line doesn't comprise any actual argument at all, for or against. That's (IMHO) the re-echo of the unceasing effort Republicans have apparently decided to exert in separating the American people from our federal government, one more violation of their allegedly* beloved Constitution with it's pesky "We the People..." awkwardness eh? Erode our sense of nationhood and community as expressed BY our Constitution and it's creation, our federal government, to achieve their goal of "You're On Your Own". * "allegedly" since they seem to exert endless effort to subvert just about every nook and corner of the actual document in what I view as their continuing efforts to dis their also allegedly beloved "Founders" in discarding their crowning achievement in correcting the fatal flaws in The Articles of Confederation, flaws the Republicans so dearly want to return to, mainly an entirely eviscerated central federal government.
That's something that seems to have gained ground with the Tea party movement. Remember back as recently as the Bush years the mantra was all about spreading democracy, then suddenly they change their tune to "we're a republic, not a democracy." Bunch of morons.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
kyle2193
Group: Members
Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2008
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 2:43 pm |
|
|
GoBlue
QUOTE Most people understand there's no rhyme nor reason to that.
The "it's a Republic!" bumper-sticker line doesn't comprise any actual argument at all, for or against. Even with a popular presidential vote, we'd remain a republic. That's irrelevant to the argument.
Okay, say I buy off on it. Montana has 1 US Representive, Wyoming also has 1. Rhode Island has just over 50k more people than Montana, but they have 2.
California has 53. Are these also unfair? Should we change them as well?
What about the Senate? Montana gets just as many as New York.
That is unfair, is it not? Or are we a republic that understands we must try and balance the population with the ingreity of the State? Remember, in the rest of the world a countries are also called States.
WWBF
QUOTE Whether I vote for the democrat or republican candidate for President, the result is the same
If you are the only variable, that will always be true.
QUOTE The rural districts just don't have the population to influence Senate/Presidential elections.
But they are representives of the plurality of the population of your state, correct?
QUOTE What is the good reason? Are you referring only to elections or day-to-day governmental operations?
The federal government, at its core, is designed to work for the commanality of the States. Most things are designed to be left to the States, because government works best at the local level. We send representives of our States and the States elect a President, of the States.
Our federal government is designed to balance the rights of individual States with the population density. The electoral college is just one example of that.
--------------
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
-Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8827
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 3:46 pm |
|
|
(kyle2193 @ Oct. 19 2012, 2:43 pm)
QUOTE WWBF QUOTE Whether I vote for the democrat or republican candidate for President, the result is the same If you are the only variable, that will always be true.
You're missing the point... the outcome of the race has already been decided.
QUOTE QUOTE The rural districts just don't have the population to influence Senate/Presidential elections. But they are representives of the plurality of the population of your state, correct?
Yes, and that's the reason Upstate NY is in a perpetual recession. They might represent 60% of the voting population, but only 20% of the counties, towns, and villages. The population is not evenly distributed. Thus, Upstate is left behind. Why? Because even the candidates know that our votes don't matter, so they don't waste time trying to appease us.
QUOTE QUOTE What is the good reason? Are you referring only to elections or day-to-day governmental operations? We send representives of our States and the States elect a President, of the States.
We send representatives of one segment of the States, while the remainder are left without representation.
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39795
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 4:04 pm |
|
|
Yet like the other "red" areas upstate pulls money from New York City by the freight train load. At leats that had been the case in the past.
As recently as 2003:
According to the fable penned and perpetuated by the Legislature, upstate taxpayers support the downstate rabble. It's a myth, children. Pure bunk. A fairy story spun by the pols who carve up the city's tax pie and keep the plums for themselves.
The reality is that each year New York City sends $3.5 billion more in taxes to Albany than it gets back in state aid. That's almost the size of the municipal budget deficit. If the city were allowed to keep its tax revenues, it wouldn't have to raise property taxes, close firehouses, lay off cops, fire teacher's aides and put zoo creatures up for adoption."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
Bateauxdriver
Group: Members
Posts: 1742
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 4:11 pm |
|
|
You people do realize that electors within the EC do not have to remain to the candidate chosen by their state. Like in the 2000 Bush-Gore debacle. Had one electors in Florida abstained from voting or decided to vote for Gore instead of Bush, the Gore would have won. Most always electors remain faithful but in some cases they are not bound to the popular vote of the state.
I'll have to look that up when I have time. Just something I remembered from long ago.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2379
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 8:36 pm |
|
|
(Montanalonewolf @ Oct. 19 2012, 7:33 pm)
QUOTE
(Bateauxdriver @ Oct. 19 2012, 2:11 pm)
QUOTE You people do realize that electors within the EC do not have to remain to the candidate chosen by their state. Like in the 2000 Bush-Gore debacle. Had one electors in Florida abstained from voting or decided to vote for Gore instead of Bush, the Gore would have won. Most always electors remain faithful but in some cases they are not bound to the popular vote of the state.
I'll have to look that up when I have time. Just something I remembered from long ago. EC members are not obligated by any law to vote a state's candidate. They can vote for whoever they wish.
And it's just that simple. That's that!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
Drake
Group: Members
Posts: 1070
Joined: Jul. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012, 10:42 pm |
|
|
States Rights. The United States of America. Here we have States, United, of America which is, last I checked my Big Map and that would recently as I happen to really, really like my Big Map, a region within a continent.
We do not have the The United of America.
We have States and they, being each a co-equal member of a federation, have their own provincial interests and Governments that must be protected from the larger majority of the rest of the human beings in the rest of the States. The concept ain't that difficult.
Drake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
