When Voting: Morality vs keeping opponent out at any costs

[codeorama]

I understand that, it has good intentions. I'm just suprised there haven't been more problems. But Again, I'm not saying this because of the last election, Bush would have probably won anyway, but you know, If they counted all the votes and he won, we wouldn't have to constantly hear about how he didn't really win and GOP judges gave him the Presidency and so on...

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

If every person in Wyoming voted the same way, they still wouldnt make a dent in the votes from LA etc.

But more importantly, candidates would completely ignore the issues important to that state.

I see what you're saying but I can't agree with the solution. Why shouldn't we weight the votes of racial minorities then, to even out their representation? Or any other subgroup in danger of being dominated? The way things stand, the Electoral College is like Affirmative Action for conservatives.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

If every person in Wyoming voted the same way, they still wouldnt make a dent in the votes from LA etc.

But more importantly, candidates would completely ignore the issues important to that state.

You mean like Bush did with California? Canidates already ignore states - ones that they feel won't vote their way. And thats WITH the current system.

I prefer the Electoral college, don't get me wrong, but I do acknowledge the inherant flaws in it.

To me, its the best of a bad system.

[codeorama]

How can counting everyone's vote "straight up" be bad? Why do we need a "formula" to discover what everyone's vote equals??

[Art]

Code,

One reason a straight up vote doesn't work is because a remarkable majority of the country, in terms of land mass, is conservative. Here's a shot of the vote totals from the last election by country.

The big city population centers tend to be more liberal in their voting obviously. If you went strictly by a total population vote what you'd end up having is, essentially, the big city deciding what's best for the rest of the country. While Kilmer's discussion about Wyoming is a bit crude, the point shouldn't be lost on you.

Take Minneapolis for example. It's heavily liberal. They believe in a traffic tax, like London is doing, which will charge people just for driving downtown. They hate urban sprawl. They want high rises and density. They hate roads and cars. Expand this out to a similar view among many in the cities and nationally you may have policy that hurts rural communities. Obviously a geographical breakdown of conservative versus liberal is not, by itself, persuasive. It is just remarkable to see the vast differences in the heart of this country as compared to the cities.

I think the electoral college protects smaller states and rural areas by weighting the vote in such a way as to limit the dangers either that the big city rules, badly, for the country or the country rules badly for the big city. And, besides, the most essential reason the electoral college exists is because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the people. Knowing how generally dumb folks are, this seems to have been quite insightful on their part .

[Yomar]

what the hell happened to Alaska?

[codeorama]

Art, Thanks for the graphic, but it still doesn't make sense. The president isn't going to decide how much money goes to fix the streets of Mn. Based on the last election, the country is not overwhelmingly conservative or liberal, it's split pretty evenly. You can bring up any other situation and statistics, but that's the fact of the matter.

Local and state governments determine the politics for the localities and states, the president is for the entire nation, I don't think he's concerned about how the highways in Virginia are.

What you said about the founding father not trusting the people is THE POINT of the issue. That's a sham. The whole Government for the people is a sham. Most people don't even know that if the people of Virginia vote GOP but the designated electoral college voter decides to do something different, they can... (I know it doesn't happen) but the point is that it can happen and that sucks, just like the system.

[Art]

Code, you begin to get into a situation called pay back. TEG pointed out, correctly, that Bush didn't visit California during the last election cycle because he knew the state was worthless to him. In a straight popularity contest you could see promises made to local politicans for help in getting out the vote in their key areas.

You could see federal transportation dollars sent from one area to another. You could see federal mandates come out of population center sensitivities. In fact, yes, the vast majority of the country is conservative. Not only did you see the map, but, it should kind of go to figure to you. You don't see me denying that the majority, even a vast one, of the population centers of this country vote liberal do you?

The "split" between Democrats and Republicans in terms of total voters comes from the differences between the great majorities enjoyed by the right in the vast majority of the country against the majority the left enjoys in the urban centers. What a strict population count vote for President would do would be interesting however. I think statistics show that rural communities vote at a greater clip than urban ones.

How motivated you'd get lazy city dwellers or take it for granted country livers to vote would be an interesting thing to watch. I just think you wind up going further down the road of political pay back than we are even today in such a situation.

[codeorama]

Art,

That's fair enough. I understand where you are coming from there. I would be curious to see the popular vote vs. the electoral vote from the last 4 or 5 elections and see what the difference is or would have been. I'm not for either party gaining an advantage, I don't vote the party line ever. But I do feel that unless I vote GOP, my vote means nothing in Va.

[JimboDaMan]

Art, you repeatedly make the claim that the "vast majority" of the country is conservative. Its a unique viewpoint, because its based on land mass rather than population. Delaware and South Dakota are pretty comparable in population, I fail to grasp why SD's larger square mileage, since it counts more into the "majority" you seem to be championing, should translate preferential treatment. I had always taken for granted the ideal was "one man, one vote", not "one acre, one vote".

With regards to the three branches of government, the legislature deals with this problem fairly effectively by the two houses of Congress, and the judiciary is theoretically immune to this kind of issue. But the electoral college is a permanent affirmative action program for the sparsely populated, conservative states. And, as others have noted, it completely disenfranchises many voters in states that routinely go one way or the other.

[JackC]

Most of the Oceans surrounding this country are liberal!

[mardi gras skin]

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

But the electoral college is a permanent affirmative action program for the sparsely populated, conservative states.

As a conservative voter in Maryland, this statement made me laugh.

Sure. The Electoral College takes votes from liberal states and gives them to the conservative ones.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by mardi gras skin

As a conservative voter in Maryland, this statement made me laugh. Sure. The Electoral College takes votes from liberal states and gives them to the conservative ones.

Overall, yes, it does. This is a fact, as is the fact I noted that in cases such as yours (I have the reverse) it disenfranchises voters.

But I'm pleased I could brighten your morning.

[mardi gras skin]

So you fix this by moving the United States from a Repubic to pure Democracy.

Or do you have another way to re-enfranchise me?

[codeorama]

I agree with Jimbo's analysis. Landmass should be NO factor whatsoever...

The electoral college is affirmative action of sorts. I still believe that the nation is pretty much split down the middle in terms of Conservative vs. Liberal, if they were not, why was the last election so freakin close?

It shouldn't matter that large amounts of people live in concentrated areas, you don't take their voice away, one person = one vote. It doesn't work that way now.

If I were a presidential candidate I would eliminate the IRS and income tax and start a national sales tax, I would try to eliminate the electoral college, let every vote count, then, I would hire Monica Lewinsky as my intern...

[Kilmer17]

The electoral college will NEVER go away. To do so would require 3/4ths of the states to ratify and I promise you the vote wont even be 50-50.

It is what it is. A protection for the smaller less populated states.

[codeorama]

Why should LESS population get MORE say? Makes no sense at all.

[Kilmer17]

Because we arent a democracy. We're a representative republic. It's desinged so each state will have a proprtional representation in the electoral process. The Federalist papers do a great job showing the debate. The fear was a majority rule. Remember, the country was set up to give the States the majority of power. It's warped into the Fed power we have today.

[Art]

Jimbo,

Country can mean the people of a nation or state. That's option C of the most used meaning of the word country. Option A and B convey land mass. Numbers 2, 3 and 4 discuss territory or land mass. Number 5 is a jury and No. 6 is music.

In all, when speaking that the majority of the country is conservative you should probably not pretend to be confused as to the meaning, especially when I've stated that the evening up of the totality of actual votes comes from a large advantage held by the other side in urban centers.

In fact, it's not at all unique to view land mass as the definition of country. It's regular. It's the generally accepted use and it's the clearly utilized use here. And, the point remains. The vast majority of the country is conservative. The majority, even vast, of urban centers is liberal. In total you have a fairly even split in vote total. And, in general, you have a situation you'd probably want to avoid where the 50 percent living in 20 percent of the country dictate to the 50 percent living in 80 percent of the country, or vice versa. I'm not sure your right about the electoral college being affirmative action for conservative states.

I'd argue that the same thoughts that creep into Code's head about how the state votes probably creeps into a number of the heads of conservatives who know the outcome and don't bother to vote. I do think you'd find an interesting race in a straight popular vote total, but, I suspect due to the incredible majority of the country that is conservative if they actually held a doubt as to the outcome of their state, meaning their votes actually counted into a national vote total, you'd find a number of folks more motivated to vote. Both on the right and the left. I actually would be interested to see how that vote total would come out. I can't say that it would come out to the right or the left. I suspect you're not correct in how you estimate it might come out.

[codeorama]

I think my bottom line is that I believe it would all even out, I don't think either side would clearly benefit, but it would make more sense and possibly encourage more people to vote. Just like Art just said, I'm sure there are Conservatives in NY that don't vote because they feel there's no point.. that's sad to me.

[JimboDaMan]

Hmmm. Don't rightly recall making a prediction on how a straight popular vote count would come out.

I'm not getting into a debate on how the last popular vote would have come out had those nasty liberals not erroneously broadcast that Gore was winning, or those nasty conservative not erroneously struck black voters from eligibility lists, how absentee ballots or invalidated butterfly ballots would effect the total, etc. etc. etc. Not even whether more liberal or more conservative voters stayed home because their vote was pointless, considering how their state went in a landslide one way or the other.

I'm just talking about the vote as cast and counted, and how the electoral college undeniably influenced that vote. Not a lot, the effect was in fact pretty subtle, but the results were enough to swing a very close election.