More '06 Elections Analysis

President = Winner of the popular vote? (0.00 / 0)

What do y'all think about movements to elect our President based on popular votes?

---

by: jimwhitaker @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:44:10 AM CST

I support electoral college (0.00 / 0)

Several reasons.

1. Rural/Urban balance - The rural areas would be completely ignored. Democrats would go to the big cities. Republicans to the outer suburbs. Places like our own UP or North Michigan would be completely ignored.

2. States. There are several close states, including our own. With the electoral college, we are assured of several visits by presidential candidates. Bush and Kerry were here all the time. Gore was here as well. Bob Dole visited my High School. With a total popular vote, if I was a candidate - I'd be in Texas and Florida all the time. Democrats would be in Calfornia.

3. Recount. Who would want to deal with the national recount if the popular vote is relatively close. Florida was an adventure in itself.

Our current system works. Only three or so times was the popular vote different than electoral college anyway.

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

---

by: Republican Michigander @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:11:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't buy your arguements (4.00 / 2)

1.With the electoral system we in Northern Michigan are already being ignored, as are people in all rural areas. This will not, could not, get any worse.

2.Why should just the close, "swing" states, get all the visits as is now the case. With a popular vote the campaigning would be more spread out, not less.

3.Current methods of recounts all need improvement and need to be reinvented. There should be automatic audits of a percentage of all electronic voting machines regardless of outcome to keep everyone, everywhere on the up and up.

The system should be one person=one vote. With the Electoral College the least populated states carry more clout than there population dictates. For instance in a state such as Wyoming one electoral vote equals about 60,000 votes while in Michigan a electoral vote is equal to over 200,000 votes. Where is the fairness in a system such as this?


The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 13:37:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

#2 (0.00 / 0)

I have to disagree with you on count number two. For the record I am unabashedly in favor of the electoral college, no question. But regarding number two... "campaigning would be more spread out"? I do not think so.

New Mexico, Iowa, these are swing states. They get attention because getting to 270 these states could easily tip things one way or the other. In a popular vote New Mexico will not do anything. While I disagree with previous assessments that Republicans would go to Texas and Florida and Democrats to California in that Texas's Rio Grande Valley and Austin are VERY democrat, Florida's large Jewish population is as well, and Orange County couldn't be more (money-raising!) Republican for California, the thing is the basic idea is correct. Republicans would visit Orange County incessantly. Democrats would spend far more time in the Upper West Side of New York City than they would in New Mexico or Iowa.

The winner take all system makes states targets. New York City has an entorage of Congressman that is larger than most state's full delegation. They have no problem getting attention, yet the electoral college helps bring attentiont o swing states like Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, and so on. It evens everything out. I like it.


check out my blog!

---

by: dwishinsky @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 19:57:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where they spend their time (0.00 / 0)

Sure the candidates are going to go where the votes are but without the electoral college they will go where all the big blocks of votes are, not just to the swing states.They are not going to go to rural areas in any situation so nothing is lost there. They will not spend all of there time in New York or California, there are too many votes elsewhere.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 22:02:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why shouldn't states be allowed to merge and divest? (0.00 / 0)

Imagine, say, Michigan orchestrating a strategic merger with Ohio, financing it by selling da U.P. to Wisconsin.  Or, better yet, rather than a divestiture, spin off the U.P. into its own semi-state, with one senator appointed by Michigan and another by Wisconsin (but their lone Congressional rep would still be "theirs" -- Bart Stupak is safe ).

Fundamentally, what does statehood really mean to people?  What should it?  The U.S. government trumps the state in most matters of law and commerce.  Most people would say that they are first and foremost a citizen of the U.S. rather than a citizen of state XYZ.  That sort of thinking becomes a bit less true if you go to, say, Quebec or Puerto Rico (4 million people, no representation).  This goes a long way toward determining how people perceive the electoral college versus a more direct democracy.  Do they see the entity of statehood adding value?  If so, how should it be preserved?  Should only the legislative branch have to take into account what the states want? 

---

by: China Mig @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:21:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Offer my own view... (4.00 / 1)

I think the setup of Congress is genius, truly.  2 Senators regardless of population, but the House shifts based on population changes.

I think the Presidency should be won based on a popular vote.  I believe this is the only way the most populous states are not taken for granted by one side or the other. 

California is the best example - we have the 7th largest economy in the world on our own merits, yet we are subject to fear mongering from the square states in the middle of the country and Texalabamasianans who want to spy on Americans' every phone call, borrowed library book, Internet site visit, and financial transaction along with telling women what they should do in regards to their own healthcare, telling folks with cancer, alzheimers, and other terrible killer diseases how and when they can die, and telling us who we are allowed to love.

---

by: jimwhitaker @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 15:33:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Popular Vote (0.00 / 0)

I agree completely. With a popular vote all votes would be equally important, not just those from states that are in play, and a vote from a smaller state would not be worth more than a vote from a larger state/

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 17:52:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree; the Electoral College is redundant (0.00 / 0)

Small states are already protected in our system by the composition of the Senate.

The Electoral College was intended by the Framers as an antidote to the celebrity politics we find today, as well as to partisanship; candidates were to be judged on the merits by prominent people who knew them.

It has since mutated into a system that gives the votes of some Americans (e.g., those living in Iowa or Minnesota, where presidential elections are in doubt) more weight than those of other Americans (e.g., those living in New York or Texas, where there's little uncertainty as to who will win).

It's time to pull the plug on the Electoral College and replace it with a popular vote for president with instant runoff voting.

Please read "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" by George McGovern and William R. Polk.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 18:03:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Electoral College (0.00 / 0)

The college isn't supposed to give equal weight to individual voters.  It's supposed to balance the weight of smaller states against larger states by giving the smaller states slightly more power proportionally than the larger states.  The original concern that NY and Virginia would overpower New Hampshire and Delaware through pure population is no less invalid today than it was 200 years ago - the players are just different (California, NY, etc.). Individual voters inside a state are still balanced one-person, one vote.

While the objection that candidates would only spend time in California and NY is exaggerated, it is true they would spend a disproportionately larger amount of time there and zero time in Montana, etc. (and less in Michigan).  They would also move their time from diverse travel to "media market" travel.  That is, you would rarely see candidates in Traverse City and more in Detroit.  They would hop from media-market to media market, focusing only on bigger ones.  And someone mentioned the high cost of California TV - true, but its one of the best values in TV advertising because it hits so many people.

The advantage shifted by the EC is very small though regardless of which side your on, and only been seen 3-4 times in our history, and only once in modern history (the other times it mattered suffrage wasn't even universal).  People who think this is a big issue either way are wasting their time trying to reform something that doesn't really have much impact, and certainly isn't the root of our problems.

By the way, there are many "redundant" things in our system.  Redundancy isn't necessarily bad.

"You can't handle the truth."

---

by: chetly @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:39:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't abolish, reform (0.00 / 0)

The Electoral College is one of those things that troubles me. On the one hand, it's a decidedly undemocratic institution in a country that proclaims to be the beacon of democracy and freedom. On the other hand, undemocratic portions of the government-- namely the Senate, the Bill of Rights, and the courts-- seem to have their place too.

The Electoral College can serve as that one extra test before you give someone the power of chief executive. While it's never really been used as this before, it could potentially stop a man from becoming president if massive vote fraud were revealed after Election Day, though, with the way they're selected, that might be unlikely.

Hypotheticals aside, I'm hesitant to do away with it. There are days when I feel like getting rid of the executive branch entirely, but I know that it'd be a bad idea. But it does need fixing.

The 2000 election wasn't the only time the Electoral College got it wrong, and I'm not just talking about Rutherford Hayes and John Quincy Adams. Instead, it's a matter of consistent results.

If one compares 1984 and 1996, one would see that Walter Mondale and Bob Dole each got about the same share of the popular vote-- 40.56% for Mondale and 40.72% for Dole. But Mondale, who received fairly uniform vote percentages across several high-population states (NY, MI, IL, CA, PA all in the mid- to low-40s), got only 13 electoral votes, or 2.42% of the total. Dole, on the other hand, winning more states but with considerably fewer votes in states he lost, got 159 electoral votes, or 29.55%. Concentrated support in a few states got more electoral votes than uniform national support.

For two candidates to receive the same popular vote but such radically different electoral votes is ridiculous. Ideally, someone winning 40% of the vote would get 40% of the electoral vote. The problem is the winner-take-all system. Maine and Nebraska's systems are no good (winner of each congressional district gets a vote, statewide winner gets two votes) because of gerrymandering. Instead, if the entire country went with something like what Colorado proposed in 2004, where votes would be awarded based on percentage won, I think it would be better.

Under such a system, every state could be competitive, because you're rewarded with an extra vote or two if you manage to get 45% instead of 35%. Democrats in Idaho would feel like they have a voice in the process, as would Republicans in Vermont, but it would leave the general framework unchanged.

Anyway, those are my thoughts of the moment. Sorry for the long post.

---

by: Fitzy @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 20:23:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Down with the Electoral College (0.00 / 0)

Modern media, especially the internet, makes the candidates accessible to everyone. I think one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for having an electoral college is because less populated areas would be at a disadvantage since candidates would ignore them. It is no longer necessary for candidates to actually visit every place in order to gain support so that disadvantage no longer exists. I also think its great that some states are trying to pass legislation that would cast all their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote.

---

by: petrolcide @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 19:42:00 PM CST

The opposite could be said about media = accessible (0.00 / 0)

The modern media makes IMAGES of the candidates more accessible to everyone, at the same time it makes the candidates less personally available in some ways, and changes the focus of campaigns from personal to media-based.

Obviously, a run for an office as big as President, or even any statewide office, can't do things like door-to-door, etc.  But there was a day when the whistestop campaign, or even before that, when word-of-mouth and "surrogate" debating, had to carry the day.  Talk about participation and personal.

"You can't handle the truth."

---

by: chetly @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:45:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Electoral College and Gerrymandering... (0.00 / 0)

One person = one vote is the only way to go.  The gerrymandering is why no one paid any attention to MI last election.  So, how does this get changed?  It needs to be a priorty. 

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:22:21 AM CST