Talk Elections

Which system do you prefer?

The EC is more fun to predict, it makes this forum much more interesting, but a popular vote makes more sense, since the US is so much of a unit.

Agreed.  The popular vote should decide the election.  No, I'm not a whiny Gore supporter here either, I think the popular vote is the way to decide elections.

In a perfect world, I would agree that the direct popular election would be the best system.

However we don't live in a perfect world and the technical aspects of democracy have to be considered.  At least with the Electoral college we will always end up with a President, even if once every century or so said President's opponent may have recieved a few more votes than he/she did.

Had we had the direct popular vote in 2000, the election debacle that was confined to one state could have been extended to the entire country with each state's results challenged to squeeze votes out for one side or the other.  It would have turned a temporary mess into a nightmarish Constitutional crisis.  If you don't think that the results in Florida were right, how could you possibly think that those discrepancies multiplied across the country would be any more accurate?  Even if the entire country switched to a similar electronic voting system with the same rules and standards, there would still be challenges of voter lists and claims of fraud.

I don't like the electoral college, but I accept it as a necessity for an orderly transition of power in a nation with over a hundred million voters.

I don't like the Electoral College either. But, I do think we can do without it. Why can't every precinct have a row of laptop computers that have only one government developed program installed, [that program would be the same nationwide and change every 2 years] the same Brand of Laptops, and everything. A voter scrolls down the screen as they make their selections and a print out is made of their choices, they would be required by law to sign the copy, and the registrar would be witness, the voter gets the bottom copy. This would ensure accurate voting, the voter's votes will be counted and be undisputable. If there is a dispute, however, it's just a matter of looking at the white form the registrar/or Secretary of State has, and the copy given to the voter, for a match. No hanging chads, no funny business. Straightforward. Voters would be required by Law not to dispose of their copy for 4 full years. There, I've done it, I've solved the problem.

You want to have a record kept of how an individual voter voted?

YES. One copy to the registrar/SofS/ one copy to the voter, signed by both at the time the voter voted. All Ballots would be done separately, not ever on the same form. This would eliminate the raucus. Both the Registrar at each precinct and the voter would immediately sign the form with the voter's choice, each would get a copy. Voters would be required by LAW to keep their copy for no less than 4 years. And if there is some dispute, and the voter did not follow that law, they would be fined $500 or 10 days in Jail.

I disagree. Gore's victory margin in the country was much larger than Bush's victory margin in Florida, both in number of votes and percentage points. There would have been an obvious winner anyway. It works for a lot of other countries, though no one is as big as the US. If you can put men on the moon you should be able to organize a nationwide vote count, but that's just me.

But bush would have campaigned differently if the system used the popular vote to elect presidents.  Candidates would probably concentrate on increasing voter turnoutin their strong areas (Bush in the south; Gore in the northeast)

True, but I think what Gustaf meant is that IF the results had turned out the same way as they did, then Bush would not have had much of a chance of winning the nationwide popular vote on a nationwide recount. The margin for Gore was enough that the nationwide popular vote count was not really in doubt.
Now in 1960, however, you would have had a nationwide recount most likely. However, I don't see how that would take any more time or be any more difficult to conduct than a statewide recount, just more expensive.

It would take more time though. Unless the Supreme Court set an absolute deadline for a recount.

Not necessarily, since you'd have more people doing it. The only way it would take more time is if there weren't enough workers to help conduct the recount. In which case you'd have to offer to pay more to get more workers to be willing to do it, and then it would get expensive. But there's no reason why it should take more time really.

Thank you. That is exactly what I meant. And btw I agree that I don't really see it being that much more difficult.

Between the two, the electoral college, but neither system is perfect, the EC for the reason that the winner takes all system shuts out voters who vote for other candidates...the popular vote for reasons mentioned by htmldon (where's cheech?  ;-))

I think a district system (which would localize recounts to districts rather than entire states) or a proportional system with a minimum threshold for securing EC votes would probably work best.

Christopher, your proposal sounds good. The details obviously would be complicated to work out, but the basic framework sounds good. I definitely disagree with punishing anyone in any way for losing their receipt, though....
Also, I definitely wouldn't want the government to have any copy whatsoever saying how each individual voted.
Otherwise, though, the basic framework of having the voting system be computerized is a good one. Another possibility, perhaps simpler, would used with a machine that would basically be like an ATM.

I would stick with the electoral college for several reasons, both theoretical and practical.

The electoral college creates political stability by narrowing the terms of debate and strenghtening the 2-party system.  The "winner take all" feature denies political strength to splinter groups, and forces them to "play nice" with the major parties.  

Some people think that's a bad thing, but overall I think it's a good thing.  It's harder for unhappy people to just take their ball and go home.  But if the two major parties get too far from what the people want, there is always the threat of a strong third party that can alter election results without winning any states.

I also think that the electoral college guarantees a voice to all sections of the country, and limits the influence of states that would otherwise threaten to dominate.  I like the fact that no matter how many New York City wackos and nincompoops the Democrats drag out of the woodwork, the state only gets 31 electoral votes.  Some people complain that one problem with the electoral college is that a vote in one place is not worth the same as a vote in another, but that is the whole point.  It was designed so that a candidate could not win by focusing only on major population centers, and I think that is a good thing.  I don't want a president who's elected by the residents of New York, Illinois and California.  In order to have stability, everybody must have a voice in proportion to their congressional representation.

Practically speaking, I don't see a good way to arrange a reliable national vote count.  The process is administered by 50 different states, with 50 different sets of rules for registration, etc. and I just don't see that changing any time soon.  Nor should it.  I don't fully trust computers because they can be hacked into and the results of that would be devastating.  I think it's good to keep the results on a more manageable state-by-state level.  The vote count is not my major reason for favoring the electoral college; the other two are more important.  But it is an issue.

The only change I would make is to take power away from individual electors, and have each state make automatic allocation rules.  Practically speaking, most states would probably stick with the "winner take all" because to change it, without other states changing their methodology, would dilute the power of the state.  Of course, I would love to see states like New York adopt proportional allocation.

I don't see the point of getting into a whole bunch of complicated schemes to reform the electoral college.  It has worked well for over 200 years, and in any case almost always produces the same winner as the popular vote in any case.  Realistically, anything that requires a constitutional amendment is not going to pass; the smaller states will block it, and they should.

You sound suspicously close to saying that it is good not to make the system too democratic b/c then the wrong people would get too much influence.

What it comes down to is how you view the United States. If you truly believes it to be a union between different states with considerable autonomy then the EC does have it's points. I am a little sceptical to this, I think of the US as a nation with one people, not 50, and thus I am inclined against the EC.

There would be no criminal record produced, nor will there be the offense of losing your receipt put on an existing record. But, you'd be penalized severely. I don't find it odd that it's always the Republicans who've been against Campaign Finance reforms and against changes in the Electoral Process. [Yes, I am still a Centrist]. I find faults with both parties.
I like your addition to my proposal Nym90. I think that a pin number sent to every voter would be nice. When a voter goes to vote, they'd enter that pin, followed by a dash, and then the registrar would give you a unique code that would follow yours. Noone else in your precinct would have your pin. Noone else would be provided the additional pin numbers.

As far as giving the "wrong" people too much influence, the EC cuts both ways, because it limits the influence of all regions and groups of people, including those who some would consider the "right" people.  Seriously, though, there are really no wrong or right people, just people with different points of view, and the EC is designed to give everybody a voice, not just by person but by state and, effectively, region.  I must admit that I do find myself seriously at odds with the prevailing political views in most cities, but that is not really why I support the EC.

To the extent that the EC is designed to limit the influence of any one group or region, which it is, the concern there belonged to the founding fathers.  I share their concern, as do many others who support the EC.

One thing about the US, which is probably not the case in Europe, is a bias against cities, and I guess I reflect that to some degree.  I think the EC was designed to somewhat limit the power of urban centers, and prevent them from totally dominating those in less populated areas.  The US was never meant to be a pure democracy, as evidenced by the creation of the Senate, which gives each state 2 Senators regardless of population.  Each state is also given at least one House of Representatives seat, regardless of population, so the constitution takes the division among the states seriously.

In 2000, the EC worked as intended in that in a very close election, which was basically a tie, it awarded the victory to the person with the greatest geographical appeal.  Bush clearly won across a much larger, albeit less populated area, than Gore.

The US is also meant to be a collection of states, not a single unit, under the constitution.  The constitution calls for a very limited federal government, with all remaining power reserved for the states.  States make their own laws on a number of issues.  So the states really were meant to have a lot more power than you advocate, although the federal government has become much more powerful in the last 70 years.  But the states were not meant to administrative units of the federal government.

We have become a lot more democratic over time than the founding fathers intended.  The vote has been extended to all citizens, rather than just land-owning males, and Senators are now popularly elected rather than appointed by state legislatures.  It is also interesting to note that nothing requires that a state's presidential electors be chosen in a direct election; they could theoretically be appointed by state legislatures.

My basic position is that the EC has not failed us yet, so there is no real reason to change it.  I agree with the founding fathers in having some reservations about total democracy; I think democracy in a diverse society requires some safeguards, to ensure that it doesn't degenerate into the biggest and most powerful group simply taking all the spoils.  I believe that the authors of our constitution, despite some of their failings, were way ahead of their time in crafting that document, and that it should not be changed lightly.

The Constitution says this country is a union of different states with considerable autonomy.  Unfortunately the far left, the justice department, (and now the religious right) hate decentralization and the union of states and want to do whatever possible to destroy it and the Constitution that protects it.  We are a nation of one people who live in 50 different and autonomous states.

I do 100% agree with the district reforms that Bullmoose suggested, even if he brought up Cheech :)

The above sentences was what I was referring to. It does give the impression that you are arguing that it is good that people with "wrong" opinions don't get too much influence. I know that the constitution wasn't devised to be democratic, that, in my view, is the problem and you deserve better. The rights and the protection of the minority is fundamental in a democracy, I agree with you there. But these should be protected by clauses in an almost unchageable constitution (ahem...I am beginning to feel slightly hypocritical here...), not by giving some groups more influence than others. Basically it is about reducing the power of politicians to prevent minorities from getting disfavoured, but that is the liberal in me talking.

I can understand why you would arrive at the interpretation you arrived at from those sentences.  But it could just as easily be said "no matter how many wacko nincompoop Christian coalition voters the Republicans drag out of the woodwork..."

The EC acts to limit the influence of all groups and regions, not just the ones you don't like, or I don't like.  It is pretty impartial in that respect.

I think the founding fathers were right to have reservations about pure democracy in a pluralistic society.  Representative government itself is a compromise on pure democracy, because citizens don't get to vote on every law.  I think pure democracy would work best in a heterogenous, highly educated and informed society, such as Switzerland or maybe Sweden.  But the US is quite different, and I don't think it would work well here.

Well, I can't criticize you after you saying such nice things about Sweden! You're right of course, in saying that the EC limits all groups. It does seem to favour small and rural states though, and these are mostly heavily republican and will likely be so for the foreseeable future (the west-midwest states and so on). Maybe you're right about plurality making the difference, I feel uncomfortable passing judgement, since I don't feel I know enough about the US to do so.

The whole federal system favors small states, particularly the granting of 2 senators to every state regardless of population.

And there is definitely an anti-urban strain that is deeply ingrained in American thinking, which effectively leads the constitution and the political system to favor rural areas.

The practical issue is that in order to change the constitution, approval is needed by the independent legislatures of 3/4 of the states.  This process in itself favors the small, rural states, who effectively have the same voice in changing the constitution as states like New York and California.  Of course, they'll never agree to a change that takes away their power.

So for that reason I don't see the point in getting too much into designing a new electoral system that will never come to fruition.  Because the favoritism to small states is so deeply ingrained in our system, a change to the EC would actually be something far more fundamentally, and would call the whole constitutional system into question.

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

Again-I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Language barriers...

If you have a union, the member states are supposedly political units who have agree to join. This is obviously not beneficial to smaller states, since they will have little influence on the decisions and be subject to influence instead. So in order to convince them you have to give them an unproportional amount of power. This is logical.

The point is that every state gets certain benefits in the union just because of being a state, without regard to population.

Each state gets 2 senators and therefore 2 electoral votes, regardless of population.  Therefore, small states get more of a voice in terms of population than larger ones.

Each state has an equal say in changing the constitution, with ratification from 3/4 of the state legislatures required.  Therefore, Utah or Wyoming has the same amount of say as New York or California in determining whether a constitutional amendment is ratified, once it passes through congress, during which the bigger states will have more say because they have more representatives in the House.

These are the hallmarks of a federal system, in which each state is considered a separate unit within the system.  Without a federal system, these benefits allocated on the basis of just being a state would go away, and everything would presumably be strictly proportional.

The US was designed to be a federal system, although it has become less so during the past 70 years.  But I see no chance that the smaller states will voluntarily give up the advantages that the constitution has given them, so I think the US will continue to be a federal system.

Should it be?  I would say yes, for a number of reasons.  I don't think we should change our whole constitution, which would be required to drop the federal system.  I fear giving greater power over local affairs to the federal government, because in my experience the federal government is far away, difficult to influence, and can generally only mess things up.  Local government, close to the people, is most responsive to the people's needs in most cases, and the states need to have a degree of independence to make this work.

It's true that some of the state borders have become somewhat arbitrary, and there is less of a sense than in the past of being a resident of a certain state, rather than of the nation as a whole.  But I see no crying need to upset the apple cart to the extent that would be necessary in order to change the federal system.

Decentralization is a different issue, giving voters living in one place more influence than others can ONLY be justified if you view it as different political units, which has the choice of being independent states.  

Okay, I get it...
But still, Wyoming isn't going to form an independent nation.

No, that is exactly what I think. Since you are not really a union made up of Wyomingans or Rhode Islanders, or whatever you would call these people, but one nation of Americans, I think the system should be scrapped. I am just pointing out what I beleieve is the only true argument in favour of the current system. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Okay then...
Being from NY, a healily populated state (especially the area I live in), it bothers me when I thing I could go out to the mountain west and my vote would matter 3x as much in deciding the president.

Well, I agree! It is not as bad as in the EU, though our system is really weird. Poland and Spain together, for example, have twice the votes of Germany, but slightly smaller population.

The EC should have been scrapped after the civil war as far as the federal/national argument goes...That's when Americans started talking of the Nation rather than the Union.
Then again so few Germans are really interested in who actually won where (outside their immediate home area), maybe the fact that this forum and atlas exist should be considered a valid argument for the preservation of the Electoral College...

The US was never intended to be a democracy. It is a system designed to balance the benefits of democracy (representative government) against the dangers of democracy (mob rule). Democracy is not a panacea, it does not solve all the problems of politics.

The American political system in general was designed to be imperfect, to exist in a state of continuous tension. The electoral college is just one aspect of this. The thinking, as I take it, being, that a political system will always tend towards corruption and abuse of power. The only way to check this is to place those centers of power in opposition to eachother so that they are, to a certain extent, always attacking eachother. When they agree, they consolidate and become corrupt.

The framers trusted the individual, but distrusted the concentration of power. A majority can be a mob. A mob can be a concentration of power which acts against the interests of the individual (or the few). An individual can be a criminal who acts against the interest of the common good. These things need to be put in opposition so they can mediate eachother. This is what I think is embodied (albeit on a larger scale) in the Electoral college. It is exactly and intentionally a compromise to prevent the most dramatic abuses of power.

That always throws the election to the PV winner, there will never be a 45EV gap.

There could be, in theory...but most likely the winner of the popular vote will almost always win the EV, and if not, lose by a small margin.

No wait! In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the PV 48.62% v 47.82% but lost the EV 168-233. So he would still lose the election with McFarlan's system.

I prefer the EC as it is the method intended by the Founders. The reason I believe this is the best system is because it gives all states a FAIR voice. I live in a large state but I dont want NYC, LA or Chicago deciding my president. Remember we are a Union of States not Counties of the Federal Govt.

I agree with StatesRights there, I have still not made up my mind on the poll. I think the system should have been designed without the electoral college and the 3/5th compromise, so that every vote was equal. I think the system has its purpose, as does the foreign born president provision, and should not be changed.

When the EC does flaw it is a problem, and that should never happen. What does amaze me was Bush's press campaign in November 2000, to fool people into thinking that Gore lost the popular vote, fortunately that took care of Gore though.

I'm also surprised that with the solid south at the turn of the last century that the democrats never won enormously in the popular vote but lost in the EC. Was turnout ever high in the south, during those times?

I couldnt tell you about turnout, but from what I've read about post war election activities is that they were absolutely a mess. Any election between 1860-1872 I would consider highly questionable on the results. Voter fraud ran rampant in the south after the war. Even if you read on this website some southern states EC votes werent even counted .. and thats AFTER they were re-admitted. Though how they could be re-admitted when Lincoln said they never left in the first place is beyond me. But thats another subject. I dont know if you could really look anywhere for true turnout numbers but if anyone would have any links or paper sources I would be curious to take a look.

BTW some of the Voter Fraud committed from the 1850s-1880s would make the Bush - Gore 2000 mess look harmless. LOL. The dead shall rise again, twice or three or four times. That was the motto of some elections (or should have been). Edgar Allen Poe was filled with alcohol and was forced to vote up to five times in Baltimore the day before he died.

No nineteenth century election results can be taken exactly at face value, not only in the US. "Vote Early and Often" was meant entirely seriously...
But the Electoral College as functioning now is not what the Framers had in mind.
They never heard of well-organised national parties.
They never heard of the revolutions in transport technology that made proportional elections and all that came after feasible.
Electors were never supposed to be elected en bloc, and electing them by popular vote was merely one option open to the states.
The framers were quite certain that after Washington nobody would receive a majority of electoral votes, and the presidency was supposed to be decided by the House, with the states, via the electors, effectively drawing up a shortlist of five candidates. The candidate to get the highest total of electors was to be vice-president, a post invented purely for the purpose of enabling this compromise with those who wanted the states to chose.
Given the many defacto changes (and one major official change in 1808) to constitutional reality, "the framers made it like this with a reason" is not an argument to be taken quite seriously.

[No nineteenth century election results can be taken exactly at face value, not only in the US. "Vote Early and Often" was meant entirely seriously...]

True but even more so during the Civil War and Reconstruction because of the way the North treated the South and the way things were administered.

[But the Electoral College as functioning now is not what the Framers had in mind.]

True, in the sense of the "winner-take-all" method. Although a elector could still go rogue if he/she wanted to. (God help that person)

[They never heard of well-organised national parties.]

During Washingtons' administration this is true. Washington was firmly against political parties. But as soon as he left office the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties formed and the members were framers of the Constitution.

[They never heard of the revolutions in transport technology that made proportional elections and all that came after feasible.]

100% Correct.

[The framers were quite certain that after Washington nobody would receive a majority of electoral votes, and the presidency was supposed to be decided by the House, with the states, via the electors, effectively drawing up a shortlist of five candidates. The candidate to get the highest total of electors was to be vice-president, a post invented purely for the purpose of enabling this compromise with those who wanted the states to chose.]

No argument there.

[Given the many defacto changes (and one major official change in 1808) to constitutional reality, "the framers made it like this with a reason" is not an argument to be taken quite seriously.]

There you're wrong. As I've stated before the framers created this system to balance the large states with the small states. If it went strictly by popular vote, then the large cities would be the only ones whos vote would actually count because they would decide the election. The framers were genuis when it came to checks and balances, the House and Senate are another example of balancing Large and Small states (Senate).

I was talking about the solid southern elections from about 1888-1948 turnout was often 1/20 of a state's population.

Some observations from Democrats that lived then mostly in the 20-40s a few I have talked to were raised by their parents that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln and Lincoln caused the grief and poverty that the south was going through well into the 1930s.  I havent studied the exact numbers of how many went out and voted, this is just what I understand from a few of our older citizens I have chatted with. Also the Democrats in those days were the Conservative party. It's since changed.

Even before he left office, actually, though they took a few years to consolidate. It's beside the point though, as they only heard of organized national parties after the constitution was framed.

True. At that time, of course, three states, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia, held almost 50% of the US population, a situation that has never occurred again.
No...The majority of the US population does not live in large scities and has never done so. If it went strictly by Popular Vote, everybody's vote has the same weight. It doesn't matter one bit whether you're in the majority in your area or not, so it doesn' teven make any sense (except for us statistics freaks) of talking about a city or state or region voting for a certain candidate.
They were humans. They did a remarkable job, an absolutely extraordinary one given how little examples from elsewhere they could draw on, but not a perfect one. Otherwise there wouldn't be any need for amendments, no clauses that are more or less ignored, no gigantic body of unofficial quasi-constitutional stuff in laws, court decisions and precedent.

I agree that the EC with the small states bonus is better than the EC without it. That would really give too much importance to the major states, and make the small states irrelevant.
But apart from that, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that last paragraph of yours.

Look at the 2000 Election for example. Gore won the populuar vote by just winning large cities but hardly any of the heart of the country. I mean not just city limits but the cities and usually the counties that surrounded the city. For example Gore won Maryland, but the only counties he won where Montgomery, Prince Georges, Baltimore County and Baltimore City. The rest of the state went for Bush. Oh and just as a mention, I keep getting tired of mentioning at my work place that Bush was not the only president to not win the popular vote and win the election. People that keep saying that think it proves some kind of "Bush stole the election" conspiracy theory.

Actually some of Gore's best counties were rural

Macon co. AL - 86.8% for Gore
Shanon co. SD -85.36% "

but it's Afro Americam )AL) and Native American (SD) counties. the others were cities.
Bush won the counties 4 to 1 but America is not rural anymore

That's b/c more people lives there, one of the side effects of democracy is that the people elect guys like presidents.... ;)

Bush wasn't the first to win with a minority of the popular vote, I think most people on this forum knows that. On the other hand i believe that the previous instances were effect of stealing elections. (the Republican party in the late 1800s...)

The Hayes and Tilden election was an extreme case a 3% margin for Tilden and yet a loss. Why wasn't the South solidly democratic for the end of the 19th century?

Blacks voted in the beginning and then they didn't. Look at turnout numbers from the late 1860s and early 1870s and compare them to the turnout of the 1890s.

Exactly why the Electoral College is a sound system for elections.

Too prevent too much democracy?

no, to keep it a federal system. Its the united states not one huge state

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

NOt at all.. a Republic involves limiting access to power by the masses.  Thank god.  

A Republic involves no one inheriting positions, that's the definition. I think we'll allow the US to call itself a republic despite this definition, as an exception... ;)

A dictature never works in the long run. Platonian Utopias may look good on paper, but never ever work. Someone once pointed out that no democracy has ever starved and no two democracies have never fought in war against each other. That's pretty much the basic argument for democracy: you get peace and prosperity from it. And they also respect individual rights to a much larger extent than dictatures. The correlation cannot be ignored. Free markets and democracy are linked, whether you like it or not.

Democracies go to war all the time - France and Germany 1870, Germany vs Britain, France, US 1914/17.  Even Hitler was elected democratically.   Majority rule gaurantees nothing except that your persecutors are numerous.  I'd feel a lot more secure about my property in an oligarchy that limited the franchise (another kind of Republic).

Where do you get the idea that France and Prussia in 1870 were democracies? That Napoleon III got elected in a referendum doesn't make an imperium into a democracy. I wouldn't trust an election result from those days. And Germany wasn't a democracy until the Weimar Republic. It's true that Hitler and his various allies got a majority in parliament, but he abolished democracy for a reason. And, he was backed by your precious capitalists, so he's really your champion rather than democracy's.

Didnt Sadam Hussien get "re-elected" by a 99% vote. Yeah, that was a real democracy.

That's a bit like Napoleon III... ;)

I still think though our form of Government is the most stable and the fairest for all the citizens. I mean yes we have rich and poor. But even the poor in this country have running water and have t.v. and usually even have a car. What's really sad is all these minority groups fought so hard to get the vote and then we only get 40% turnouts.

So does the poor in most Western countries...but I see your point.

Actually one of the lowest turnout groups are poor, white, rural southerners.
Turnout is always higher amoung rich, white, suburban southerners and blacks.

I blame gerrymandering...

Another group that just wasnt given the vote at the start. Yes, many I've talked to (and I fall into this group somewhat) use the same worn out generalization "all politicians are crooks". Yes, their are SOME crooks in government but they all aren't. And its across the board its not just Democrats. I think the crucifixtion of  Trafficant, Lott and others as of late has been hypocritical.

Not all, just most...

They are a dangerous group to vote! They are politically like NASCAR dads, which in my book means stupid, rebellious, and intolerant. I was angered how Dean's statement on them was deamed too controversial.

Yes all southerners are stupid. What a broad generalization. I guess Clinton or Gore are stupid too, huh? Rebellious? Yes we take pride in our nation and will fight for it to the death. Thats why the majority of the armed forces are southerners. Intolerant? If thats the case why are more blacks moving south now then ever before? Why are Mexicans choosing to live in the south? We have many diverse groups here in the south. But I wouldn't expect someone from New Hampshire to understand that. I have a buddy at work who joined the Army and their was a guy from Vermont on the same bus with him, they had just started boot camp. He told my buddy he had never seen a black person before in his life. And this was in 1986. Yes, every area in the north has diversity.

The average lower class White Southerner does strike me as not valuing education at all. I'm sorry if my stereotype bothered you.

The North is not diverse at all. At my suburban middle school (my high school is far more diverse, but still very white) we had 3 or 4 asians, 1 half black kid, and maybe 1 hispanic out of a class of 300.

I'm inclined to aggree with you.

Democracy= Majority tyrany, but I've made this argueement before.

And you don't think we have any of these types up north?  New York City alone has large numbers of people who don't value education, not to mention certain rural areas of New York state, as well as many other parts of the north.

I don't subscribe to the idea that there are regional differences in levels of intelligence.  The north, particulary the New York and Boston areas, has far more elites who believe they're superior to everybody else than any other region, but uneducated people exist in all regions of the country, in roughly equal proportions.

I would also add the the most highly educated people are not always the wisest, and do not always have the best instincts about what is good for the country.

You are right to say that the north is not diverse at all.  This is another thing that we northerners should stop patting ourselves on the back about, our presumed superiority over southerners in our "tolerance" and "diversity."  Northerners preach these things, but live mostly in lily-white environments.  

There is no significant difference in racial climate of areas based upon dominant political affiliation.  Largely Democratic areas are no more tolerant of blacks than Republican areas, and some of our worst racial violence has been in largely Democratic northern cities, such as Boston.  So much for the "tolerance" of northern Democrats.  The "tolerant" ones live in lily-white suburbs far from any significant black population.

People who preach tolerance today remind me of something Mao Zedong said to Pres. Gerald Ford during his visit to China in 1975.  Referring to the Soviet Union, he said that "today, it is the country that most zealously preaches peace that is the most dangerous source of war."  There are few more intolerant than those who preach tolerance and diversity, while showing intolerance and prejudice toward all who don't fully agree with them.

As far as the NASCAR dads go, I guess they are branded intolerant because they may believe in something other than "tolerance."  Also, because they are largely white males, and therefore responsible for all the world's problems, that makes it OK to attack them wholesale, while to say the same thing about another demographic group (such as blacks) would bring howls of protest.  But I guess it's OK to stereotype "perpetrator" groups of people, but not "victim" groups.

Maybe if the Northerners in Congress earlier in the last century (1900s) had cared enough about the South as they did themselves, the Northern majority in those days would have funded southern schools. Its a fact Southern tax money went to build the North up. Nowadays its not like that but up until the 1950s I'd say it's true.

A college education does not always make you smarter then a blue-collar worker. Ever heard the term "educated idiot"?

Rich area . that's all.

Say what you want about 'em, call them what you want, but remember if it wasn't for them, the Governers of Louisiana and Virginia would be Republicans.

Yes, and you're still wrong... :P

Democracy does not necessarily have to be tyranny. Democracy can be just as respectful of individual rights and liberties as dictatures. In fact, the clear tendency is that they are more so than dictatures.

I am not, that's why I responded to Opebo's post...

I live in the rural south and in my area we have Hispanics from all different countries, blacks, Haitians, Domnicans, and whites. You dont call that diversity? Blacks and Whites work side by side here with very little if any noticable tension. Not like in some northern cities I've been to where the blacks resent whites and blame them for all their woes.

Sounds to me like your the 'intolerant' one Zachman.

I don't like all groups of people. I don't like pure partisans- people who will agree with the parties no matter how they change. I don't like white southerners who often do not value education or religious tolerance.

Does this dislike of southerners who don't value education or religious tolerance only extend to whites?  Or is it equal opportunity?

Valuations of anything are either purely subjective or market prices.  Some people value education, others don't.  Its all just a matter of what you like.  I consider education a fine luxury good for the leisure class, but not of much practical use.  

As for market prices - I guess a lot of customers must value it because a college degree is certainly expensive these days.  

I'd like to see a public school in the south and see how different it is. I'm guessing it would be like the school in October Sky.  

At summer school, everyone was from the Northeast and California except for a huge minority of black kids from the Jackson Mississippi public schools.

I do wrongly apply economic and educational barriers on whites from the south, partly because what Dean said, and partly because they are not the first generation of opportunity like their black counterparts. My prejudices against the south are too unfair and questionable, but I do have prejudices. Maybe it is the religion.

Its probably just resentment and envy because Southerners and Midwesterners are marginalizing the old moribund elites of the NE and CA.  Face it, we've got a stranglehold on the politics of the nation.

Yes, Southerners dont value education. Fine schools such as Vanderbilt, University of Tennesse, University of Virginia, V.P.I., Citadel, VMI, U of Miami, U of Florida, Florida State and the list goes on and on. Ya us inbreed hick rednecks dont value edgeecatin our chillun. We have Churches, Synagogues all kinds of religions are in the south. Did you know that before the Civil War more Jews lived in the SOUTH then the North? Oh yeah but to you it's : "If day aint Christian lets git the white hoods and hangum." Just because a person doesn't go to college doesnt mean they are any less of a person compared to someone who did. I know plenty of people with no degree who have common sense and plenty who have a degree with NO common sense. If you can afford college, great! Go for it. If you can't and you have to work a blue collar job their is nothing wrong with that. Hard work doesnt equal ignorance.

Sorry for spouting folks. This kind of young ignorance Zachman displays aggravates me.

Look Zachman... whatever you think of rural Southerners you have to accept this simple fact:

A poorly educated, Baptist, White, unemployed former textile worker living in an a pokey and badly built wooden house in South Carolina is FAR more likely to vote for Kerry than a well educated, affluent, white collar office worker with a nice car and a big house in Cobb County, GA

I'm not saying he will vote for Kerry, but he might think about it (he will probably abstain), but thought of *not* voting for Bush would not have even crossed the other guy's mind.

This from a man living in West Virginia, one of the poorest states in our nation.

I think he is living in the UK....
:)

If so, visit West Virginia. You'll quickly choose another state for your Avatar. I thought it was odd he has a WVA Avatar. I heard they just got computers last year.

What's that bad there, I mean "stonewall" is from there

I'm a part of the U.K, which is very similer to West Virginia (I also know people there).

WV is covered by the Appalachians.

I don't get what your point is. I mean, what's so wrong with WV, that they're poor? I thought you were making an argument against prejudices towards the poor? ???

For once I agree with you wholehartedly

Well said.  Being a northeasterner myself, I would probably never vote for one for president.  I hate the arrogance that many people in this part of the country display toward the south.  I don't blame southerners for disliking us, with some of the comments I've seen.

It's funny how liberals are so critical of everybody else's prejudices, but make excuses for their own.

My grandad is from Morgantown, WVA. Kind of just a state to state rivalry, poking fun at West Virginians. I was raised in MD and VA. Its hard to understand the jabs we use on each other. I've been to WVA many many times, have no problem at all with the state. Yes, Stonewall was from that part of the country. But it was Virginia then.

Oh, I see, I didn't really know that. :)

It's funny that you pretty much proved the point of the anti.North bias there. I haven't seen any Northeaterner here say that they wouldn't vote for a Southerner despite all their 'prejudice'.

Liberal northerners certainly wouldn't vote for a conservative southerner.  And conservative southerners wouldn't vote for a northern liberal.

That's not really bias -- it's voting against people who don't reflect your views.

But I have seen southerners vote for people from the region who don't reflect their views, and that could be considered an example of regional prejudice.  I think northerners would be less likely to do that.

Exactly, and I think that was the point, at least that's what a lot of people been saying here.

The GOP has never nominated a Southerner for President...

There's some truth to it, but many people here have been claiming that all the regional prejudice flows one way -- southerners against northerners -- while at the same time making blatantly prejudiced comments about southerners.

That is what I was arguing against.  I never suggested that there is no regional prejudice down south.  I know very well that there is.

I'm going to have to look that one up when I have some spare time.

Well, it depends on your definition of "Southerner", but only 2 GOP nominees have ever had their home states in the South (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and both of them were born in the Northeast. So certainly one could argue that no true Southerner has ever been nominated by the Republicans. And a lot of people in the South might not even truly consider Texas to be the South (it was part of the old Confederacy, but culturally is very diferent in many ways than the rest of the South, though it isn't politically much different).

Ah! If we accept that G.W.Bush is a Texan, he still isn't a Southerner.
He grew up in Midland, which is about as "Southern" as the state he was born in (CT).
Texas is a strange state... most of East TX is Southern certainly, but West Texas isn't.
Besides, Bush's image revolves around the whole Western/Cowboy thing.

BTW only one President has come from the Deep South (Jimmy Carter).
Zachary Taylor counts as a Virginian (did he ever even visit LA?)

Andrew Jackson was born in South Carolina.

Oh, and going purely by birth places, Eisenhower was born in Denison, TX, northeast of Dallas on the Red River.

He lived there for something like nine days though...

He was born in the south. That makes him a southerner in my book.

True... but I'll always think of him as from Tennessee ;)

Aaah... but how do you define the South? Is all of Texas Southern? (No... but where does the South end and the West begin?)

Besides living somewhere for a week doesn't count... I lived in London for a week and never felt like a Londoner...
Ike always played up the whole mid-westish thing anyhow...

I don't think you can really break up a part of a state and say "This part is southern and this part isn't." Texas was loyal to the south east or west. N.Mexico was southern territory. Like if I was born in Georgia and moved to Boston. I'd be a Southerner by birth, but I'd be a Yankee because I've lived in Boston so long. It all depends on if your parents came from the place you were born or were just living there.

Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are part of the same region. I'll start referring to it as the Western South. Texas, like Florida, is an exception to every regional rule because it has some major yankee influences.

Every part of the south has Yankee influences. Just like Ohio, Indiana, and Southern Ill. have Southern influences. It would be hard to find any area of the nation that was truely northern, southern, western or whatever. Florida having yankees is not a recent phenomena. In 1940 almost 48% of Floridians were not born in Florida but had moved down here.

Texas has these high-tech suburbs around Dallas and Houston, in which most of the population was not from the south.

Many areas of the south are the same way.

Particularly Texas. There are migration patterns from those suburbs to here, and they don't bear a southern accent.

The other strange migration pattern I've found is that I've met two or three Alaskans who have moved to Texas, and then to NH.

I work with a person and when they joined the military they met a person from vermont. The person kept staring him and his friend down and when they asked him why he was staring he said "I've never seen a black person before." They did end up being friends. This was in 1986.

I probably couldn't determine whether a person was Latino or not, because they just don't live in New England.

Really? That's interesting. I love how this country has such a variety of groups and how each region is so different from the next. BTW, yes the south is changing, but I know where I work if you go in pronouncing "We Northerners are better" or hint at it. You will get run out of the job. Not physically but it will happen. I've seen it happen, and the race of the southerner doesnt matter. I've seen blacks and whites just as rough on yankees.

Arkansas is not like TX or OK

Yes, Arkansas is different because of the Ozark Mountains and people from Arkansas are mostly descendents of Mississippians and Tennessee folk.

Should I group it with Missouri then?

I don't know, lol. Arkansas is a place of its own, you'd really have to go there to understand what I mean. It's kind of like the WVA of the deep south. I've been to every southern state except Texas, but I have been to Oklahoma and Arkansas. Red River states maybe? If they seceded or were border states I call them southern. WVA is not southern though.

I lived in the Houston suberbs for 13 years and many people living there, including myself, were from the north.  You go out to rural southeast and east TX, it is definately "southern".   When I lived in West Palm, FL, it seemed like half of the people there were from the northeast.

61 votes.  Looks like a record.

I'd definitely prefer it to be popular votes, but that would still have it's disadvantages.

The EC for the obvious reasons and those most often given.

I'd prefer soveirgnty over the country so I could choose what decisions were made. Unfortunately we can't do this (yet), but we can create a system that seems to make the individual have maxium power.

76 Votes!  To all who haven't voted keep it running!

2 More votes.  :)

The system isn't perfect, but allowing a popular vote would result in the major urban areas controlling the election, and the candidates focusing their attentions there. Right now, at least they have to give a look at the entire state.

Bumped w/poll restoration.

Christopher Michael brought up an interesting point earlier in the thread about a voter signing his computer printout. On that subject, why can't we just go back to an optical scan system where you fill in the bubbles and scan it through a machine. Then you are 100% sure you voted correctly and 100% sure your vote counted.

Electoral College

Christopher Michael wasn't 100% sane.  Nice guy I guess, but a little nuts.

popular vote. The man/woman will be leading the nation! Whoever gets more votes should win. It doesnt make sense to elect people that dont get the most votes.

What do you do when nobody gets a majority?  (2000, 1996, 1992, 1968, 1960, 1916, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1860, 1856, 1848, 1844, 1824).

There's always various transferable vote systems--but that's never going to come to pass.

Nixon tried to dump this relic, but some small state Senators blocked it.

i said whoever gets the most votes, not whoever gets a majority :P

Democrats

The party used to have a lot of DINOs.

For some reason the vote was much closer when this poll opened for the first time back in 2003.

The recent voting acts weigh against the opitical scan. We have that system now in the county and it works well. However, ADA accessibility and early voting requirements create the need for hundreds of ballot types to cover all possibilities in the county. Printing costs would be enormous. An electronic voting machine with a paper printout becomes the only affordable option.

I love this thread.

I have an emotional connection to it that I simply can't put into words.

Only 28 votes for a 10-page thread that is two years old?  Weird.

The original poll had ~85 votes, but it got wiped out when the forum got screwed up.  I restored the poll last summer.

Oh, OK.  What was the break-down for the last poll?

They're not DINOs if they accurately represented the stance of the party at the time.

By that logic, every single Democrat in 1856 was a DINO.

It was a similar ratio to this actually.  Around 60 for electoral college to 30 for PV.

current

I have found that most people that want to repeal the Electoral College also fit one or more of the following:
1) from larger States
2) do not understand the concept of State's Rights
3) want to eliminate the Senate

The reason couldnt possibly be that they think the president should be whoever gets the most votes. What a dumb idea. :P

Sure if someone gets a majority they should be president, but that doesn't always happen. I would rather keep the electoral college dreadly horrible though it is than go for a plurality system. Not that the former is better than the latter, necessarily, but why not hold out for something better?

What could possibly be better? If your hoping to see a major and minority president or something crazy like that, Id say dont hold your breath.

My point is that if someone wins with less that  a majority,  I wouldn't call that "democratic".

I wouldn't either, luckily we live in a Republic. "Democracy" = mob-rule.