Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2014, 11:04:46 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  Electoral Reform
| | | |-+  One State=One Vote
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: One State=One Vote  (Read 15448 times)
rockhound
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


View Profile
« on: September 11, 2008, 10:45:31 pm »
Ignore

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22118
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2008, 09:08:14 am »
Ignore

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 09:10:19 am by Franzl »Logged
Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4686
Slovenia


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2008, 09:13:33 am »
Ignore

Interestingly enough, the only elections in the last century where this would have made a difference would be 1976 and 1960, buth very close elections (with no clear PV winner in the latter).
Logged
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38863
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2008, 12:28:42 am »
Ignore

Oh my god no.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
IDS Attorney General PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22477
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2008, 12:39:47 am »
Ignore

     I will say one thing about this. It would make big states irrelevant. Given the choice between playing in Florida & playing in New Mexico, where would you spend money? New Mexico obviously.
Logged

HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4403
Italy
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2008, 01:22:09 am »
Ignore

I wondered how long it would take for this to become the counterargument to the popular vote.  About time.
Logged

Judäischen Volksfront
exnaderite
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5489


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -8.26

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2008, 03:04:21 am »
Ignore

Why not become like the People's Republic of China and stack the Congress with unelected handpicked cronies instead?

It would save a whole lot of tax money not having to hold an election every four years.
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2008, 03:07:51 am »
Ignore

Oh my god no.
Logged

○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31644


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2008, 03:41:51 am »
Ignore

Clearly it should just be based upon land area. We should admit Canada as the 51st state and let them decide all of our elections for us.
Logged
Warner for Senate '14
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30588
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2008, 11:20:05 am »
Ignore

Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38863
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2008, 02:01:27 pm »
Ignore

Clearly it should just be based upon land area. We should admit Canada as the 51st state and let them decide all of our elections for us.

As long as Alberta gets left out.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31388
South Africa



View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2008, 03:00:06 pm »
Ignore

Clearly it should just be based upon land area. We should admit Canada as the 51st state and let them decide all of our elections for us.

As long as Alberta gets left out.

Give Steve his own country.

He could establish his dictatorship there.
Logged

muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8643


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2008, 11:57:56 pm »
Ignore

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

If the concern was that the large states had too much power by winner-takes-all and the small states that have disproportionate electoral weight, then you are really arguing for a more balanced population between states. Presumably that would be to help mid-size states. If that was the goal, the Constitution would have provided for representation penalties for states that were too small to encourage merger, and for those states too large to encourage splits.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4686
Slovenia


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2008, 11:24:33 pm »
Ignore

Generally, since the 23rd Amendment, such a condition would require the Democrat to win around 51.5% of the two-way vote in order to win a majority of the states [ranging from a low of 50.2% in 1976 to a high of 52.1% in 2000, ignoring 1968].  A nice bias to the Republicans, though not massive.  (Though, if it were in place, it would all but guarantee a McCain victory this year).

"Tipping Point" states for a 26-state majority:

2004:
Florida.  Kerry would have needed 51.3% of the two-way vote to win here (he won 48.6%).

2000:
Nevada.  Gore needed 52.1% nationwide (he won 50.3%)

1996:
Ohio.  Clinton needed 51.1% nationwide (he won 54.7%)

1992:
Tennessee.  Clinton needed 50.9% nationwide (he won 53.5%)

1988:
Maine.  Dukakis needed 51.9% (he won 46.1%)

1984:
Connecticut.  Mondale needed 51.8% (he won 40.8%)

1980:
Oregon.  Carter needed 50.2% (he won 44.7%)

1976:
Maine.  Carter needed 51.4% (he won 51.1%)--barely losing the count here, Maine and Oregon making the difference here.

1972:
Vermont.  McGovern needed 51.4% (he won 38.2%).

1968:
Complicated, due to Wallace...
To Prevent a Nixon Majority:
Wisconsin.  Humphrey needed 51.6% of the two-way vote nationwide to win here, but only won 49.6%.

To Win an outright Majority:
Nevada.  Humphrey needed 54.3% (he only won 49.6%).

1964:
Delaware.  Johnson needed 50.2% of the two-way vote nationwide (he won 61.3%).





Logged
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38863
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2008, 11:37:53 pm »
Ignore

Interesting analysis.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4686
Slovenia


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2008, 11:40:51 pm »
Ignore

Compare that to the Electoral College "Tipping Points" (for the past 20 years):

2004:
Ohio: Kerry needed 49.81% of the two-way vote nationwide to win here (he won 48.76%).

2000:
Florida: Gore needed 50.273% nationwide (he won 50.268%).

1996:
Pennsylvania: Clinton needed 49.57% of the two-way vote (he won 54.74%).

1992
Colorado: Clinton needed 50.65% of the two-way vote (he won 53.45%).

1988
Michigan: Dukakis needed 50.08% of the two-way vote (he won 46.10%)


Logged
rockhound
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2008, 10:08:29 am »
Ignore

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22118
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2008, 10:35:35 am »
Ignore

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

large urban states also have more people, in case you haven't noticed.
Logged
rockhound
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2008, 10:22:19 am »
Ignore

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

large urban states also have more people, in case you haven't noticed.

You missed the constitutional discussion in my op then.  The union is made up of states, not people.  It is the states the choose the president.
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22118
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2008, 10:35:31 am »
Ignore

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

large urban states also have more people, in case you haven't noticed.

You missed the constitutional discussion in my op then.  The union is made up of states, not people.  It is the states the choose the president.

You're going around in circles here. Of course the electoral college is what the constitution dictates. The popular vote is irrelevant, constitutionally speaking.

This is a 2-way street. If you'd like to change the constitution to give each state equal power in the electoral college, then surely I can make an argument to completely eliminate the Electoral College entirely.

Not that I'm sure I want to do that, but at the very least, I support fair allocation of the electors based on the population of the states.
Logged
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38863
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2008, 03:18:28 pm »
Ignore

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

large urban states also have more people, in case you haven't noticed.

You missed the constitutional discussion in my op then.  The union is made up of states, not people.  It is the states the choose the president.

I believe that federalism stopped mattering when we started admitting rectangular states. Some of the Western states were designed as additional Republican EVs.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72221
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2008, 01:02:54 am »
Ignore

States are completely arbitrary creations.
Logged



Green = Fake Scotland
Red = Real Scotland


01/05/2004-01/10/2014
HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4403
Italy
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2008, 01:16:54 am »
Ignore

So are countries.
Logged

black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72221
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2008, 01:45:41 am »
Ignore

So are countries.

Some are (Iraq). Most aren't.
Logged



Green = Fake Scotland
Red = Real Scotland


01/05/2004-01/10/2014
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2008, 07:16:17 pm »
Ignore

So are countries.

Some are (Iraq). Most aren't.

Most are, in some part.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines