If we got rid of the electoral vote system....
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:09:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  If we got rid of the electoral vote system....
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: If we got rid of the electoral vote system....  (Read 16692 times)
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2010, 01:34:41 PM »

Can anybody explain why exactly it would be a bad thing if candidates spend time in urban areas?

I remember when Obama completely ignored Pueblo, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and many other cities because of the electoral college.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2010, 02:29:56 PM »

Can anybody explain why exactly it would be a bad thing if candidates spend time in urban areas?

I remember when Obama completely ignored Pueblo, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and many other cities because of the electoral college.


Why should people in Albuquerque get more attention than those in New York? Does that make any sense?
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2010, 02:56:55 PM »

Can anybody explain why exactly it would be a bad thing if candidates spend time in urban areas?

I remember when Obama completely ignored Pueblo, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and many other cities because of the electoral college.


Why should people in Albuquerque get more attention than those in New York? Does that make any sense?

Sure, because this place worships them:

Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2010, 03:04:03 PM »

What's your point, Vepres?
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2010, 03:18:11 PM »


State governments are more powerful than the federal government, the federal government is secondary really. The New York state government focuses on NYC and Buffalo and Albany, etc, so who cares if the President doesn't campaign there. Besides, while Presidents campaign in swing states, they still govern with a proportional focus of resources and time on urban areas such as New York.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2010, 03:40:45 PM »

as evidenced by the amount of federal dollars that large states on average get back?
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2010, 03:45:02 PM »

as evidenced by the amount of federal dollars that large states on average get back?

Rural areas always receive more money in any developed democracy because they have much smaller tax bases to sustain local governments, and are generally poorer, thus they have a hard time just sustaining themselves. The Colorado state government to this day favors rural farmers with water rights over other groups, the state has always had a Governor elected by popular vote and a proportional legislature.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2010, 03:55:21 PM »

OK, that argument is fair enough....but do you honestly think Colorado should get so much more attention than....say.....Alabama simply because Colorado is close enough that both candidates believe they have a chance of winning?

What's so terrible about having each vote count equally....especially in a single winner election where the winner is supposed to have a mandate from a majority of the country? Why should a person in New York care about voting if he knows he has no way of helping his candidate further?
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2010, 04:05:33 PM »

OK, that argument is fair enough....but do you honestly think Colorado should get so much more attention than....say.....Alabama simply because Colorado is close enough that both candidates believe they have a chance of winning?

What's so terrible about having each vote count equally....especially in a single winner election where the winner is supposed to have a mandate from a majority of the country? Why should a person in New York care about voting if he knows he has no way of helping his candidate further?

Colorado has lots of independents, and thus lots of voters that one can convince. Does NYC have that? Not really. It is very polarized between affluent Republicans and poor Democrats. New York, in a typical election, gave it's mandate to the Democrats by default.

To continue on my analogy, Boulder County, in a typical election, gives the Democrats its mandate by default (for all intents and purposes). Why should Hickenlooper give as much attention to Boulder County as the similarly populated, but far less partisan, Lairmer County? Similarly, Colorado and Alabama have similar populations, but Colorado is far less polarized than Alabama, thus there are more votes up for grabs.

In my opinion, the electoral college wouldn't change where candidates visit that much, but it has the benefit of ensuring that our strong federalist structure isn't subverted by the federal executive branch. As I like a weak federal executive branch generally, I don't mind if there is less of a mandate for the President.

As for turnout, New York turnout would be just as low absent a Presidential election because all state-wide offices will likely go Democrat.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2010, 04:09:42 PM »

Whether or not you like a weak executive branch.....the executive branch isn't getting weaker any time soon....so wouldn't it be preferable that citizens have an equal chance to elect that executive?

Your only arguments are the "federal structure" and keeping the executive branch weak. The reasons that people vote how they do should be completely irrelevant in determining how much weight to give those votes. Who are you to tell New Yorkers that their opinion is worse less because it's a battle between afluent Republicans and poor Whites (which certainly isn't even entirely true anymore)?

Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2010, 04:22:54 PM »

Whether or not you like a weak executive branch.....the executive branch isn't getting weaker any time soon....so wouldn't it be preferable that citizens have an equal chance to elect that executive?

Your only arguments are the "federal structure" and keeping the executive branch weak. The reasons that people vote how they do should be completely irrelevant in determining how much weight to give those votes. Who are you to tell New Yorkers that their opinion is worse less because it's a battle between afluent Republicans and poor Whites (which certainly isn't even entirely true anymore)?

It isn't worth less. If they were less polarized, I can guarantee candidates would visit New York far more than Nevada. Black communities get no attention in Presidential elections because they're locks for the Democrats. Changing the EC would not change that.

I'm not saying New Yorkers' votes should be worth less by virtue of them voting one way. I am saying that, given how New Yorkers vote, their votes would carry far less weight as far as the campaigns were concerned.

So they're votes are worth 10% than they would be in a popular vote system. They are still a huge population center. If they voted differently, they'd get more attention. That would be the case in any system.

Logged
feeblepizza
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,910
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.45, S: -0.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 16, 2010, 11:44:12 PM »

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 18, 2010, 04:27:33 AM »

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 18, 2010, 04:43:20 AM »

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 18, 2010, 01:52:08 PM »

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

Come on, you certainly know what gerrymandering means. The GOP is favored in States like Michigan, Pennsyvania or Texas because the democratic vote is concentrted in overwhelmingly dem districts so that the other ones lean blue. It's very easy to see what would happen in a cse of tie or for a dem+1 margin. In most of these case, republicans would win with NE/ME system. That doesn't mean the GOP will always take the House, just that democrats need a strong advantage in the PV to take the House.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 18, 2010, 01:57:58 PM »

Only problem is that what You're saying isn't confirmed by reality.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 18, 2010, 02:05:31 PM »

For example:

2008: DEMs have 53pc of the vote....and actually 59pc of seats.

2006: DEMs have 52pc of the vote...and 54 pc of seats.

2004: DEMs have 46pc of both seats and votes.



Forgive me, but I don't see how gerrymandering benefits only Republicans.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 18, 2010, 02:38:53 PM »

What led me to my conclusion were those posts in Libertas' threas. As evidenced, Gore would have needed a 3% edge nationwide to win EC using NE/ME, and Kerry a 2% edge. Doesn't it look like there is a republican advantage ?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 18, 2010, 03:37:41 PM »

What led me to my conclusion were those posts in Libertas' threas. As evidenced, Gore would have needed a 3% edge nationwide to win EC using NE/ME, and Kerry a 2% edge. Doesn't it look like there is a republican advantage ?

There might be one for the 2000s, but the Democrats are going to do a lot of gerrymanders in their favor after the 2010 midterms and thus it might benefit Democrats instead in the 2010s.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 19, 2010, 01:37:26 AM »

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

It's worth noting that there are far more McCain districts represented by a Democrat than Obama districts represented by a Republican. The effect was even more extreme in 2004.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2010, 06:01:18 PM »

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

It was shown that with the Maine-Nebraska method, Bush still would have won 2000 (with a larger margin!), even though his popular vote was less:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m21.php

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2010, 11:31:29 PM »

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

It was shown that with the Maine-Nebraska method, Bush still would have won 2000 (with a larger margin!), even though his popular vote was less:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m21.php



That's in part because we have no agreed criteria for CDs other than racial and language minority protection under the VRA. This allows politically gerrymandered districts that tilt the balance during competitive elections.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.