Electoral Voting

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't think they should be randomly generated by computer, that could lead to some really weird shapes.

But computers should be used, with the districts drawn to be as geographically compact as possible, and also trying as best as possible to keep cities/townships/counties in one district. Political considerations, race, etc. should not be put into the program at all.

It's not that hard to plug in the Census data and program a computer to do that.

O yes it is.  It's what's called a P-NP complete problem and one that size would be impossible to solve.  It isn't all that difficult to get a computer to come up with an answer that wouldn't be too far from the best possible answer, but to get the absolute best answer and know that it is the absolute best answer for problems in this class is something we don't know how to do quickly even with a computer.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I favor electoral voting.

1) If there were ever to come a perennially strong third party and the vote were to be as evenly split three ways as it has been in the past with a two-way race it could cause gridlock.

2) If we were to go to a popular vote system, there would very likely be an increase in election fraud on the part of all parties in power in various states to make the majorities larger than they actually were.

Umm, if there were 3 equal parties, almost every election would be decided by the House and Senate. The people's vote would become irrelevant.

As for fraud, maybe it's time to have increase election standards nationwide? Have federal legislation to have accurate paper trails and so on. Bush vs. Gore showed that Republicans don't give a cheney about state's rights when it comes to elections.

Keep talking about 2000, ok? Lest we forget 1960? Ok lets just accept the fact that both parties may "fudge" things slightly during elections. Democrats have done it and so have Republicans. Democrats skew the amount of voters and Republicans tend to skew the count. Tit for tat. It's something we all have to come to accept.

That's a stupid argument. Because you claim that the Democrats stole 1960, it's ok that the Republicans stole 2000. Well, I have a couple of rebuttals.

1. I'd rather Nixon be elected in 1960 and Gore elected in 2000
2. The 1960 election wasn't as close
3. If suppose, you're right in that there was fraud in Chicago, that might have been cancelled out by fraud in southern Illinois

[??????????]

I favor electoral voting.

1) If there were ever to come a perennially strong third party and the vote were to be as evenly split three ways as it has been in the past with a two-way race it could cause gridlock.

2) If we were to go to a popular vote system, there would very likely be an increase in election fraud on the part of all parties in power in various states to make the majorities larger than they actually were.

Umm, if there were 3 equal parties, almost every election would be decided by the House and Senate. The people's vote would become irrelevant.

As for fraud, maybe it's time to have increase election standards nationwide? Have federal legislation to have accurate paper trails and so on. Bush vs. Gore showed that Republicans don't give a cheney about state's rights when it comes to elections.

Keep talking about 2000, ok? Lest we forget 1960? Ok lets just accept the fact that both parties may "fudge" things slightly during elections. Democrats have done it and so have Republicans. Democrats skew the amount of voters and Republicans tend to skew the count. Tit for tat. It's something we all have to come to accept.

That's a stupid argument. Because you claim that the Democrats stole 1960, it's ok that the Republicans stole 2000. Well, I have a couple of rebuttals.

1. I'd rather Nixon be elected in 1960 and Gore elected in 2000
2. The 1960 election wasn't as close
3. If suppose, you're right in that there was fraud in Chicago, that might have been cancelled out by fraud in southern Illinois

I'm just stating the fact that both sides cheat in elections. It's American tradition. Edgar Allan Poes demise was due to rigging elections. He was made drunk and forced to vote in Baltimore 5-6 times.

[sprasad]

I was wondering why the electoral votes are determined by adding the votes of the senate and the house. Wouldn't it make more sense to give electoral votes to the states based on the number of seats in the house alone?  The present system gives alot of power to the small states while punishing the larger states.  The "house only" way we keep the precious electoral system while making it more representitive of the people's vote.

Pardon my ignorance. I'm just a simple edmontonian.

[minionofmidas]

I was wondering why the electoral votes are determined by adding the votes of the senate and the house. Wouldn't it make more sense to give electoral votes to the states based on the number of seats in the house alone?  The present system gives alot of power to the small states while punishing the larger states.  The "house only" way we keep the precious electoral system while making it more representitive of the people's vote.

You'd probably make it less representative, not more. Right now, there are two bonusses that partly cancel each other out: The small state bonus due to their having more EVs per voter, and the effects of the winner-take-all system which gives the large states undue influence. (Because even if you take Calif. by 2 1/2 votes, you still get all its 55 EVs.) Abolishing one without abolishing the other is not the answer. Abolishing both is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason I got an Alberta avatar at the moment is I attended Harry Ainlay High for three weeks.

[sprasad]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey man.  Good to meet a fellow albertan. (even one for three weeks)  I've lived in alberta my whole life so there's only one avatar i can pick.

In response to your earlier statement, I guess any amalgamation of the two systems will be worse.  
It's interesting listening to the debate over the electoral college in the states and the debate over proportional representation in canada.  Seems parties are only in favour of reform when it benefits them.  The electoral system appears to be here to stay.  No government would get rid of the system that got them into power. (sigh)

[raggage]

Well, as I believe the electoral college was invented to keep the rights of the states in order, and not have the New Yorks, Californias and Texas' dictating the result of the election on popular vote alone.

However, and I'm sure Senator States Rights will not like this, but... the will of the majority must prevail, We cannot have a president be the one who more than half the electorate did not vote for becoming president. Why should it be that small states - you know the likes of Rhode Island, Delaware, Maine, Vermont etc should be able to band together and have an unproportionate effect on the election  as opposed to a bigger state with say 10 times the population

[??????????]

Well, as I believe the electoral college was invented to keep the rights of the states in order, and not have the New Yorks, Californias and Texas' dictating the result of the election on popular vote alone.

However, and I'm sure Senator States Rights will not like this, but... the will of the majority must prevail, We cannot have a president be the one who more than half the electorate did not vote for becoming president. Why should it be that small states - you know the likes of Rhode Island, Delaware, Maine, Vermont etc should be able to band together and have an unproportionate effect on the election  as opposed to a bigger state with say 10 times the population

It is that way to keep large states from dominating smaller states. Should we get rid of the Senate as well and just have the House?

[Bono]

Well, as I believe the electoral college was invented to keep the rights of the states in order, and not have the New Yorks, Californias and Texas' dictating the result of the election on popular vote alone.

However, and I'm sure Senator States Rights will not like this, but... the will of the majority must prevail, We cannot have a president be the one who more than half the electorate did not vote for becoming president. Why should it be that small states - you know the likes of Rhode Island, Delaware, Maine, Vermont etc should be able to band together and have an unproportionate effect on the election  as opposed to a bigger state with say 10 times the population

It is that way to keep large states from dominating smaller states. Should we get rid of the Senate as well and just have the House?

No. As a matter of fact, we should repeal the 17th Amendment and return to the state legislatures the selection of U.S. Senators.

I agree. The intention of the framers was that the Senate was an instrument of the representation of the states, while the House was the instrument of the representation of the people.
Giving the people the power to elect the Senators is corrupting the original federation, and contributed to the erosion of states' rights.

[minionofmidas]

Well, as I believe the electoral college was invented to keep the rights of the states in order, and not have the New Yorks, Californias and Texas' dictating the result of the election on popular vote alone.

However, and I'm sure Senator States Rights will not like this, but... the will of the majority must prevail, We cannot have a president be the one who more than half the electorate did not vote for becoming president. Why should it be that small states - you know the likes of Rhode Island, Delaware, Maine, Vermont etc should be able to band together and have an unproportionate effect on the election  as opposed to a bigger state with say 10 times the population

It is that way to keep large states from dominating smaller states. Should we get rid of the Senate as well and just have the House?

I would certainly consider it preferable if the Senate would be more representative of the US, ie by giving states one to six Senators according to population.
Although that would mean the large (swing) states would get even more dominant in presidential campaigns as long as the system remains otherwise unchanged...

[minionofmidas]

Lewis,
I think you've missed the whole point of federalism.

No, I haven't missed it, I've dismissed it as largely irrelevant.

[??????????]

Lewis,
I think you've missed the whole point of federalism.

No, I haven't missed it, I've dismissed it as largely irrelevant.

So much for the common man, huh?

[minionofmidas]

Lewis,
I think you've missed the whole point of federalism.

No, I haven't missed it, I've dismissed it as largely irrelevant.

So much for the common man, huh?

What's got supporting the privileges of small states inhabitants have to do with the common man?

[??????????]

Lewis,
I think you've missed the whole point of federalism.

No, I haven't missed it, I've dismissed it as largely irrelevant.

So much for the common man, huh?

What's got supporting the privileges of small states inhabitants have to do with the common man?

Because we are the government. We are the bosses and we can fire or hire a new leader when the time comes. We control our destiny.

[minionofmidas]

Lewis,
I think you've missed the whole point of federalism.

No, I haven't missed it, I've dismissed it as largely irrelevant.

So much for the common man, huh?

What's got supporting the privileges of small states inhabitants have to do with the common man?

Because we are the government. We are the bosses and we can fire or hire a new leader when the time comes. We control our destiny.

We the inhabitants of small states? That'd be rather undemocratic...

[??????????]

Lewis,
I think you've missed the whole point of federalism.

No, I haven't missed it, I've dismissed it as largely irrelevant.

So much for the common man, huh?

What's got supporting the privileges of small states inhabitants have to do with the common man?

Because we are the government. We are the bosses and we can fire or hire a new leader when the time comes. We control our destiny.

We the inhabitants of small states? That'd be rather undemocratic...

I am referring to all Americans in general. Changing the senate would basically be stamping out the voice of the rural man or farmer.

[minionofmidas]

Lewis,
I think you've missed the whole point of federalism.

No, I haven't missed it, I've dismissed it as largely irrelevant.

So much for the common man, huh?

What's got supporting the privileges of small states inhabitants have to do with the common man?

Because we are the government. We are the bosses and we can fire or hire a new leader when the time comes. We control our destiny.

We the inhabitants of small states? That'd be rather undemocratic...

I am referring to all Americans in general. Changing the senate would basically be stamping out the voice of the rural man or farmer.

Well what about the voice of the urban slum dweller?

[??????????]

Lewis,
I think you've missed the whole point of federalism.

No, I haven't missed it, I've dismissed it as largely irrelevant.

So much for the common man, huh?

What's got supporting the privileges of small states inhabitants have to do with the common man?

Because we are the government. We are the bosses and we can fire or hire a new leader when the time comes. We control our destiny.

We the inhabitants of small states? That'd be rather undemocratic...

I am referring to all Americans in general. Changing the senate would basically be stamping out the voice of the rural man or farmer.

Well what about the voice of the urban slum dweller?

It should be equal to the rural person, not above it just because their state is larger.

[Nym90]

Well, if you think it should be equal, then you would support getting rid of the Senate, which gives a much more disproportionate voting power to a resident of a small state than that of a large state.

[??????????]

Well, if you think it should be equal, then you would support getting rid of the Senate, which gives a much more disproportionate voting power to a resident of a small state than that of a large state.

The Senate is exactly what makes it fair for every individual.

[Nym90]

No, it makes each state equal. Therefore, if you live in a smaller state, you have much greater voting power than if you live in a larger state.

[??????????]

No, it makes each state equal. Therefore, if you live in a smaller state, you have much greater voting power than if you live in a larger state.

The whole point of the thing is to level off the states. It's only fair. By making the states level you are making the residents level. The whole idea of smaller states residents somehow having more power is ridiculous.

[Nym90]

Not ridiculous at all. If your state has fewer residents than another state, but the two states are equal, that means that each INDIVIDUAL in the smaller state has more power than each individual in the larger state. Consider an extreme example where one person was their own state, they would personally decide how their state would vote. If there are only 400,000 people in your state, you have a greater voting power because you have 1/400,000 of the overall say in those two senate seats, whereas in a state with 30 million residents you only have 1/30,000,000 of the voting power for those 2 senate seats. Hence, you have less power.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, if you think it should be equal, then you would support getting rid of the Senate, which gives a much more disproportionate voting power to a resident of a small state than that of a large state.

The Senate is exactly what makes it fair for every individual.

Can I start my own state and become a US Senator?