One State=One Vote
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:19:44 PM
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)
  One State=One Vote
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: One State=One Vote  (Read 28622 times)
rockhound
Rookie
**
Posts: 161


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 11, 2008, 10:45:31 PM »

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2008, 09:08:14 AM »
« Edited: September 12, 2008, 09:10:19 AM by Franzl »

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.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2008, 09:13:33 AM »

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
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 #3 on: September 13, 2008, 12:28:42 AM »

Oh my god no.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2008, 12:39:47 AM »

     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: 4,364
Italy
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2008, 01:22:09 AM »

I wondered how long it would take for this to become the counterargument to the popular vote.  About time.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2008, 03:04:21 AM »

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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2008, 03:07:51 AM »

Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2008, 03:41:51 AM »

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
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2008, 11:20:05 AM »

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 #10 on: September 13, 2008, 02:01:27 PM »

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
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,401
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2008, 03:00:06 PM »

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2008, 11:57:56 PM »

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
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2008, 11:24:33 PM »

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
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 #14 on: September 16, 2008, 11:37:53 PM »

Interesting analysis.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2008, 11:40:51 PM »

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
Rookie
**
Posts: 161


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2008, 10:08:29 AM »

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2008, 10:35:35 AM »

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
Rookie
**
Posts: 161


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2008, 10:22:19 AM »

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2008, 10:35:31 AM »

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
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 #20 on: September 24, 2008, 03:18:28 PM »

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
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,700
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2008, 01:02:54 AM »

States are completely arbitrary creations.
Logged
HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,364
Italy
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2008, 01:16:54 AM »

So are countries.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,700
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2008, 01:45:41 AM »


Some are (Iraq). Most aren't.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2008, 07:16:17 PM »


Most are, in some part.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« 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 0.056 seconds with 12 queries.