| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2004/8/24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33102 Activity:insanely high |
8/24 Can someone articulate a defense of the Electoral College system?
\_ Because it makes it harder for a charismatic but evil person from
gaining a large following in small but densely packed places and
screwing the other 49.9% of the population. A republic is more
stable than a democracy. Pure democracy will not lead to the
utopia you dream of. If we didn't have the EC, candidates would
campaign in about 2% of the country instead of 18% of the country.
You think that's a better solution? Also, since the number of
people in a state is used to calculate the number of EC votes a
state has, a Wyoming vote is not substantially different than a CA
vote. The big problem in our system is the primaries give a
disproportionate amount of decision making power to the 3 to 4
earliest voting primary states, while the last 40 or so are just
a rubber stamp.
\_ There is a ridiculous fallacy here--that it's important for
candidates to campaign in large, empty states, rather than
in states where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE. Our president isn't
answerable to prarie dogs in South Dakota, he's the
representative of the *people*. Any system which means that
he has to appeal to more PEOPLE is an improvement. -tom
\_ Pure democracy would leave those people permanently out of
the political cycle. But since they don't share your
political view, mostly, that's ok, right?
\_ The EC simply makes states vote as a bloc. So a given
state will have a split vote, but casts its decision as
a whole. This gives the state more power. It's still
democracy, there are actual people in those states, and
the EC prevents state minorities from undermining the
decision of the state election. However I don't think the
case is made that that the EC makes candidates campaign in
more areas. It's just different. Without the EC candidates
could pick up votes anywhere. Another problem is states
that are too large like CA. In huge states the national
voice is reduced in the Senate, and you get too many
people without enough common ground. Personally I'm against
the EC and think it is outdated since states are too large
and diverse to justify consolidating their votes.
\_ The current EC system does nothing to discourage
candidates from campaigning almost exclusively in urban
population centers; in fact, the winner-takes-all set-up
encourages it. In order to win California's whopping
55 electoral votes (20% of the number needed to win the
election), a candidate's energy is best spent appealing
to LA and SFBA, where the vast majority of the voters live.
A better system would be much more representative: allot
votes to individual counties based on population (and set
a minimum such that counties without enough residents get
grouped with other counties until they form a large enough
population to warrant a vote); then award votes based on
who wins the majorities in those counties. In this way,
Riverside and the Inland Empire could acutally give one
of California's votes to Bush, while Austin could give its
three to Kerry. Abolishing the EC is silly, but reforming
it is a really good idea.
\_ Abolishing would not be silly. What you describe is
ok but impractical. Like I said, I think it's outdated
and as long as we're apportioning electoral votes
based on population, we should be counting the actual
votes. But it doesn't bother me much. The primary
schedule bothers me a lot more, as well as only
needing a plurality.
\_ Isn't the primary date decided by the state legislature? Why
doesn't CA move it's primary up to the front of the pack?
There should be at least one west coast state in the early
primary.
\_ Because our legislature is full of weaklings. We used to be
so far back it didn't matter if we voted. Then they moved
it up a few months. Now we're so far back it doesn't matter
if we vote. Uhm... yeah!
\_ ... but it makes it easier for a charismatic but evil person
to succeed while screwing the other side which got more votes.
\_ Please. Don't start with the butterfly ballot again.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College (have phun)
\_ Gives mostly empty states in the center of country actual
influence as opposed to being totally neglected? Other than that,
the electoral college system sucks.
\_ how is giving mostly-empty states a good thing?
\_ Because they're citizens, too? Because they should have some
say in how their country is run? But, wait, those are mostly
conservative areas. NO FREE SPEECH FOR FASCISTS!
\_ That's where we keep the nuclear weapons. We don't want to
encourage them to seccede.
\_ The greater the space per capita, the less likely a state
will succeed in seceeding.
\_ People in Wyoming are more important than people in California. -tom
\_ Yes. They are. And?
\_ yeah, maybe if the succeed then they'll be rich by
selling us food at extreme prices
\_ Is there much farming in Wyoming? Farmers spend a LOT of
money on fertilizers and pesticides.
\_ well. tons of cattle and horses which produce
shit to make fertilizer , and also beef
\_ But the cows are generally fed corn, which I don't
think they grow a lot of in Wyoming, and it is mostly
produced with nitrogen-rich fertilizers made from
petrochemicals.
\_ The cows are grass fed in Wyoming (duh).
\_ Now tom, you know this is easy to fix -- just get enough of your
friends to vote Republican that CA becomes a battleground state
again. People will start to pay attention to you! -- ilyas
\_ I don't have enough stupid friends. And in any case, even
if the presidential candidates bothered to campaign in the
most populated and important state in the country, a vote in
Wyoming would still count more than a vote in California. -tom
\_ The problem is, states fight with each other via the feds.
If the US introduced the system you suggest, CA might vote
all the water from surrounding states into itself or
something like that. The problem is that states are
specific entities from which things can be taken away by
law. You either need to remove states altogether, or give
states the legal means to fight for things for their
residents. The electoral college system was a historic
compromise, but there was a reason a compromise was
needed -- the states didn't trust each other, and with
good reason. -- ilyas
\_ You're being obtuse. (Gee, what a surprise). We're
talking about one specific thing--presidential
elections. -tom
\_ Why should electing the president have a special
exemption from the general system? The office of
the president is another tool the states use to
fight each other. If you think the office of
the president only concerns 'the people', why not
apply the same reasoning to the rest of the
government, say the legislative branch? -- ilyas
\_ sorry, you'll have to find someone more gullible
to chase your red herring. -tom
\_ You are a prisoner of the running 'narrative'
on wall, Tom. -- ilyas
\_ No, you moron, it doesn't. The ratio of voters per electoral
vote may be smaller in Wyoming, but Wyoming is, like CA,
a first-past-the-post state. Your vote may count more
towards tipping the electoral votes in Wyoming than it
does in CA, but Wyoming also has a lot less electoral
votes as a state. Your vote doesn't directly correspond
to an electoral vote, but to a slate of votes. Depending
on how the state's race is shaping up and how the national
election is shaping up, your vote has more or less power
in any given situation. If CA is a battleground state and
Wyoming isn't, your vote is actually MORE significant in
CA than it is in Wyoming. --williamc
\_ gee, idiot, when 480K people (.16% of the population)
decide on 3 electoral votes (.56% of the electoral
college), their votes have more weight than when 35
million people (11.7% of the population) decide on
55 electoral votes (10.2% of the electoral college).
Try taking a math class. -tom
\_ 35 million? No. Drop the illegal aliens and only
count registered voters and the numbers change
dramatically. Try taking a civics class.
\_ Are you contending that there are fewer than
8 million US citizens in California? That's
what it would take for CA's representation in
the electoral college to be proportional to
Wyoming's. -tom
\_ We are the UNITED STATES of America. The States
make up the UNION. Not the other way around.
The states must be accorded their rights as
equal sovereign powers. Dealings btw them must
be done with recognition of their positions as
equals (look up "full faith and credit"). The
EC is a compromise, it gives every state as
close to an equal say in the selection of the
Chief Executive as is possible. [why was this
deleted?]
\_ Your last sentence is complete hogwash. An
equal say would have Wyoming choosing .16% of
the electors, and California choosing 11.7%.
Are you going to try to claim again that
states have rights? -tom
\_ What part of equality of sovereign
powers do you not understand?
Wyoming has 2 senators and 1
congressman, thus it has three
votes in selecting the Chief Exec.
California has many more people
hence it gets proportionately more
congressmen, which translates to
proportionately more votes in the
EC which means more votes when
selecting the Chief Exec. Maybe
Wyoming gets a little bit more
than an equal say b/c its pop.
is smaller than the min.
threshold for two congressmen.
This is why the EC is as close
to a completely equitable
system as is possible given
the foundation of the republic.
Its seems to me that based on
your logic, Wyoming should have
no representation at all b/c they
have hardly any people. That
is not how it works for good
reason.
Yes, states have rights. Let's
give you an example that you
can understand. You ride your
bike to Nevada. While riding
around you happen to crash it
into the window of a health
food store. You get up and
ride back to California.
Nevada courts have the right
to haul you, a non-resident,
into court to answer the
charges. You can choose
not to appear, but that will
just mean a judgment by def.
If Nevada didn't have any
rights/power, how could they
drag you into court? Think
about that.
\_ Republican: stupid. Stupid: Republican. It all makes
sense to me now. Half the country is simply stupid because
they don't agree with tom. All Hail Leader Tom!
\_ Well, if you're Republican, that at least would be one
example. Try reading it again. -tom
\_ All Hail Great Educator Leader Tom!
\_ Imagine Florida 2000 across THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Be grateful for the
Electoral College.
\_ I hope you realize that most democratic countries manage to
hold elections where the popular vote determines the winner and
they can actually count the votes properly.
\_ Actually, if we had Florida 2000 across the entire country, we
would have each state supreme court ruling on recounts in their
own state. On the other hand, if we didn't have an electoral
college system, and we had Florida 2000 in all 50 states,
assuming 500-vote margins for Bush x 50 would mean Bush would
win the popular vote and the Presidency by 25,000 votes.
\_ Congratulations. You managed to make a good point at first
and then squander it in taking the example to its illogical
conclusion.
\_ How so? Because he can do math?
\_ He's probably annoyed because "Florida 2000" also means
assorted election hijinks by Jeb and friends, and I
didn't mention that but ended with a popular vote win
for Bush in each state and overall, which doesn't make
sense. |
| 12/24 |
|
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College These electors in turn cast the official votes for President. Federal law says that each state's electors meet in their state capitals on the Monday following the second Wednesday of December. There, they cast their electoral votes for President and Vice President. January 20 (or 21st if the 20th is a Sunday), and the person with the most electoral votes for Vice President (which must also be an absolute majority) becomes Vice President on the same date. House of Representatives then votes to decide who shall become the next President from among the top three candidates. In so voting, the representatives of each state cast a single block vote. Congress, but no Senator or Representative may serve as an elector. The District of Columbia is treated as a state, but can in no event choose more electors than the least populous state (presently 3; There are currently 538 electoral votes available in each presidential election (100 Senators + 435 Representatives + 3 electors from the District of Columbia). Candidates must receive a majority of 270 electoral votes to become President and Vice President. Tally of electoral votes in the 1824 Presidential election, showing the number of votes received by the four candidates: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William H Crawford, and Henry Clay, dated February 9, 1825. The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be state elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. In all but two states, the party that wins the most popular votes becomes that state's electors, essentially a winner-take-all. Nebraska, where two of the electors are chosen by the popular vote statewide, and the rest are determined by the popular vote within each Congressional district. Of the votes in District 1, Jones gets 20 and Smith gets 15. In this situation, Smith would receive three of Maine's electoral votes (two for receiving a plurality plus an elector for winning District 2), with Jones getting the fourth (for winning District 1). This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither has ever split its electoral votes. In practice, the voters choose slates of electors pledged to candidates for president and vice president; in most states, the names of the electors do not appear on the ballot. Legally, the electors are free to cast their votes for anyone they choose; in practice, electors almost never vote for a candidate they are not pledged to. When this does happen, it is most often a case of the elector voting the pledged candidate for Vice-President as President and vice-versa, usually as a protest. Several states, but not all, have laws stating that if an elector becomes a "faithless" elector and does not vote for the candidate to which he is pledged he can be replaced or even punished, but the constitutionality of such laws is debated and has never been tested. Still others hold that it was devised as a compromise between the election of a President by popular vote and by the Congress, although initially the electors were selected by the state legislatures and it was not until later that states started holding a popular poll for the Presidential elections to determine how they would cast their votes. The electoral college may have been implemented to negotiate compromises in cases of a very badly split vote where each state was pushing its own native son. Three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, thereby sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation. Section 1, Article II of the Constitution says, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." It then goes on to describe how the electors vote for President. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided that such a number was a majority of electors) would be President, while the individual who was in second place became Vice President. If no-one received a majority of votes, then the House of Representatives would choose between the five highest vote-getters, with each state getting one vote. In such a case, the person who received the highest number of votes but was not chosen President would become Vice President. If there was ever a tie for second, then the Senate would choose the Vice President. The original plan, however, did not forsee the development of political parties. It was intended that Jefferson was the Presidential contender, while Burr was the Vice Presidential one. However, electors did not differentiate between the two, nor could they under the system of the time, and most electors cast one vote for each. The election was then thrown into the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Democrat-Republicans' opponents, the Federalists. Alexander Hamilton declared his support for Thomas Jefferson, who won on the thirty-sixth ballot. Burr became Vice President, but he bore a grudge against Hamilton, whom he later killed in a duel. To address the problems of the 1800 election, the Twelfth Amendment was passed. It made some minor and major changes to the Constitution. Firstly, electors would no longer cast two ballots for President. Rather, they would cast one vote for President and a separate vote for Vice President. The individual receiving a majority of votes in a particular election would be elected. If no-one received a majority in the Presidential election, then the House of Representatives would choose between the top three, again voting by state. Similarly, the Senate chooses between the top two in the case of the Vice President. It should be noted that under the provisions of the US Constitution, there is no requirement for a state to poll its voters. edit A controversial system The United States is one of very few liberal democracies to use an indirect method of selecting its chief executive. The Electoral College process is somewhat controversial with strong arguments from both its supporters and detractors. Supporters note that the system has lasted for over two hundred years and protects rural communities and smaller states from the interests of urban centers and large states. Detractors, on the other hand, believe that such a conspiracy of large population states against small population states is an 18th century anxiety and feel that the college is an antiquated system that silences a large minority of votes in every state and is therefore undemocratic. Without the Electoral College, with the vote based on majority rule, it would be possible to win a strict majority of votes located in a few geographically restricted areas of the country. This is illustrated by the fact that the combined total population of the 10 largest cities in the nation is (from the 1995 Statistical Abstract of the United States) almost 219 million. This effect is magnified when the analysis is broadened to the 10 largest metropolitan areas, not just the size of the largest cities proper. This would allow a candidate to focus resources, time, and political capital in winning the greatest numbers of voters in the cities. It is felt that this pressure would apply to all parties, and lead to voters in the sparsely populated West being completely ignored. A direct election would focus candidates resources on large cities such as Los Angeles. The debate would naturally center on local issues that directly affected Los Angeles citizens. Colorado River, originating in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. The amount of water reserved for California has an impact on Colorado significantly and directly, an... |