Judging from what I've seen of Nader in the past, he's not going to "call it quits". He seems to just want to show people that there is not just a Democratic vote or a Republican vote; quitting would undermine his entire reason for being in the race. I'm sure he'll still have his little 2% taking away from the Democrats come Election Day.
And give the rest of us with no party affiliation a reason to vote! Actually, this year I am in the ABB camp, so Kerry/Edwards gets my vote. But last election cycle, even with the Nader votes, Gore would have lost my state.
The two-party system sucks. I'm not a lesser-of-two-evils type of guy. I don't see either party looking to shore up the public domain, protect my liberty, or move this nation forward. Both candidates are more interested in advancing their own parties than in doing what's right for the U.S.A.
How about we drop the per-state Senate and make it a national body with proportional representation? In my state (CO), we have a ballot measure, the Colorado Electoral College Reform Initiative, up for a vote to make the electoral college vote based on proportional representation. I'm all for that.
I understand your point about the electoral college was a little bit different, but I'll tag along because it's a good time to mention it.
In the last four years, I've heard more people talk about reforming the electoral voting system. They proclaim the virtues of direct election without realizing the incredible drawbacks.
We have a senate and a house of representatives in the United States not just for fun, it's because there are states which have miniscule sizes. But, by virtue of geography, tradition, or community, or law, they are designated as one state. California is a state, so is Rhode Island. California gets more votes in the House because they have more people. But Rhode Island gets the same number of votes as California in the *Senate*: 2.
My point is, right now we have Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida -- battleground states. If we implement direct election, then you campaign in New York, Los Angeles, DC, Detroit and Chicago, and you're done; write your speeches.
The electoral college system exists to protect those states with smaller populations from being forgotten. But with the electoral college, as backwards as it may seem, we're campaigning (of all places), in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, and places you wouldn't imagine because guess what: their votes count. "And in a country based on the right to be heard, what could be more American than that?"
First off, you're majorly overestimating the populations of those three cities. But even ignoring that, you're taking logic and throwing it on its ear. You admit that the EC causes the vote of someone in a less populous state worth more than someone in a more populous one. Yet somehow you manage to draw the conclusion that this is a good thing?
Please, explain this to me. How in the hell is it even remotely fair that someone in Wyoming's vote is worth more than mine, just because he happens to live in Wyoming and I live in California? Hint: it isn't. This is why the EC needs to go.; One person, one vote. The idea that less popular states should have theit votes counted for more to equalize them is utterly asinine.
How is the tyranny of the majority good? How was Gore vs Bush good as our only choices? How would it have been better if california and New York decided the whole election for the rest of us?
Excpet they wouldn't. The populations aren't nearly high enough, your FUD not withstanding.
Besides which- how is someone getting 100 more votes (or possibly not) in Florida deciding an election a good thing when it was won by the other guy on the popular level by hundreds of thousands of votes? Thats what the EC causes. Without it, the vote of someone in a rural state would still count- it would count equally as much as someone in a popular state. There would be no tyranny of the majority, it would be
Tyranny of the majority afflicted politics in europe leading up to the facist regimes. The problem comes when the system breaks down the potential for abuse of a minority class is probable. This is what the founding fathers were striking a balance against. The EC may not be the best, but it is still better than pluralist elections in a party system.
The issue minorities are a red herring. They affect _any_ democratic society just being there. I also wouldn't want enviromentalists, animal-rights activis
Excpet they wouldn't. The populations aren't nearly high enough, your FUD not withstanding.
It's a slight exageration, at worst. It is safe to assume that any Democrat or Republican will get 45% of the vote, even if he doesn't campaign at all.
A Presidential candidate, in a direct election, would need to sway no more than 6% of the vote to win. Since New York, Los Angeles and Chicago represent more than 10% of the American population (and are all highly polarized - they are overwhelmingly Democratic righ
Actually, you're majorly underestimating the populations of those metro areas. The metro areas of NYC, Chicago, and LA and their surroundings equal the 23 smallest states.
From the 2000 census [census.gov]
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island + Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana + Chicago-Naperville-Joliet = 39,786,945
Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oregon = 38,406,741
If you go with a more narrow definition of those metro areas, those 3 cities still come out at 28.5 million. Leave CT and OR off the above list of states.
Now...is the EC current situation fair? Maybe, maybe not. It tries to give representative power to each state. But a straight popular vote would shift the power completely to the cities (Not California or New York, but metro LA and NYC)
Okay, a lot of people here (not just the poster I'm responding to) need to get themselves a serious education on the US form of government.
The President is NOT the representative of The People, the President is the Executive of the States -- idiots who vote in the Presidential elections who don't understand this shouldn't be voting. Up until the early 20th century, people didn't even vote for the President, the President was selected by the State governments, and was accomplished via the Electoral Colleg
Tyranny of the majority is a real problem. It can already be seen at the state level, thanks to the Supreme Court's "one man - one vote" ruling that forced the reorganization of state legislatures. Try living in a state that has one large city and a bunch of rural counties. It easily degenerates to a situation where the only interests that have an effective voice in the legislature are those from the big city and (maybe) its suburbs. Anyone from a rural county can just pound sand.
Given modern communications, why the heck is this even an issue? Can't the candidate just stay home and broadcast his speech everywhere (like Perot did) in a half hour infomercial?
The reason that the states you mention are "battleground" states is that:
a) They carry a non-trivial number of electoral votes and b) They are potentially "swing" states, i.e., both candidates have a chance of winning them
You don't hear much about Kerry campaigning in, say, Georgia, even though it carries 15 electoral votes, more than twice that of, say Idaho (7 votes). That's because Georgia is going to vote for Bush.
Now, if the election were decided on percentage of the total vote or, say, by obtaining a majority (>50%) of the vote, then it might be worth it for Kerry to campaign in urban Georgia areas, such as Atlanta, where he might be able to pick up thousands of votes.
You also have all the little or low-population states who, perhaps, get more than their fair share of electoral votes. The minimum number of electoral votes allocated to a state is 3. So, states such as Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, DC, North and South Dakota, and Vermont each gets three votes, regardless of population. Is that fair? In a sense, each voter in such small states has control over a larger fraction of an electoral vote than does a voter in a large state, such as California.
But that's how the Founding Fathers designed the system and, at least for the 2004 election, that's what we're stuck with, like it or not. Personally, I'm undecided as to whether, if I had the power, I would move away from the Electoral College system or stick with it. It clearly has its advantages and disadvantages.
Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.
Another salient point comes from my own experience as a voter in North Carolina, where I lived during the 2000 election. At that time, there was no way in hell I was going to vote for Bush. However, he was polling at over 60% in NC, so, in essence, my vote was irrelavent. I could vote for Gore, but it wouldn't matter, because the majority of the state would have, metaphorically, drowned me out. How I ended up voting is not germane, but I think you can see the quandry one might be in.
I think this situation may lead some folks to apathy, i.e., not caring about or getting involved in the system, perhaps to the extent of not voting at all. If you live in a state where you are in the minority in re your political opinions, then your vote really doesn't count for presidential elections. That's just how it is.
Now, if we moved away from an Electoral College system, then all those "minority voters" (as defined in the previous paragraph) WOULD have their voices heard, since their votes would "count" towards the candidate's total. Somehow, that seems more democratic to me.
On the other hand, getting rid of the electoral college would be a hit to the third party camp, because right now the bread and butter of third parties seems to be people who live in strongly partisan states who know their vote isn't going to come close to mattering on the Big Vote, and so choose to use it to help a third party get recognition.
On the other hand, getting rid of the electoral college would be a hit to the third party camp
Getting rid of the electoral college system would require a constitutional amendment. And if you're going to fix it, fix it right, and put in an Approval Voting system. That would put third party candidates in the same boat as candidates from any other party. It would eliminate the concepts of the wasted vote and the spoiler.
Getting rid of the electoral college system would require a constitutional amendment. And if you're going to fix it, fix it right, and put in an Approval Voting system. That would put third party candidates in the same boat as candidates from any other party. It would eliminate the concepts of the wasted vote and the spoiler.
That would be a good move, it would certainly be good for the Democrats. I suspect that most green and more than half the libertarian votes would move to them on second preferences. A
Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.
Not nessearly, because all players (presidential canidates) understood these rules during their campaining. They campained on that idea, that total votes didn't matter. Its a contest, and the rules are set they understood this. Now arguing changing the rules in the future maybe (though peronally I like the system) but arguing that Bush win is le
Your point is well-taken. The system is the system and, according to the rules of that system, Bush was the winner.
Of course, this doesn't address the whole Florida isssue, which is another can of worms entirely. Without descending into an extended argument about hanging chads, the issues experienced in Florida underscore the way that small errors in tallying votes can really affect elections. It's my understanding that *any* voting method, be it punch cards, touch screens, color-in-the-box, or whatever, h
The system could still be (and, I believe, is) messed up --- even if every candidate agrees with it. It's not as if the candidates have much choice: They have to accept the rules when they when they run for President.
Democracy isn't a game with arbitrary rules. The rules should be designed to give every citizen equal representation in government. The current system clearly fails in this respect.
I was planning on voting for Nader back then, but due to NC's bizarre election laws, he couldn't manage to get on the ballot, *and* any write-in votes for him weren't counted! In retrospect (based on what I know now) I wish I had voted for Gore, but ultimately it wouldn't have made a difference either way.
So, yeah, the voting system is totally messed up, on several levels. I'd like to see it reformed (a) so that *every* vote for *any* candidate counts, no matter who it is, and (b) so that third parties hav
Now, if we moved away from an Electoral College system, then all those "minority voters" (as defined in the previous paragraph) WOULD have their voices heard, since their votes would "count" towards the candidate's total. Somehow, that seems more democratic to me.
Alas, you live in a republic, not a democracy.
"At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished,
You don't hear much about Kerry campaigning in, say, Georgia, even though it carries 15 electoral votes, more than twice that of, say Idaho (7 votes). That's because Georgia is going to vote for Bush.
Now, if the election were decided on percentage of the total vote or, say, by obtaining a majority (>50%) of the vote, then it might be worth it for Kerry to campaign in urban Georgia areas, such as Atlanta, where he might be able to pick up thousands of votes.
Perhaps another way would be to have a runner up college. Like in the Olympics where the best runners up get to go through, thus helping to adjust for any uneven heats.
If this runner up EC had maybe 10% of the votes, the leftover votes from each state get added together and the EC votes are shared out proportionally.
This way states that are strong for either candidate don't have the position where opposition voters don't bother, you still don't have particular populations outbalancing the smaller area
You also have all the little or low-population states who, perhaps, get more than their fair share of electoral votes. The minimum number of electoral votes allocated to a state is 3. So, states such as Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, DC, North and South Dakota, and Vermont each gets three votes, regardless of population. Is that fair? In a sense, each voter in such small states has control over a larger fraction of an electoral vote than does a voter in a large state, such as California.
Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.
It depends on your perspective. The idea was to collect a loose coalition of states that could act together, not to create a huge and powerful federal government.
Personally, I like the idea of a bunch of semi-autonomous states competing for me, working together with a weak federal government. I mean, after all the end of a strong federal gove
Maine, since 1972, and Nebraska, since 1996, both give EC votes based on proportionate popular vote in the state.
Maine could go 3 EC Votes for Kerry, 1 for Bush etc.
I would rather see a proportionate system like this for EC reform than going to straight popular vote. It would also have the effect of giving those who live in states with a bias a vote. Why would I vote in Maryland? It has always gone Democrat. If my vote could swing a few otherwise lockstep EC votes to my candidate of choice, it might g
It almost seems like this should be a national policy rather than state-by-state. I guess that gets into states' rights issuesm, a topic on which one could expound for volumes.
I think the whole problem is compounded by the two-party system. I'm at the point where I think it would be wise to disband political parties all together. Candidates should run on their own platforms and not be forced to shoehorn themselves into a particular party's view of the world. Coalitions (say, in Congress) should be formed a
I live in Rhode Island, and let me tell you, the electoral system does exactly one thing: makes my vote worthless. Whether I'm voting Democrat or Republican, my vote sure as heck isn't going to matter. With the current system, Rhode Island *IS* forgotten.
And explain to me why your vote should count, in effect, several hundred times more than a Californians vote?
If you had, say, one electoral college point for Cali and one for RI, and RI had a population of 100,000 and Cali a population of 50 million (pulling figures off the top of my head here), then your vote would be worth.00001 percent of RI, whereas a Californians vote would be worth.000000002 of CA.
And how is that justified?
This way, rather than states having equal votes, people have more
Umm, how about my vote counting equally to a Californian's vote? The electoral college system was a novel solution to the political landscape of the late 18th century. Today, the United States is not 13 mini-kingdoms but is rather 50 geographic divisions with seamless borders. There is no longer a reason to have any system other than a direct popular vote.
There is no longer a reason to have any system other than a direct popular vote.
A direct pluralistic vote solves very few problems intrinsic to our current voting system. By comparison, Approval Voting [boulder.co.us] resolves many of the problems. It would permit multiple political parties with realistic chances of winning, giving voters greater diversity of choice. It would reduce negative campaigning, and force candidates to present themselves and their issues rather than spend the majority of their time debasing their opponents.
I didn't preclude that... approval voting IMO is a form of direct popular vote. In any case, it solves the problem whereby someone can get more than 50% of the vote and be elected president... not that this has happened yet, but it's come close.
The Electoral College is the mechanism by which people in less populated states get more representation than people in more crowded states. That's one reason why rural states get more money back from the Fedaral government than they pay in taxes. Such a system had national benefits during the settlement of the country by immigrants and their descendants, as we subsidized the conversion of the continent to American culture and economics. It also worked in keeping the midwest socialist trend down during the C
If we implement direct election, then you campaign in New York, Los Angeles, DC, Detroit and Chicago, and you're done; write your speeches.
The electoral college system exists to protect those states with smaller populations from being forgotten. But with the electoral college, as backwards as it may seem, we're campaigning (of all places), in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida,
I'd just like to ask rhetorically: Where is Detroit?
How many cities have Major League Baseball teams in Ohio?
In terms of pop
Forget about abolishing the electoral collage, what about Instant Runoff Voting [wikipedia.org]? Though I am not a Democrat, so many Kerry "supporters" I have talked to admit that they really would prefer Nader, but they don't want to waste their vote. Why do we allow the party machines to control our choices for president? We have 2 Ivy League silver spoon-fed pro-war blue blooded candidates to choose from. It's a shame people like Nader and Badnarik aren't even considered an option by most voters, but that's what happens
Furthermore, the EC system has the inherent flaw of a 'rogue' electorate, wherein a representative can vote in opposition to the popular vote.
Lastly, the system creats a winner-take-all system wherein the votes of a minority in a locked-down state, say Democrats in Arizona, are discounted even though they create a significant plurality if counted.
If Bush wins by 1 vote in Arizona he gets the entire EC votes.
Lastly, most states are still ignored under our system because if you're able to secure California
I agree with you a lot. I don't really believe in political parties that much, they do much more bad than good. I did notice that much of your suggestions (more than two-parties, proportional representation) resemble the Canadian political system. Just something I noticed.
We don't really have a 2-party system the way other countries have N-party systems. Each party has many (informal) subgroups and we get to elect our representatives in two stages - first we get to select the Democratic and Republican nominees (where there is usually plenty of choice, at least for the not-in-power party) and then select between those two.
Is that better than a system like the UK where each party internally (i.e. not by open vote) selects candidates to run for specific offices (e.g. seats in
"Flattery is all right -- if you don't inhale."
-- Adlai Stevenson
Not really. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not really. (Score:3, Insightful)
The two-party system sucks. I'm not a lesser-of-two-evils type of guy. I don't see either party looking to shore up the public domain, protect my liberty, or move this nation forward. Both candidates are more interested in advancing their own parties than in doing what's right for the U.S.A.
How about we drop the per-state Senate and make it a national body with proportional representation? In my state (CO), we have a ballot measure, the Colorado Electoral College Reform Initiative, up for a vote to make the electoral college vote based on proportional representation. I'm all for that.
Re:Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the last four years, I've heard more people talk about reforming the electoral voting system. They proclaim the virtues of direct election without realizing the incredible drawbacks.
We have a senate and a house of representatives in the United States not just for fun, it's because there are states which have miniscule sizes. But, by virtue of geography, tradition, or community, or law, they are designated as one state. California is a state, so is Rhode Island. California gets more votes in the House because they have more people. But Rhode Island gets the same number of votes as California in the *Senate*: 2.
My point is, right now we have Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida -- battleground states. If we implement direct election, then you campaign in New York, Los Angeles, DC, Detroit and Chicago, and you're done; write your speeches.
The electoral college system exists to protect those states with smaller populations from being forgotten. But with the electoral college, as backwards as it may seem, we're campaigning (of all places), in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, and places you wouldn't imagine because guess what: their votes count. "And in a country based on the right to be heard, what could be more American than that?"
Re:Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please, explain this to me. How in the hell is it even remotely fair that someone in Wyoming's vote is worth more than mine, just because he happens to live in Wyoming and I live in California? Hint: it isn't. This is why the EC needs to go.; One person, one vote. The idea that less popular states should have theit votes counted for more to equalize them is utterly asinine.
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Besides which- how is someone getting 100 more votes (or possibly not) in Florida deciding an election a good thing when it was won by the other guy on the popular level by hundreds of thousands of votes? Thats what the EC causes. Without it, the vote of someone in a rural state would still count- it would count equally as much as someone in a popular state. There would be no tyranny of the majority, it would be
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
The issue minorities are a red herring. They affect _any_ democratic society just being there. I also wouldn't want enviromentalists, animal-rights activis
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
It's a slight exageration, at worst. It is safe to assume that any Democrat or Republican will get 45% of the vote, even if he doesn't campaign at all.
A Presidential candidate, in a direct election, would need to sway no more than 6% of the vote to win. Since New York, Los Angeles and Chicago represent more than 10% of the American population (and are all highly polarized - they are overwhelmingly Democratic righ
Re:Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
From the 2000 census [census.gov]
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island + Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana + Chicago-Naperville-Joliet = 39,786,945
Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oregon = 38,406,741
If you go with a more narrow definition of those metro areas, those 3 cities still come out at 28.5 million. Leave CT and OR off the above list of states.
Now...is the EC current situation fair? Maybe, maybe not. It tries to give representative power to each state.
But a straight popular vote would shift the power completely to the cities (Not California or New York, but metro LA and NYC)
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
The President is NOT the representative of The People, the President is the Executive of the States -- idiots who vote in the Presidential elections who don't understand this shouldn't be voting. Up until the early 20th century, people didn't even vote for the President, the President was selected by the State governments, and was accomplished via the Electoral Colleg
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
It's this sort of thing t
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
As for hunting policies- won't win any points there. ANyone who enjoys going out and killing animals for sport is a sick fucker.
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Re:Not really. (Score:5, Interesting)
a) They carry a non-trivial number of electoral votes and
b) They are potentially "swing" states, i.e., both candidates have a chance of winning them
You don't hear much about Kerry campaigning in, say, Georgia, even though it carries 15 electoral votes, more than twice that of, say Idaho (7 votes). That's because Georgia is going to vote for Bush.
Now, if the election were decided on percentage of the total vote or, say, by obtaining a majority (>50%) of the vote, then it might be worth it for Kerry to campaign in urban Georgia areas, such as Atlanta, where he might be able to pick up thousands of votes.
You also have all the little or low-population states who, perhaps, get more than their fair share of electoral votes. The minimum number of electoral votes allocated to a state is 3. So, states such as Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, DC, North and South Dakota, and Vermont each gets three votes, regardless of population. Is that fair? In a sense, each voter in such small states has control over a larger fraction of an electoral vote than does a voter in a large state, such as California.
But that's how the Founding Fathers designed the system and, at least for the 2004 election, that's what we're stuck with, like it or not. Personally, I'm undecided as to whether, if I had the power, I would move away from the Electoral College system or stick with it. It clearly has its advantages and disadvantages.
Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.
Another salient point comes from my own experience as a voter in North Carolina, where I lived during the 2000 election. At that time, there was no way in hell I was going to vote for Bush. However, he was polling at over 60% in NC, so, in essence, my vote was irrelavent. I could vote for Gore, but it wouldn't matter, because the majority of the state would have, metaphorically, drowned me out. How I ended up voting is not germane, but I think you can see the quandry one might be in.
I think this situation may lead some folks to apathy, i.e., not caring about or getting involved in the system, perhaps to the extent of not voting at all. If you live in a state where you are in the minority in re your political opinions, then your vote really doesn't count for presidential elections. That's just how it is.
Now, if we moved away from an Electoral College system, then all those "minority voters" (as defined in the previous paragraph) WOULD have their voices heard, since their votes would "count" towards the candidate's total. Somehow, that seems more democratic to me.
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Getting rid of the electoral college system would require a constitutional amendment. And if you're going to fix it, fix it right, and put in an Approval Voting system. That would put third party candidates in the same boat as candidates from any other party. It would eliminate the concepts of the wasted vote and the spoiler.
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
That would be a good move, it would certainly be good for the Democrats. I suspect that most green and more than half the libertarian votes would move to them on second preferences. A
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Not nessearly, because all players (presidential canidates) understood these rules during their campaining. They campained on that idea, that total votes didn't matter. Its a contest, and the rules are set they understood this. Now arguing changing the rules in the future maybe (though peronally I like the system) but arguing that Bush win is le
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Of course, this doesn't address the whole Florida isssue, which is another can of worms entirely. Without descending into an extended argument about hanging chads, the issues experienced in Florida underscore the way that small errors in tallying votes can really affect elections. It's my understanding that *any* voting method, be it punch cards, touch screens, color-in-the-box, or whatever, h
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Democracy isn't a game with arbitrary rules. The rules should be designed to give every citizen equal representation in government. The current system clearly fails in this respect.
speaking as another person in NC for 2000... (Score:2)
So, yeah, the voting system is totally messed up, on several levels. I'd like to see it reformed (a) so that *every* vote for *any* candidate counts, no matter who it is, and (b) so that third parties hav
Re:Not really. (Score:1, Interesting)
Alas, you live in a republic, not a democracy.
"At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished,
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
A fairly reasonable compromise would be keep
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
If this runner up EC had maybe 10% of the votes, the leftover votes from each state get added together and the EC votes are shared out proportionally.
This way states that are strong for either candidate don't have the position where opposition voters don't bother, you still don't have particular populations outbalancing the smaller area
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Yes, smaller states res
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
It depends on your perspective. The idea was to collect a loose coalition of states that could act together, not to create a huge and powerful federal government.
Personally, I like the idea of a bunch of semi-autonomous states competing for me, working together with a weak federal government. I mean, after all the end of a strong federal gove
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Maine could go 3 EC Votes for Kerry, 1 for Bush etc.
I would rather see a proportionate system like this for EC reform than going to straight popular vote. It would also have the effect of giving those who live in states with a bias a vote. Why would I vote in Maryland? It has always gone Democrat. If my vote could swing a few otherwise lockstep EC votes to my candidate of choice, it might g
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
I think the whole problem is compounded by the two-party system. I'm at the point where I think it would be wise to disband political parties all together. Candidates should run on their own platforms and not be forced to shoehorn themselves into a particular party's view of the world. Coalitions (say, in Congress) should be formed a
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
If you had, say, one electoral college point for Cali and one for RI, and RI had a population of 100,000 and Cali a population of 50 million (pulling figures off the top of my head here), then your vote would be worth
And how is that justified?
This way, rather than states having equal votes, people have more
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
Re:Not really. (Score:4, Interesting)
A direct pluralistic vote solves very few problems intrinsic to our current voting system. By comparison, Approval Voting [boulder.co.us] resolves many of the problems. It would permit multiple political parties with realistic chances of winning, giving voters greater diversity of choice. It would reduce negative campaigning, and force candidates to present themselves and their issues rather than spend the majority of their time debasing their opponents.
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
The way I originally understood you, you were arguing for a revised electoral college system. My apologies.
--Petey
College Dropouts (Score:2)
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
I'd just like to ask rhetorically: Where is Detroit? How many cities have Major League Baseball teams in Ohio? In terms of pop
Want reform? Try IRV (Score:1)
Re:Not really. (Score:1)
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
2-party system? (Score:2)
Is that better than a system like the UK where each party internally (i.e. not by open vote) selects candidates to run for specific offices (e.g. seats in