Well Florida did it again

[Weird Harold]

The Electoral College exists not to give Small States more influence, but to limit the "tyranny of the masses" of the Big States.

But damn Harold, in reality it DOES not!!! Because of the "winner takes all" factor, currently the Large States have a much bigger influence.... A direct election would minimize their impact, and, presumably, so would an electoral college with pro-rated (or district) electors......

Once again:
55 Electoral Votes cancels out fifteen states -- West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, District of Columbia, Wyoming with one vote left over.

33,871,648 offsets 32,151,836 in those fifteen states plus seven more -- Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Arkansas, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico (with 1.7 million potential votes left over.)

Obviously the absolute population numbers don't equate to a unified vote -- as the STATE'S POLICY of winner takes all, but see my earlier post about how a one percent margin of victory relates to unanimous votes in the six smallest states; the proportional influence on national policy remains whether every person votes or merely similar percentages vote

I do not particularly disagree with your analysis of the constitutional debates 230 years ago.... but so what? “Big vs. small”/ “Industrial vs. Agrarian” was a much bigger issue then... but so was whether slaves should be counted in apportioning the House and electors.... In other words… archaic.

You're forgetting that I'm arguing from the viewpoint of a citizen in a "small state" -- a small state which just happens to be fighting a losing battle against being arbitrarily designated the sole nuclear waste repository for the US despite the existance of several more suitable geological structures in tectonically more stable states; states (Texas) which just happen to have proportionally more of a voice (seven times as many congressmen) in Washington than Nevada does.

The only reason that small vs large isn't a much bigger issue is that the large states have essentially already won -- except for the minor detail that 3/4 of theState have to ratify any ammendment that would further reduce an already small voice in national affairs.

The difference is that the Large State vs. Small State argument inherent in the latter amendment is so obtuse, you will never get anybody to vote for it. One man, one vote seems so obviously fair, that a “direct vote” amendment would pass, I hope.

Fortunately, the founding fathers set up the ammendment process that the small states have to agree with the large states in a one state, one vote ratification process without regard to population. That means that thepeople who are most affected by the tyranny of the masses control whether or not the ammendment i s ratified -- and it's easier to educate small groups about esoteric concepts than it is to sway large mobs.

One person, one vote is a simple concept, but it is fed by ignorance about how the US government is structured and WHY it is structured the way it is. The Electoral College may seem archaic, (but then so is the dress code in England's House of Lords that "archaic" process is one of the things that makes the US unique.

People tend to forget that the US is more than just the people who live here -- it's the water and other natural resources and consists of hundreds or thousands of individual eco-systems.

The large urban centers in the big states tend to ignore the needs of the rural regions they steal their water from and generally know nothing of the environmental and economic issues of even other big urban centers, let alone rural areas. It's true within states and it's even more true between states.

The "Big States" don't think about "Tyranny of the Masses" much -- because they mostly benefit from anything that increases the national influence of the masses -- but I can assure you the "small states" think about "Tyranny of the Masses" all the time; especially the geographically large western states and Alaska.

Environmental issues are probably the most obvious area of conflict between Urban politics and Rural realities. Three of the top five population wise are sunny southern States (California, Texas and Florida) and they control 21% of Congress (25.7% of the House) yet they are the states writing and passing regulations (on things like caribous migration routes and tundra/permafrost preservation) that only affect Alaskans.

Even the simple change to the electoral college to eliminate the two "territorial votes" from each state's electors woul increase California's 'voice' from 10.4% to 12.1% -- A direct election would increase the perentage only slightly more but eliminate the "winner take all" influence.

To the big states, that sounds like making things more equal, to a small state, it sounds like "your issues and concerns no longer matter at all, becausee now our tenth largest city can out-vote your entire state."

 

[sr71plt]

33,871,648 offsets 32,151,836 in those fifteen states plus seven more -- Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Arkansas, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico (with 1.7 million potential votes left over.)

Exactly, which is just in a nationwide election. This would be equality of access.
Why should citizens of smaller states get more than their equal share of a nationwide election? You can't quite fathom the obvious. They get the favoritism in the Legislative branch and there aren't any elected jobs at all in the Judicial branch. Why should subsets of anything be given a leg up in the only two elected jobs in the Executive Branch? The president and vice president represent everyone (or should)--there is no logical argument that I can see for them to be representing discriminate interest groups, whether they be individual states or collections of states.

 

[Weird Harold]

But damn Harold, in reality it DOES not!!! Because of the "winner takes all" factor, currently the Large States have a much bigger influence....

PS: I really don't have a problem with "Winner Takes All" because the Presidential election is an election among the States an it sounds stupid to say, "California casts its vote for 60 percent of Kerry and 40 percent of GWB." The popular vote is to decide how each of 51 singular entities are to cast their weighted vote Why should any singular entity dilute it's influence by spliting its[/b] vote?

It's not a difficult concept except when people start trying to turn the US into a direct democracy instead of a representative republic composed of only 50 (51 for the electorial college purposes) singular political entities.

 

[sr71plt]

PS: I really don't have a problem with "Winner Takes All" because the Presidential election is an election among the States an it sounds stupid to say, "California casts its vote for 60 percent of Kerry and 40 percent of GWB." The popular vote is to decide how each of 51 singular entities are to cast their weighted vote Why should any singular entity dilute it's influence by spliting its[/b] vote?

It's not a difficult concept except when people start trying to turn the US into a direct democracy instead of a representative republic composed of only 50 (51 for the electorial college purposes) singular political entities.

Just a correction. The states don't control who the electors in the Electoral College vote for. The individual electors can vote for whoever they want (and haven't always voted as instructed via whatever happened in the election in individual states). Of course they usually do vote as instructed, as they are only electors because they came up through the party systems. But this is not a state-controlled system.

 

[Weird Harold]

Just a correction. The states don't control who the electors in the Electoral College vote for. The individual electors can vote for whoever they want (and haven't always voted as instructed via whatever happened in the election in individual states). Of course they usually do vote as instructed, as they are only electors because they came up through the party systems. But this is not a state-controlled system.

Granted, the Electors are not bound by federal law, and most states don't have "faithless elector" laws, but the "Winner Take All" tradition is very strong and is almost universally applied to the mandate/instructions given to the electors by the selection process.

However, ...

Article 2 Section 1:
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

The Consitution is clear that it is the States who are responsible for selecting Electors who will represent their State's interests/desires in their votes. The interests of each state is best serve by selecting electors who can come to a individed vote to maximize their State's voice.

I'm sure the (few remaining) residents of the Owens' Valley in California can explain why giving large mostly urban population centers an unfettered, direct voice in national policy would be a bad idea for sparsely populated regions. It pretty much defines why the federal government is designe the way it is with the small states having a greater per capita voice in DC than the urban population centers.

 

[Boxlicker101]

But damn Harold, in reality it DOES not!!! Because of the "winner takes all" factor, currently the Large States have a much bigger influence.... A direct election would minimize their impact, and, presumably, so would an electoral college with pro-rated (or district) electors...... The difference is that the Large State vs. Small State argument inherent in the latter amendment is so obtuse, you will never get anybody to vote for it. One man, one vote seems so obviously fair, that a “direct vote” amendment would pass, I hope.

I do not particularly disagree with your analysis of the constitutional debates 230 years ago.... but so what? “Big vs. small”/ “Industrial vs. Agrarian” was a much bigger issue then... but so was whether slaves should be counted in apportioning the House and electors.... In other words… archaic.

The system, as it is now constructed, is both biased in favoring the big states, and it is hopelessly convoluted in its practice. You think the 2000 "hanging chad" election was an embarrassment (if not, you should).... the electoral college is an aging time bomb just waiting to blow up what little integrity the system now has.

Tic Toc.

-KC

The electoral collecge will never be eliminated because, as WH has pointed out, it would take an amendment to the Constitution. While Congress and the president might pass such an amendment, (Very unlikely. Small state senators would never vote for it, so it would never get the necessary 2/3 of the Senate) there would be no chance of 3/4 of the state legislatures approving it.

By the way, Harold, I think you were bad-mouthing or bad-keyboarding the initiative process in California. Personally, I think it is one of the greatest ideas in participatory democracy ever devised. If the legislature is too cowardly or too obtuse to pass necessary laws, the people can go over their heads and pass them on their own.

 

[Weird Harold]

By the way, Harold, I think you were bad-mouthing or bad-keyboarding the initiative process in California. Personally, I think it is one of the greatest ideas in participatory democracy ever devised.

I do agree it is a great idea, but it is a two edged sword. How many Propositions have been over-turned because they violate either the California or US Constitutions?

Nevada has a similar, if less powerful, citizen's intiative for direct citizen-passed legislation, and I've bad-mouthed some of the stupid propositions we've voted on here, too.

However, I do believe that on a National scale direct citizen-passed legislation is a seriously BAD idea. It would definitely be a total disaster for rural america and probably none too pleasant for the urban centers either.

If the legislature is too cowardly or too obtuse to pass necessary laws, the people can go over their heads and pass them on their own.

Personally, I think it is extremely rare that a new law is actually "necessary." One of the things I dislike the most about venturing inside California's borders is the number of laws they find "necessary."

 

[Boxlicker101]

I do agree it is a great idea, but it is a two edged sword. How many Propositions have been over-turned because they violate either the California or US Constitutions?

Nevada has a similar, if less powerful, citizen's intiative for direct citizen-passed legislation, and I've bad-mouthed some of the stupid propositions we've voted on here, too.

However, I do believe that on a National scale direct citizen-passed legislation is a seriously BAD idea. It would definitely be a total disaster for rural america and probably none too pleasant for the urban centers either.



Personally, I think it is extremely rare that a new law is actually "necessary." One of the things I dislike the most about venturing inside California's borders is the number of laws they find "necessary."

Some of them have been, but most have not. The organizations or people who write the proposals know enough to word them so as to be in keeping with the state or federal constitution.

It's a state thing, and has nothing to do with federal law,except that some of them may have been overturned because of a conflict. I doubt if there will ever be a federal initiative law. If there had been, Prohibition probably would have been shot down before it had a chance to take effect, saving eybody a lot of grief.

I have heard of nations sometimes having the citizens vote on a proposal. Usually, it's on a matter of great importance to everybody in the country.

 

[Weird Harold]

I doubt if there will ever be a federal initiative law.

A federal initiative law is a logical progression of the argument that the president should be elected by a popular vote -- If the Electoral College should be eliminated because it gives too much influence to the voters of small states, then logically those same small state voters have too much representation in Congress; let's just do away with Representative Government altogether and send everything to the general public for approval.

 

[keeblercrumb]

The electoral collecge will never be eliminated because, as WH has pointed out, it would take an amendment to the Constitution. While Congress and the president might pass such an amendment, (Very unlikely. Small state senators would never vote for it, so it would never get the necessary 2/3 of the Senate) there would be no chance of 3/4 of the state legislatures approving it.

By the way, Harold, I think you were bad-mouthing or bad-keyboarding the initiative process in California. Personally, I think it is one of the greatest ideas in participatory democracy ever devised. If the legislature is too cowardly or too obtuse to pass necessary laws, the people can go over their heads and pass them on their own.

I never claimed to be the shiniest spoon in the drawer, but this is getting silly.

I think Harold agrees (I don't know what you think on this, box) that the "winner take all" rules prevalent in the large states (where it truly matters) heavily favors the large states OVER the small states. Can we agree on that?

SO... regardless of what Harold or you think the justification for the Electoral college is, at least regarding this (Large vs. Small) state nonsense, it DOES.. as currently constructed, favor the Large States..... much more so than a direct election would be.

Discussions on what it was INTENDED to do to the contrary are irrelevant!

That is the way it is.

Ergo..... If you really want to "favor" the small states (and Nevada is the fastest growing state in the country, by the way...How long will it be a "small state?) you should be AGAINST it.. .the way it is now.

And since I am against it on the grounds that it a relic of a lost time which is going to blow up in our face sometime....

All of US should be against it!!! I suppose there is someone somewhere who thinks the large states SHOULD be favored.... but other than them....

And so help me Harold, if you quote me the population of California one more time.... (I get it!!!!!!) I will go back and censor every nice thing I ever said about you.... assuming I said something nice about you..... which I think I did .... maybe... or at least thought it.

-KC

 

[b-slave]

Yesterday we had our Primaries here. Unfortunately there were more than a few people in my county who were not allowed to vote. The reason was many of our Voter ID Cards had the words Independant or NPA (No Political Affiliation) on them. For some reason this disallowed us from voting.

Needless to say I and my wife have written fairly nasty letters of complaint to the state about this. (As I'm sure many other people have.)

One of these centuries Florida will fix their voting system.

Cat

The NPA thing is well known, In MANY different States. Are all Floridians retarded???

 

[b-slave]

Uhggg, by the time I read 3 posts in this thread I saw you are all stupid as fuck. Just go back to reading about Paris Hilton and leave the politics to the grownups. Thanks you.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Uhggg, by the time I read 3 posts in this thread I saw you are all stupid as fuck. Just go back to reading about Paris Hilton and leave the politics to the grownups. Thanks you.

Well... of course, we are. We were merely waiting for your witty and erudite self to appear and give meaning to our lives.

And no need to thanks usin's........ You is welcomes.

Now.... Harold.... just what have you heard from Paris lately?

-KC

 

[b-slave]

Well... of course, we are. We were merely waiting for your witty and erudite self to appear and give meaning to our lives.

And no need to thanks usin's........ You is welcomes.

Now.... Harold.... just what have you heard from Paris lately?

-KC

I'm not here to give you shit. What a bunch of stupid fucking posts. Just vote and keep your idiocy to yourselves.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Ahh! A lost little troll!!

I am sorry.... go back to the top, choose General Board... and carry on..

Good luck!

-KC

 

[b-slave]

Ahh! A lost little troll!!

I am sorry.... go back to the top, choose General Board... and carry on..

Good luck!

-KC

I believe you just may be a troll. Why do you clutter the BB as you do?

 

[keeblercrumb]

No offense.... but really, this is an "Author's Hangout" which implies that one is expected to be an author here on Lit or elsewhere. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not, in fact, an author.

Now, there are no "rules" about this per se, but I just think you would be more comfortable back on the GB where you have posted before. The "you stupid as fuck" thing seems to go over well there.

For my part, I solemnly promise not to post on the GB.....

Fair enough?

-KC

 

[b-slave]

No offense.... but really, this is an "Author's Hangout" which implies that one is expected to be an author here on Lit or elsewhere. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not, in fact, an author.

Now, there are no "rules" about this per se, but I just think you would be more comfortable back on the GB where you have posted before. The "you stupid as fuck" thing seems to go over well there.

For my part, I solemnly promise not to post on the GB.....

Fair enough?

-KC

I said "fuck". I could not possibly be a writer. Well done sir, you must be a big hit with "the people". But the fact you took a few minutes to research my history shows you are dedicated to your craft. Maybe you can write for Jay Leno.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Constitution isnt worth the paper its written on. The Supremes reverse decisions.

 

[keeblercrumb]

The Constitution isnt worth the paper its written on. The Supremes reverse decisions.

Always a breath of fresh air...... but you have a point. Most illustrative of this is that in this historic landmark of Human Liberty, we managed to find "constitutional" that most heinous crime against human liberty, i.e. Slavery and it's ugly cousin segregation.

We found the imprisonmentf Japanese Americans and the seizure of their property for the crime of being Japanese Americans....... constitutional.

The list is long and only occasionally enlightened.

I assume this is what you are referring to...

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KEEBLER

No. The Supremes change their minds about all kinds of things. But civil liberties is among their Top 5 obsessions.

My point is: Nuthin is set in stone. Eternal vigilance is required lest the applecart be upset.

Let me add, when I debate you or SKYPILOT I always have the odd sensation that my IQ is higher than it really is.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The Constitution isnt worth the paper its written on. The Supremes reverse decisions.

The Supremes do reverse lower court decisions, supposedly on constitutional grounds. However, once an amendment hasgone through the necessary certification by the state legislatures, and becomes law, they cannot reverse it.

It is possible for another amendment to repeal it, as happened in Prohibition, but that's what it would take.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOX

Reversals reverse something based on Constitutional precedent.

 

[Weird Harold]

I think Harold agrees (I don't know what you think on this, box) that the "winner take all" rules prevalent in the large states (where it truly matters) heavily favors the large states OVER the small states. Can we agree on that?

Discussions on what it was INTENDED to do to the contrary are irrelevant!

The intent is extremely relevant IMHO, because the Electoral College is there because of the INTENT to insulate the national processes from the vagaries of popular opinion.

It's part and parcel of being a representative republic instead of a direct democracy.

The Founding Fathers had the technology to conduct a nationwide, direct election -- not as quickly or as accurately as it can be done today, but it could be done, and was done for state-wide elections. They chose NOT to use that technology because using that technology would result in the more populous states completely dominating the election.

They chose the Electoral college and weighted votes because they did not want the president chosen by a direct election, they wanted the president chosen by the states. (and they expected the states to vote unanimously right from the start.)

As long as population is any factor at all in selecting the president, the big states will dominate the process. The question is whether the winner-take-all tradition offsets the advantage the territorial votes in the electoral college give the small states. I've tried to show that the answer is NO IT DOES NOT!

Since you get the point about California's population, consider Wyoming:

A population of 493,782/281,421,906th's (0.001754597) of a non-unanimous voice in a direct national election. The current makup of the Electoral College gives Wyoming 3/538ths (0.005576208) of a unanimous voice in the Presidential election. That's 3.2 times as much influence no matter who or how many votes oppose it.

The increased influence of small states is more than the simple ratios, it's that to a politician it is easier to convice the majority of a small population to give him three votes in the electoral college than it is to convince a majority of a large population -- it's simply easier to change 250,000 minds than it is 16 million. and the return is greater because those 250,000 minds each represent a bigger percentage of the electoral college than the 16 million.

The Electoral College is doing what it was intended to do because it was the small states -- the Great Red Heartland -- that has decided the last two presidential elections; without them, Florida's technical problems wouldn't be national news.

The Electoral College is doing what it was intended to do because candidates are campaigning in New Hampshire, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico and other small states, listening to and addressing their issues and concerns.

Go back and look at the numbers from the last two elections. The Blue states feel put upon because the Electoral College performed as intended and kept the urban population centers from trampling the smaller rural populations, but look at just where the Blue is on those maps and ask WHY only dense urban populations went Blue and the Rural heartland went Red.

Then ask yourself just who lives in urban concentrations and whether their particular needs and desires are good for the country as a whole. Who has a better view of the "big picture," farmers or factory workers?

 

[keeblercrumb]

....

As long as population is any factor at all in selecting the president, the big states will dominate the process. The question is whether the winner-take-all tradition offsets the advantage the territorial votes in the electoral college give the small states. I've tried to show that the answer is NO IT DOES NOT!
............
Go back and look at the numbers from the last two elections. The Blue states feel put upon because the Electoral College performed as intended?

Well, I did... see the attached

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/graphic/0,5543,393512,00.html

(please pardon the Blue/Red reversal on this chart, it is British....)

Look closely... For this chart, each state is sized according to the number of electoral votes.... You will note the "Gore" states are, compared to the Bush States, pretty big. But also please note that Bush won 3 "big" states... Texas, Florida and Ohio. These 3 were worth half again more than the 9 "small" states (< 15) won by Gore.... I am sure he would have been more than happy to cede all the small states to Bush.. if he got those three in return... Why? Because of "winner take all", that is why....

I tried to do a quick search on Campaign spending by state to compare with your anecdotal small state visits.... I don't have the time... but I would be shocked if they did not reinforce the importance of the big states, regardless of the minimum "3" state votes.. The only states that "suffer" from this are the states with an honest "4".

....and kept the urban population centers from trampling the smaller rural populations, but look at just where the Blue is on those maps and ask WHY only dense urban populations went Blue and the Rural heartland went Red.

First, as noted above, "dense urban center" states DID go to Bush, and small states DID go to Gore. Are there regional differences? Of course there are.... but they are transitory and dynamic.

My "Party of Lincoln" Republican father in New York was mortified to wake up and discover that the only states who voted for "his" candidate, Barry Goldwater in 1964 were the deep south Dixie states..(this was pre-“voting rights"). It was the first time that had ever happened in his life time.

Was there a strong regional aspect to that election? Of course.

....
Then ask yourself just who lives in urban concentrations and whether their particular needs and desires are good for the country as a whole. Who has a better view of the "big picture," farmers or factory workers?

Harold.... you are in the wrong century.... That "war" ended a long time ago. I am sorry, but the great Mid-west is no longer a bucolic agrarian society kept to heel by the Big Industrial states.. Hell, the "farms" are the main "factories" now, in case you hadn't noticed. The vast majority of Americans do not work on either farms or factories... those jobs ...are going away. And will continue to do so….


Anyway.... I give up... not because I do not enjoy discussing this with you, I do... (it's fun to discuss shit like this, particularly if one is "right") but this has gone way too long has evidenced by the fact it is only you and talking.

Everyone else has nodded off..... And I can take a hint...



But just for the record... The "electoral college" system WILL fuck us up... and probably sooner rather than later. Hell it already has.

-KC