NationStates Jolt Archive

Turns out that in the US a vote cast in a Red state, which will be likely to go to the Republicans, carries more weight than a vote cast in a blue state. For example, the combined populations of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Alaska equal that of New York and Massachusetts, but the former states have a total of nine more votes in the Electoral College.

Turns out that in the US a vote cast in a Red state, which will be likely to go to the Republicans, carries more weight than a vote cast in a blue state. For example, the combined populations of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Alaska equal that of New York and Massachusetts, but the former states have a total of nine more votes in the Electoral College.

Well, given that the Electoral College is not purely proportional, this should be no shocker. All states are guaranteed at least three votes, two coming from their Senate seats, which are from an unproportional body, and one from their house seat, a proportional body. The Electoral College is only 81% Proportional.

Because God chose him to be president, duh.

Well, given that the Electoral College is not purely proportional, this should be no shocker. All states are guaranteed at least three votes, two coming from their Senate seats, which are from an unproportional body, and one from their house seat, a proportional body. The Electoral College is only 81% Proportional.

So the president who carries all of the three-vote states is going to have 19% more electoral votes if they both win the same number of votes in the proportional states?

A couple of years ago, I was a huge supporter of the electoral college. I've since changed my mind on that score. I think the electoral college, combined with a disproportionate Senate, gives small population states too much power. (Of course, I'm also in favor of quadrupling the size of the House of Representatives so that smaller parties have a shot at getting a voice, so you can see where I'm headed in terms of changing the government of the US.)

Because God chose him to be president, duh.

Just like he chose the Pharoh to rule the Hebrews. :D

hey, i'm not a huge fan, but it isn't like the democrats offered me an alternative that i could vote for. some decent 3rd party candidates.....but none that had a chance of winning

So the president who carries all of the three-vote states is going to have 19% more electoral votes if they both win the same number of votes in the proportional states?

The difference in proportionality extends further than the three-vote states; it applies to all the states (and Washington DC) with a population lower than average.

Just like he chose the Pharoh to rule the Hebrews. :D

Then kicked Pharoh's butt for mistreating his choosen people.

Because God chose him to be president, duh.

yes but did god choose him as a way of punishing the united states?

A couple of years ago, I was a huge supporter of the electoral college. I've since changed my mind on that score. I think the electoral college, combined with a disproportionate Senate, gives small population states too much power. (Of course, I'm also in favor of quadrupling the size of the House of Representatives so that smaller parties have a shot at getting a voice, so you can see where I'm headed in terms of changing the government of the US.)

It might be easiest to just change the electoral college to allocate votes according solely to their number of Representatives; in that case, all the 3-vote states are probably only going to have 1 vote while the states with more representatives are going to have more votes.

That would be a pretty solid compromise because it keeps the college but also brings the electoral votes more in line with actual populations.

Because he was going ot save us from the Evil Gay\MoleMan\Terrorist\ Muslim\Bigfoot Plot to takeover the world. YOU BETTER VOTE REPUBLICAN NEXT TIME OR THE GEYS WILL GET YOU WITH THEIR GEYNESS!!!

GEYSSSS!!!!!!!

BUSH IS EVIL AND WE WILL ONLY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ELECTION PROCESS WHEN IT IS NOT A DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE

seriously, it has been the same for many elections now, there have been both republicans and democrats in office since.

Because hicks, trailer trash and rednecks breed too quickly in the 1980s. Now those animals have reached voting age and we're screwed by demographics.

It might be easiest to just change the electoral college to allocate votes according solely to their number of Representatives; in that case, all the 3-vote states are probably only going to have 1 vote while the states with more representatives are going to have more votes.

That would be a pretty solid compromise because it keeps the college but also brings the electoral votes more in line with actual populations.

Except that requires amending the constitution and the small states will never ratify something that lessens their power. The beauty of the compact between the states pledging their votes to the popular vote winner is that it offers a completely legitimate constitutional workaround. All the constitution says is that the states shall choose their electors. It says nothing about how they'll choose them, so the states who join the compact are perfectly within their rights to do this if they so choose.

Now, getting it passed in enough states so that it will make a difference is another matter--the compact requires enough states to form an electoral majority before it goes into effect. But it would be easier, I believe, than getting an amendment passed.

It might be easiest to just change the electoral college to allocate votes according solely to their number of Representatives; in that case, all the 3-vote states are probably only going to have 1 vote while the states with more representatives are going to have more votes.

That would be a pretty solid compromise because it keeps the college but also brings the electoral votes more in line with actual populations.

Is it so crazy to go with a popular vote? Maybe everyone having equal vote counts would help... or is that to crazy, given the fact that it takes 2 whole minutes (not even) to send a 1-page email? Would it be too HARD?

Because hicks, trailer trash and rednecks breed too quickly in the 1980s. Now those animals have reached voting age and we're screwed by demographics.

haha, that's pretty damn funny! :D

Is it so crazy to go with a popular vote? Maybe everyone having equal vote counts would help... or is that to crazy, given the fact that it takes 2 whole minutes (not even) to send a 1-page email? Would it be too HARD?
The hard part, like I said in my post, is getting rid of the electoral college. That requires a constitutional amendment--which is had enough on its own--but is especially hard when you're asking 3/4 of the states to agree on it, a large number of which would be voluntarily giving up some of the disproportionate power they currently have.

In almost every section of government the big states overpower the little states. This was a compromise that got the little states to join the union. Interestingly some of those little states are now big states.

The real problem is if you win a big state by one vote, you win all. The real change would be to proportion the electorial votes. Nebraska (and I think one other state) does this. Of course Nebraska only has 5 votes. Now if Ohio or Florida would have done this (or for that matter any big state that voted for GW) he would not have ever been elected.

It's long since time we did away with the electoral college. It distorts democracy.

Why is a popular vote such a hard idea? A red stater is not more of American than I am.

In almost every section of government the big states overpower the little states. This was a compromise that got the little states to join the union. Interestingly some of those little states are now big states.

The real problem is if you win a big state by one vote, you win all. The real change would be to proportion the electorial votes. Nebraska (and I think one other state) does this. Of course Nebraska only has 5 votes. Now if Ohio or Florida would have done this (or for that matter any big state that voted for GW) he would not have ever been elected.

The fight over slavery was also a big part of the reason for the addition of the electoral college.

It's long since time we did away with the electoral college. It distorts democracy.

Why is a popular vote such a hard idea? A red stater is not more of American than I am.

The idea among average voters is not a hard one. In fact, it's very popular. It's translating that into a constitutional amendment over the objections of legislators who see it in their interest not to change the current system that's the hard part.

The idea among average voters is not a hard one. In fact, it's very popular. It's translating that into a constitutional amendment over the objections of legislators who see it in their interest not to change the current system that's the hard part.


Maybe I'm just crazy... But didn't we elect these legislators? They're answerable to us. It's about time we brought them to heel.

The fight over slavery was also a big part of the reason for the addition of the electoral college.

That and the fact that we're a Federal Union and not a unitary state. We seem to be slowly moving in that direction, however.

Maybe I'm just crazy... But didn't we elect these legislators? They're answerable to us. It's about time we brought them to heel.

But now we're getting into what voters rank as their most important issues--the dealbreakers, let's say. And while there are many single issue voters on things like abortion or taxes or war or gay rights, for instance, there are precious few who will refuse to vote for a guy because of his stance on an amendment to get rid of the electoral college. It just doesn't inspire the same level of emotional resolve.

Although I'd be willing to bet that if Kerry had won Ohio, and thence had won the electoral college while losing the popular vote, you'd see a whole lot more headway on this issue, because both major parties would have felt fucked by it.

In almost every section of government the big states overpower the little states. This was a compromise that got the little states to join the union. Interestingly some of those little states are now big states.

The real problem is if you win a big state by one vote, you win all. The real change would be to proportion the electorial votes. Nebraska (and I think one other state) does this. Of course Nebraska only has 5 votes. Now if Ohio or Florida would have done this (or for that matter any big state that voted for GW) he would not have ever been elected.

Actually, GW's electoral votes would have gone up to 288 and Gore's would have gone down. Much as I hate the man, and Florida's political system, GW would still have won Florida even if Gore had gotten every one of his requests past the Suprme Court. Or had the District Plan been in place. And, much to my dismay, I moved to Florida in the summer of '04. Irony hates me, and just loves to pester me about shit like this.

Nebraska and Maine are the only two states to not use a winner take all system. They use what is callled a "District Plan" (as opposed to proportional plan, which simply divies up electoral votes by direct proportion of popular votes in each state). In this plan, voting is done on a Congressional District basis, basically the same way people vote for members of Congress. Each congressional district sends one Electoral vote to the candidate that wins that district, and the state's two senate electoral votes go the the overall winner.

This system is huge impetus for gerrymandering, yet I support this idea. Of course, that means GW would have been able to act more pig-headed than he already has, but we must take the good with the bad. I only hope that someday, when I meet the qualifications of a President, America wises up on Election Day, and hands me the Presidency.

The real reason GW is still in office? The Democratic Party is in shambles. Deny it, ignore it, or try to rebuke it, it is the truth. The two-party system in America is now a system of stupidity on one side, and ignorance on the other.

Why did Bush get elected? The same reason that Alijimad (president of Iran) got elected. Fear, and nationalism.

Why did Bush get elected? The same reason that Alijimad (president of Iran) got elected. Fear, and nationalism.

And oil. :p

Why did Bush get elected? The same reason that Alijimad (president of Iran) got elected. Fear, and nationalism.

AMEN======