NationStates Jolt Archive

I encourage foreign input here since it's deeply in the category of NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I propose that only those that vote count when determining representation in the House of Representatives. This would go for the next election.

Similar with electoral vote count.

Think about the possibility. The Democrat majority completely refuses to represent their Republican constituants so the Republicans just stay home and don't vote. Suddenly your state is positioned more weakly as compared to other states.

It forces politicians to not just address the majority but to try to get the entire electorate behind them.

It would encourage states to be more moderate.

It would lend itself to activists, which Libs would like.

It would lend itself to aging populations, who vote more and who are proportionately more allowed to vote. Favors conservatives.

It would encourage the rise of transcendant figures. Parties couldn't put up filler candidates. They'd have to fight for as many votes as possible.

You wanna fix the electorial college?

Forget it. Put a bullet in it and put it out of our collective misery. It isn't necessary or practical anymore. We shoulda gone with a straight popular vote decades ago but the pols are reluctant to do away with something that might be manipulatable by one party or another. The all or nothing nature of electorial votes by state doesn't do the populace justice, especially given the widely differing populations and number of votes per state.

As for basing representation on voters not population, I'm against it. For the simple reason that an elected individual has the obligation to represent all the people in his district, not just the one's who made it to the polls.

You wanna fix the electorial college?

Forget it. Put a bullet in it and put it out of our collective misery. It isn't necessary or practical anymore. We shoulda gone with a straight popular vote decades ago but the pols are reluctant to do away with something that might be manipulatable by one party or another. The all or nothing nature of electorial votes by state doesn't do the populace justice, especially given the widely differing populations and number of votes per state.

As for basing representation on voters not population, I'm against it. For the simple reason that an elected individual has the obligation to represent all the people in his district, not just the one's who made it to the polls.

There's a reason why they have the electoral college and I agree with it. It prevents one state from becoming to overwhelming. States are meant to have some level of representation. In a popular election, small states would be virtually powerless.

The difference in my plan is that it caters to the popular vote. It makes it so the popular vote carries more weight while still forcing candidates to try to enfranchise votes.

There's a reason why they have the electoral college and I agree with it. It prevents one state from becoming to overwhelming. States are meant to have some level of representation. In a popular election, small states would be virtually powerless.

The difference in my plan is that it caters to the popular vote. It makes it so the popular vote carries more weight while still forcing candidates to try to enfranchise votes.WTF? Since electorial votes are based on population it does nothing to give small states any more say. California has 55 electorial votes, about as much as the entire midwest, how the hell does that prevent it from becoming overwhelming? The electorial college was not created to equalize or balance anything. It was created because it was alot easier back in the day to send and count those few votes to determine a winner than spend weeks trying to collect and tally the popular vote. That's not an issue today but the pratice continues because no one has the cahones to change it.

WTF? Since electorial votes are based on population it does nothing to give small states any more say. California has 55 electorial votes, about as much as the entire midwest, how the hell does that prevent it from becoming overwhelming? The electorial college was not created to equalize or balance anything. It was created because it was alot easier back in the day to send and count those few votes to determine a winner than spend weeks trying to collect and tally the popular vote. That's not an issue today but the pratice continues because no one has the cahones to change it.

Yes it does. It means a swing small state like Iowa can matter more than a non-swing CA.

Where have they spent more time? CA or VA?

If it were straight popular vote Obama would be smart to just try to get his popular vote up in the west because it's so heavily Dem. Obviously the needs of GA is different than those of CA and NY.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

As far as your reasoning, if I cover my mouth is giggling still rude?

The electorial college was not created to equalize or balance anything. It was created because it was alot easier back in the day to send and count those few votes to determine a winner than spend weeks trying to collect and tally the popular vote. That's not an issue today but the pratice continues because no one has the cahones to change it.

Actually, I believe it was formed because our country's founding fathers didn't trust average citizens to vote directly for the president. :p Citizens elected state legislatures, who chose electors, who voted for presidential candidates.

There are too few Reps. for the size of the population. The house should have about 4,000 Reps, not 435.

As it is, it's just not representative because the districts are too large.

Yes it does. It means a swing small state like Iowa can matter more than a non-swing CA.

Where have they spent more time? CA or VA?

If it were straight popular vote Obama would be smart to just try to get his popular vote up in the west because it's so heavily Dem. Obviously the needs of GA is different than those of CA and NY.The swing states are only important because they teeter. California is solidly blue so there no sense fighting there. Don't you see? You pointed it out yourself, a few swing states get all this focus when it's a nationwide election. Nothing's evened out, it's just the opposite. Minority voters in states that go solidly one way or another are in effect disenfranchised. The electorial college also distorts the voting process since electorial votes are based upon population not votes cast. When a state goes one way or another it carries it's entire population not just those who voted. States with higher percentages of individuals not eligible to vote or who don't vote basically assign more power to each vote cast. And swinging different states is in itself uneven since each state has a different number of votes. It's too fucked up for words really. It makes an election not a true measure of the will of the people but a contest of machavellian manipulations.

Actually, I believe it was formed because our country's founding fathers didn't trust average citizens to vote directly for the president. :p Citizens elected state legislatures, who chose electors, who voted for presidential candidates.What they didn't trust was the ability or honesty of those who collect and tally votes. Especially with the distances involved and the technology of the times. With fewer votes cast in a central location it's easier to oversee. They wanted to prevent fraud.

WTF? Since electorial votes are based on population it does nothing to give small states any more say. California has 55 electorial votes, about as much as the entire midwest, how the hell does that prevent it from becoming overwhelming? The electorial college was not created to equalize or balance anything. It was created because it was alot easier back in the day to send and count those few votes to determine a winner than spend weeks trying to collect and tally the popular vote. That's not an issue today but the pratice continues because no one has the cahones to change it.

It gives small states an advantage because all states get a minimum of 3 (DC has the same representation as Montana as North Dakota as South Dakota as Vermont et. al., regardless of population

For example, the state of Texas has 23,904,380 people and 34 electoral votes. The region of New England, made up of six smaller states, has 14,269,989 people, but also has 34 electoral votes.

What they didn't trust was the ability or honesty of those who collect and tally votes. Especially with the distances involved and the technology of the times. With fewer votes cast in a central location it's easier to oversee. They wanted to prevent fraud.

Eh, don't bother with history. Just make it up, I always say. It's not like there is some tool literally at your fingertips that would make it possible for you to find out the actual reasons and to link to them.

Certainly no one already did that in this thread. I mean, that's not a link in my post in reply to you. Nope. No such thing as history.

It gives small states an advantage because all states get a minimum of 3 (DC has the same representation as Montana as North Dakota as South Dakota as Vermont et. al., regardless of population

For example, the state of Texas has 23,904,380 people and 34 electoral votes. The region of New England, made up of six smaller states, has 14,269,989 people, but also has 34 electoral votes.That's another thing, why exactly should the smaller states get more clout per population? Just because they drew the borders tighter when they established those states as opposed to when westward expansion happened? Like I said it's too fucked up for words and none of the arguements really make sense against a straight popular vote for nation wide elections. That takes it out of the realm of state vs state and reduces it to voter vs voter.
Ever person would count the same no matter where you lived or how your neighbors voted.

The swing states are only important because they teeter. California is solidly blue so there no sense fighting there. Don't you see? You pointed it out yourself, a few swing states get all this focus when it's a nationwide election. Nothing's evened out, it's just the opposite. Minority voters in states that go solidly one way or another are in effect disenfranchised. The electorial college also distorts the voting process since electorial votes are based upon population not votes cast. When a state goes one way or another it carries it's entire population not just those who voted. States with higher percentages of individuals not eligible to vote or who don't vote basically assign more power to each vote cast. And swinging different states is in itself uneven since each state has a different number of votes. It's too fucked up for words really. It makes an election not a true measure of the will of the people but a contest of machavellian manipulations.

You totally miss the point but dance all around it. You have the dainty feet of a ballerina.

You manage to avoid acknowledging, while simulataneously showing exactly how it occurs, that the Electoral college absolutely makes a small swing state get campaigning while a large secure state doesn't. You said it doesn't have the effect they desired, but that was the effect they desired. They wanted the small states to count. Without the EV they wouldn't.

The electoral vote, though you choose to ignore it, gives the STATE the ability to choose how the EVs are chosen. That's the point. They can make it reflect the votes cast or just go to one candidate. That's their choice, not the choice of the government. The Electoral College was meant to prevent the government from chosing how the people's vote would be counted within the state.

The United STATES of America was meant to be just that.

The swing states are only important because they teeter. California is solidly blue so there no sense fighting there. Don't you see? You pointed it out yourself, a few swing states get all this focus when it's a nationwide election. Nothing's evened out, it's just the opposite. Minority voters in states that go solidly one way or another are in effect disenfranchised. The electorial college also distorts the voting process since electorial votes are based upon population not votes cast. When a state goes one way or another it carries it's entire population not just those who voted. States with higher percentages of individuals not eligible to vote or who don't vote basically assign more power to each vote cast. And swinging different states is in itself uneven since each state has a different number of votes. It's too fucked up for words really. It makes an election not a true measure of the will of the people but a contest of machavellian manipulations.

I think you just partially argued for his premise. With a popular vote, though, there is the concern of the airport tour, where the candidate focus' on large populations centers for the best value for their dollar. If you can run up the numbers in populous areas then the less populous get run over or ignored.

The compromise as I see it was modeled in the Democratic primaries. All or nothing does allow for them to ignore California and Texas, etc. We get to sit in our state and say things like, "Alright, Ohio, don't fuck this up." (Ohio not necessarily a 'small' state, but roll with me here.) What Harold Ickes had set up before it bit him in the ass with the end of the 'winner take all' delegates with proportional distribution. This allowed an 'underdog' candidate with grassroots organization to pass on the 'swing state' or 'states that matter' strategy and organize in every contest for every delegate.

With proportional distribution smaller areas are still protected with a 'valuable' vote, but a full 55 electors can just be marked off because of a 55% advantage. This also has the advantage of transferring minor party candidates from the role of 'spoilers' to simply 'long shot underdogs.'

That's another thing, why exactly should the smaller states get more clout per population? Just because they drew the borders tighter when they established those states as opposed to when westward expansion happened? Like I said it's too fucked up for words and none of the arguements really make sense against a straight popular vote for nation wide elections. That takes it out of the realm of state vs state and reduces it to voter vs voter.
Ever person would count the same no matter where you lived or how your neighbors voted.

You know what. Start a fucking thread. I didn't start this thread to talk about how you don't understand or like the electoral vote.

I proposed a system. Debate it or move on. You don't like this one. Great. That you don't understand this one doesn't help your case, but that's irrelevant. If you're anxious to learn, start a thread called "Can someone please explain the Electoral College to me because I'm embarrassing myself" and I'm sure plenty of people will show up. Until then, it's apparent to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the actual reasons for the EC that it actually does what it was designed to do. Don't like it? Fine. But this thread is about a way to enfranchise voters. You've not presented one. You've only figured on a way to make people feel more like a single vote doesn't count.

Eh, don't bother with history. Just make it up, I always say. It's not like there is some tool literally at your fingertips that would make it possible for you to find out the actual reasons and to link to them.

Certainly no one already did that in this thread. I mean, that's not a link in my post in reply to you. Nope. No such thing as history.Documenting the twisted working of politicians seeking to maximize their political clout down trough history doesn't change ther fact that the system is not needed in todays society. Your own link points out that it was distance that established a need for some other way. At the time it took days or weeks for information to travel across what was then a much smaller country. Now it takes nanoseconds. We can restore the old ideal of one person, one vote and stop trying to reason out why we shouldn't.

I think you just partially argued for his premise. With a popular vote, though, there is the concern of the airport tour, where the candidate focus' on large populations centers for the best value for their dollar. If you can run up the numbers in populous areas then the less populous get run over or ignored.

The compromise as I see it was modeled in the Democratic primaries. All or nothing does allow for them to ignore California and Texas, etc. We get to sit in our state and say things like, "Alright, Ohio, don't fuck this up." (Ohio not necessarily a 'small' state, but roll with me here.) What Harold Ickes had set up before it bit him in the ass with the end of the 'winner take all' delegates with proportional distribution. This allowed an 'underdog' candidate with grassroots organization to pass on the 'swing state' or 'states that matter' strategy and organize in every contest for every delegate.

With proportional distribution smaller areas are still protected with a 'valuable' vote, but a full 55 electors can just be marked off because of a 55% advantage. This also has the advantage of transferring minor party candidates from the role of 'spoilers' to simply 'long shot underdogs.'

This is something I like. I also think it better reflects how the US was set up (both population and state). I think the system would be better off if more split their electoral votes a la Nebraska and Maine...I would divide the representative vote by population (where possible) and leave the senators up to the entire state or national popular vote

Well said, Jocabia.

Documenting the twisted working of politicians seeking to maximize their political clout down trough history doesn't change ther fact that the system is not needed in todays society. Your own link points out that it was distance that established a need for some other way. At the time it took days or weeks for information to travel across what was then a much smaller country. Now it takes nanoseconds. We can restore the old ideal of one person, one vote and stop trying to reason out why we shouldn't.

Again, nice job avoiding the point. You claimed it was created for a reason that wasn't the actual reason. When I gave you the actual reason you pretend like I'm talking about something else. You're embarrassing yourself. There are better ways to get an education.

Distance established a need, but not the need you claim. Because you were stumbling around blind and got one part of your claim somewhere near something that wasn't stupid isn't a victory.

One person, one vote, is part of why people are disenfranchised. It's part of what they were worried about. You've not addressed a single problem with that system. You don't even understand why we don't use that system. You've even gone so far as to simply bullshit your way through history and pretend like that's okay.

This is something I like. I also think it better reflects how the US was set up (both population and state). I think the system would be better off if more split their electoral votes a la Nebraska and Maine...I would divide the representative vote by population (where possible) and leave the senators up to the entire state or national popular vote

The problem is the Constitution gave that power to the states. The states aren't going to give it back. It's for the states to determine the choosing of the electors. It's for the federal government to determine how the number of electors per state is chosen.

My system doesn't even change that. It simply makes it so systems that don't encourage representation of all voters will be dooming the areas those systems are from to obscurity. It would encourage moves toward what CTOAN is talking about or even more innovative solutions. It makes all kinds of political strategies possible, all of which empower the people of a state.

The problem is the Constitution gave that power to the states. The states aren't going to give it back. It's for the states to determine the choosing of the electors. It's for the federal government to determine how the number of electors per state is chosen.
Nor do I think they should give up that power. What I mean to say is that states should consider such a system. I find it odd that 48 states choose one system, while two of the smallest actually look at something different. Makes me wonder why.
My system doesn't even change that. It simply makes it so systems that don't encourage representation of all voters will be dooming the areas those systems are from to obscurity. It would encourage moves toward what CTOAN is talking about or even more innovative solutions. It makes all kinds of political strategies possible, all of which empower the people of a state.
My primary worry is with initial implementation of the system....the time it takes for people to start thinking "hey...my vote actually might count!"

As it stands, my voting is pointless...I only do it because of some perverse need to know that I did. Many others, particularly in my age group, see no need.

It also leaves alot up to outside factors...bad weather, heavy construction, dirty play by politicians to marginalize certain areas...all the things that regularly drive down voter turn out.

Nor do I think they should give up that power. What I mean to say is that states should consider such a system. I find it odd that 48 states choose one system, while two of the smallest actually look at something different. Makes me wonder why.

It enfranchises voters. I would seek to encourage that. I'm not disagreeing with you.


My primary worry is with initial implementation of the system....the time it takes for people to start thinking "hey...my vote actually might count!"

As it stands, my voting is pointless...I only do it because of some perverse need to know that I did. Many others, particularly in my age group, see no need.

It also leaves alot up to outside factors...bad weather, heavy construction, dirty play by politicians to marginalize certain areas...all the things that regularly drive down voter turn out.

All of those outside factors can be addressed by a state that is interested in getting your vote. Dirty play by politicians trying to marginalize certain areas would weaken the state. States would HAVE to discourage such things or lose power. That's the point.

Actually, I believe it was formed because our country's founding fathers didn't trust average citizens to vote directly for the president.

well, more because effectively nobody was allowed to vote in virginia, meaning that the most populous state would be among the least influential.

I propose that only those that vote count when determining representation in the House of Representatives. This would go for the next election

redistricting every 2 years? i hope you'd figure out some sort of semi-objective way to do it first...

It enfranchises voters. I would seek to encourage that. I'm not disagreeing with you.




All of those outside factors can be addressed by a state that is interested in getting your vote. Dirty play by politicians trying to marginalize certain areas would weaken the state. States would HAVE to discourage such things or lose power. That's the point.

Oh, I don't disagree with you either. But then, there's always someone.

Now weather, that one is interesting. Election day falls durning hurricane season...while I don't think it has ever happened, it still could. Strong storms, tornados, potential heavy snowfall in some states...these can't be controlled, and would be nearly impossible to account for, but would hurt the state the next cycle.

I was also thinking of dirty phone calls on the national level. Republicans know that MA and CT are liberal strongholds. So why not slash voter turnout? Sure, the state can do everything in their power to avoid these, but they can still happen.

redistricting every 2 years? i hope you'd figure out some sort of semi-objective way to do it first...

Hmmm... good point. Well, I suppose you could do it as often as we do now, just only by the number of people voting in federal elections. Let's say an average during that time.

I think now it's every decade, but let's say every 8 years. That way it's every two Presidential elections.

Oh, I don't disagree with you either. But then, there's always someone.

Now weather, that one is interesting. Election day falls durning hurricane season...while I don't think it has ever happened, it still could. Strong storms, tornados, potential heavy snowfall in some states...these can't be controlled, and would be nearly impossible to account for, but would hurt the state the next cycle.

I was also thinking of dirty phone calls on the national level. Republicans know that MA and CT are liberal strongholds. So why not slash voter turnout? Sure, the state can do everything in their power to avoid these, but they can still happen.

A storm that lasts weeks? People aren't required by many states to vote on the first Tuesday even now.

A storm that lasts weeks? People aren't required by many states to vote on the first Tuesday even now.

True, but that is the final cut off as it stands, and the vast majority of voters do wait till then. Of course, your system would favor a more open system of early voting, but wouldn't require it.

What of a runoff? Would that be able to work in somehow? That is, without massive change to the constitution?

I'm probably a bit of a starry-eyed evangelist for the engaging power of the Internet but I think it will obviate the need for your system, although I do see a need for greater political participation.

First, even where everyone votes, I'm not sure overall results will be much different, there's still a 50/50 dividing line. Will those elected be more bipartisan out of necessity? I'm just not sure and, further, I don't mind extreme ends of the political spectrum in that they help define the issues.

Anyway, I feel more education on the issues is far more important than increased voting and I feel the ability to debate and discuss outside of your locality, through message boards such as this one - and I'm not the cynic over NSG that others seem to be, for all the fluff there are some very informative and considered posts if you care to read them - is going to be hugely influential in politics.

I strongly believe that Barack Obama will be seen as the first true president of the information technology world, not in terms of how he uses it but more the influence it has played on his candidacy. I suspect a lot of his support during the primaries, the staying power it had, came from well-reasoned arguments online.

I really don't mind which electoral system is used, I do mind about an informed electorate and that is the change I'm seeing.

I love Sarah Silverman's The Great Schlep, I love the idea of people flying down to Florida to help cut through the propaganda and convince families and friends on the issues.

Education, education, education, beats tinkering with the system and I think the Internet is a natural form of engaging people on the issues.

If I've totally missed the point, don't hesitate to inform me in as caustic a style as you can muster :)

I'm probably a bit of a starry-eyed evangelist for the engaging power of the Internet but I think it will obviate the need for your system, although I do see a need for greater political participation.

First, even where everyone votes, I'm not sure overall results will be much different, there's still a 50/50 dividing line. Will those elected be more bipartisan out of necessity? I'm just not sure and, further, I don't mind extreme ends of the political spectrum in that they help define the issues.

Anyway, I feel more education on the issues is far more important than increased voting and I feel the ability to debate and discuss outside of your locality, through message boards such as this one - and I'm not the cynic over NSG that others seem to be, for all the fluff there are some very informative and considered posts if you care to read them - is going to be hugely influential in politics.

I strongly believe that Barack Obama will be seen as the first true president of the information technology world, not in terms of how he uses it but more the influence it has played on his candidacy. I suspect a lot of his support during the primaries, the staying power it had, came from well-reasoned arguments online.

I really don't mind which electoral system is used, I do mind about an informed electorate and that is the change I'm seeing.

I love Sarah Silverman's The Great Schlep, I love the idea of people flying down to Florida to help cut through the propaganda and convince families and friends on the issues.

Education, education, education, beats tinkering with the system and I think the Internet is a natural form of engaging people on the issues.

If I've totally missed the point, don't hesitate to inform me in as caustic a style as you can muster :)

You son of a bitch!

That said, I see what you mean, but the fact is that I don't believe it is 50/50. I think that we lose very specific populations that would certainly like a lot of change. A state that enfranchises those groups will be increasing their relative power. Not only that, but I don't care if 90% of the electorate isn't informed, voter participation is the point.

Frankly, I think it's the Republican death knell that they're bitching about elitism out of one side of their mouth while simultaneously telling us that some people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

There is one fundamental thing which would almost entirely fix everything that's wrong with the US electoral system - preferrential voting.

I think it's pretty self-explainatory. Allowing a vote for a third party, whilst voting to keep out one of the big parties you don't like would certainly fix the apathy epedemic going around.

If the electorate can be seen as a bell curve, with the far right and far left as the edges and the curve going up as both sides head toward the center, it's possible to see left and right candidates reaching for as much of the center as they can grab without completely alienating their far-left/right bases.

Doesn't that mean that the farther both candidates reach, the less difference there is between them?

yeah prefferential voting is great
I have always given my first vote to a minor party or individual. The next goes to my real choice.

But the difference is I can at least try and establish a new party with my vote instead of giving money by the way of my vote to a rich, poor performing, idiotic party out of the options of greens (Way too left winged), Labor (The econemy fails with them) and Liberal (No understanding of poor workers)

yeah prefferential voting is great
I have always given my first vote to a minor party or individual. The next goes to my real choice.

But the difference is I can at least try and establish a new party with my vote instead of giving money by the way of my vote to a rich, poor performing, idiotic party out of the options of greens (Way too left winged), Labor (The econemy fails with them) and Liberal (No understanding of poor workers)

As a brief threadjack, the economy doesn't fail when Labor are in party. Labor governments always get elected when the economy is slowing down (see: 2007 for the most recent example), because Labor are infinitely better at managing a country with a poor economy than the Liberals. Conversely, people elect a Liberal government when the economy is picking up (see: 1996 election) because the Liberals tend to make things easier for business. I would argue that Liberals are NOT better at managing the economy, but people are under the delusion that they are.

</jack>

The electoral system is broken because it's undemocratic.

It should not be continued in its present form and I far, far prefer the system I live in where my vote counts the same regardless of whether I live in the country or in a city.

Why should my vote count less if I live in a city?

Also: In the electoral college, you need 270 electoral college votes.

To get this amount, if you wanted the least number of people voting for you to win, you would only need: 71.38 million people voting for you.

You could win with a popular vote of less than 24%, even if the other 76% voted for the other guy. This is assuming a 100% turnout, even, which is far from reality.

All of this based on winning the states with the fewest pop per electoral vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

How is that not broken?

Your system doesn't fix the underlying problems:
1) That certain people have less of a say in politics. Live in California? Sucks to be you, because your vote counts for less than half of a what a person in Wyoming counts for.
2) That there is no proportionality. If you win 51% of the state, it's enough to get all the votes.

How to fix electoral system: remove it completely and entirely.

Calls to remove the electoral system are ridiculous. If it were popular vote alone, politicians would only address the population centers. As it is, Obama and McCain are forced to attend to less densely populated areas (i.e., Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, New Hampshire) rather than just focus on those with huge electoral counts on the coasts.

It's easier to explain this at World Series time. Say Tampa Bay wins three games by the score of 15-1 in each, and Philadelphia wins four games by the score of 2-1 in each - who wins the Series? Tampa Bay for scoring 49 runs (the most votes) or Philadelphia for winning four games (the most electoral votes)? Philly, of course. Those are the rules.

And these are the rules of presidential elections in America - we decided long ago to be a republic rather than a democracy, sending representatives from each state to represent our interests rather than let the population centers decide everything. I think the system works great and is by far the way to go.

The electoral system is broken because it's undemocratic.

It should not be continued in its present form and I far, far prefer the system I live in where my vote counts the same regardless of whether I live in the country or in a city.

Why should my vote count less if I live in a city?

Also: In the electoral college, you need 270 electoral college votes.

To get this amount, if you wanted the least number of people voting for you to win, you would only need: 71.38 million people voting for you.

You could win with a popular vote of less than 24%, even if the other 76% voted for the other guy. This is assuming a 100% turnout, even, which is far from reality.

All of this based on winning the states with the fewest pop per electoral vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

How is that not broken?

Your system doesn't fix the underlying problems:
1) That certain people have less of a say in politics. Live in California? Sucks to be you, because your vote counts for less than half of a what a person in Wyoming counts for.
2) That there is no proportionality. If you win 51% of the state, it's enough to get all the votes.

Again, this doesn't address, at all, the reasons for an electoral college. Address them and I'll be happy to address your argument. Because in your system, you completely ignore that the state, which by the nature of its size already has more representation, would continue to have more representation. Your individual vote isn't the only concern. We're not a strict democracy.

True, but that is the final cut off as it stands, and the vast majority of voters do wait till then. Of course, your system would favor a more open system of early voting, but wouldn't require it.

What of a runoff? Would that be able to work in somehow? That is, without massive change to the constitution?

My system wouldn't require anything. It would simply favor better solutions to get people out and voting. If states don't take advantage and they get caught out by a freak storm, well, they should have a better system, and will, over time. You've already demonstrated very carefully just how important my system makes it that they do find a better way. Thanks for the support.

As for a runoff, why is that relevant?

I propose that only those that vote count when determining representation in the House of Representatives. This would go for the next election.

Similar with electoral vote count.

I'd rather see each Representative represent about 30,000 to 40,000 constituents, with no cap on the number of Representatives. Imagine the trouble that special interests would have in bribing, cajoling, or threatening a majority of the 7500 Representatives in a government to pass a law that only benefits a few and harms many. And in a related theme, the money required for campaigning would be much less. No one would be nearly as beholden as they are now for those huge donations.

Again, this doesn't address, at all, the reasons for an electoral college. Address them and I'll be happy to address your argument. Because in your system, you completely ignore that the state, which by the nature of its size already has more representation, would continue to have more representation. Your individual vote isn't the only concern. We're not a strict democracy.

No, see, I don't think that just because you happen to live in state X that your vote should matter less than state Y.

The reasons for the electoral college to exist are ancient and outdated. They're undemocratic and they are a cause for apathy. Why bother to vote, if someone in Wyoming has more power than you?

If the votes were actually equal and proportional, a person in Wyoming would have as much say as a person in New York or California. As it is, a person in Wyoming has up to triple the say. Don't come to me with the bullshit argument that "Oh whine, if people in New York had as much power as me, I'd be ignored!" because you wouldn't - Your vote would be as important as everyone else, as opposed to yours meaning more, just because.

The system, as is, also falls apart when the electoral college itself is not proportional. Again: 24% of the population is all it takes for a president to win, with 100% voter turnout. In part, because some people's votes count for more and in part because once a party has the majority of the vote, it gets All the electoral votes, as opposed to getting the proportion they should be entitled to.

Until you can create a system where it actually takes 51% of the popular vote to win, I'm not willing to consider such a system fair.

The reasons for the electoral college to exist are ancient and outdated.

What? Last I heard we were still a federal system and the states still existed.

I'd rather see each Representative represent about 30,000 to 40,000 constituents, with no cap on the number of Representatives. Imagine the trouble that special interests would have in bribing, cajoling, or threatening a majority of the 7500 Representatives in a government to pass a law that only benefits a few and harms many. And in a related theme, the money required for campaigning would be much less. No one would be nearly as beholden as they are now for those huge donations.

Although theoretically interesting, the practical applications of such a huge congress would be a mess. Committees and Sub-commitees would either become too numerous or too powerful in order to control the excessive amounts of legislation being introduced by 7500 representatives, in addition to an increase in pork barrel projects to make each representative look good.

Then comes the financial aspect of paying 7500 salaries, staff allowances, travel expenses, offices, pensions, not to mention building an arena to host congressional meetings (well maybe they could use Verizon Center since the Wizards really don't count in the NBA anyways).

But I'm off topic...

What? Last I heard we were still a federal system and the states still existed.

Being a federal system and the states existing has nothing to do with the electoral college existing. There are many federal countries without an electoral college.

Thus, the electoral college is still outdated.

Being a federal system and the states existing has nothing to do with the electoral college existing. There are many federal countries without an electoral college.

Thus, the electoral college is still outdated.

Then tell me, why was the Electoral College created and why do those reasons not apply anymore?

Improve electoral system without dismantling it?

Just divide the electorates by candidate vote count.

Say, California and its 55 electorates (picked up earlier from this thread) votes like this:
- 70% to Obama
- 20% to McCain
- 5% to 3rd candidate
- 3% to 4th candidate
...

=
38 electoral votes for Obama
11 electoral votes for McCain
6 electoral votes for minor candidates

See, we made USA's presidential election multiparty at one strike!

edit:
Another modification would be to give electoral votes based on area instead of population :D

You all realize, of course, the problem with the electoral college is really the fact that the Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President. Those +50 votes that California gets doesn't mean that all +50 will go to whatever canidate the people voted for.

Some states have laws against it but I do remember back in 2000 when some woman elector of Washington D.C. (I think..too lazy to google it) decided she would rather not vote than cast her electoral vote for Al Gore (even though the voters of the city overwhelmingly voted for Gore, she basically said F-U to the voters). It was a tiny blurb and even if she had voted it wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it just proves it can happen. I also believe it's happened like 3-4 times in past elections as well.

This is my problem with the system. Let's first remove the electors.

Improve electoral system without dismantling it?

Just divide the electorates by candidate vote count.

Say, California and its 55 electorates (picked up earlier from this thread) votes like this:
- 70% to Obama
- 20% to McCain
- 5% to 3rd candidate
- 3% to 4th candidate
...

=
38 electoral votes for Obama
11 electoral votes for McCain
6 electoral votes for minor candidates

See, we made USA's presidential election multiparty at one strike!

edit:
Another modification would be to give electoral votes based on area instead of population :D


THIS I could get behind. Just get rid of the electors first folks. Make those 'electoral' votes automatic based on popular vote outcomes.

Being a federal system and the states existing has nothing to do with the electoral college existing. There are many federal countries without an electoral college.
Even the nations of the UK have representation by population in the House of Commons*, and national identity in each nation is just as strong, if not stronger, than the affilliation Americans feel to their State. Furthermore, it was because the UK became more federal that this situation came about - prior to Scotland getting its own Parliament it was overrepresented.

*With the exception of Wales, for some hitherto unknown reason.

Proposal

1. Get rid of the electoral college.

2. Enact a national ID card, complete with detailed database. This is now your voter registration card. Biometrics, smart card, the whole nine yards. If you don't have your national ID card, you don't fucking vote. If you have it, and the address on it says you're in a particular voting district, that's where you vote.

3. All candidates for elected Federal office should have to pass a comprehensive knowledge exam. It should start with the Foreign Service Exam, and branch outwards into various areas such as military (and military history), US history, current events, and current topics in Federal law. If you can't pass the test, you don't get to run. This would have excluded many of the Presidents and Vice Presidents (and candidates) of the past few decades.

4. If you are running for President, take the top vote getter and see where their count stands versus the total of all registered voters (i.e., everyone with a national ID card). If the total isn't 66% or more of the total number of possible voters, you do the election over again. Non-votes are counted as No, and you have to get a majority the popular possible votes to win. This would ensure that you have to get either every major metropolitan area (even in states you don't give a shit about), or hit up some rural areas to get your votes up there.

5. If you don't vote for three years in a row, you permanently lose the right to vote. Same for felons... - permanent loss of the right to vote. It will say it right on your ID card - no fucking way.

2. Enact a national ID card, complete with detailed database. This is now your voter registration card. Biometrics, smart card, the whole nine yards. If you don't have your national ID card, you don't fucking vote. If you have it, and the address on it says you're in a particular voting district, that's where you vote.

As long as you can get a new card, that could work.

3. All candidates for elected Federal office should have to pass a comprehensive knowledge exam. It should start with the Foreign Service Exam, and branch outwards into various areas such as military (and military history), US history, current events, and current topics in Federal law. If you can't pass the test, you don't get to run. This would have excluded many of the Presidents and Vice Presidents (and candidates) of the past few decades.

Could work, but there are potential issues. Such as, who grades the exams? Who makes the exams?

4. If you are running for President, take the top vote getter and see where their count stands versus the total of all registered voters (i.e., everyone with a national ID card). If the total isn't 66% or more of the total number of possible voters, you do the election over again. Non-votes are counted as No, and you have to get a majority the popular possible votes to win. This would ensure that you have to get either every major metropolitan area (even in states you don't give a shit about), or hit up some rural areas to get your votes up there.

I disagree. Having to get 51% of the vote is enough to prove popular support in a democracy. It's also enough to make it impossible to focus solely on the large or solely on the small states. You're just not realistically going to get 100% of all the large or small states.

5. If you don't vote for three years in a row, you permanently lose the right to vote. Same for felons... - permanent loss of the right to vote. It will say it right on your ID card - no fucking way.

I disagree with permanency. First off, you could just have the ID cards have a lifetime of three years, but that would be far too expensive. However, it's the only way, in your system, to force re-registration.

Secondly, once someone convicted of a felony gets out of prison, they shouldn't be excluded from society. That won't help them become members of society once again (or for the first time ever, in some cases).

I have an idea: if we are going to keep the electoral college (I would rather not), here is a plausible plan. Give each state 100 electors which vote according to proportional representation, follow that with a requirement that in order to become president, a person must have AT least 26 out of the current 50 states behind him or her. The popular vote would eliminate all but the top five or six candidates for this newly formatted electoral college to consider. A better way to reformat the House of Representatives is to make it a body of about 6000 members and have representatives be picked by sortition of registered voters in each state. The representatives picked have the right to opt out. If they are found to be not representing the interests of their constituents or not fulfilling their duties, the state can hold a vote to have him/her recalled. Btw, I do like the national ID card thing, but under my system for the House of Representatives it would be rendered obsolete.

SOLUTION TO PROBLEM:

Install Palin as a dictator for life!

Carry on...

If I recall from my high school government classes over 15 years ago, in many states if you are charged with a felony, you lose your right to vote already. It's purely state by state but still....

Then tell me, why was the Electoral College created and why do those reasons not apply anymore?
Disproportionate population sizes; however, the populations are now so disproportionate that they overwhelm the electoral college's attempt at balance - the largest state has well over 50 electoral votes where the smallest (outside DC) are stuck at 3. Much different than when it was introduced at 7 to 3.

No, see, I don't think that just because you happen to live in state X that your vote should matter less than state Y.

The reasons for the electoral college to exist are ancient and outdated. They're undemocratic and they are a cause for apathy. Why bother to vote, if someone in Wyoming has more power than you?

They don't. You don't understand the system. YOU choose how your state gives electors. States choose the President. We are not a strict democracy. We're representative.

The reasons for the electoral college haven't changed and you haven't addressed them or even shown the first clue you know what they are.


If the votes were actually equal and proportional, a person in Wyoming would have as much say as a person in New York or California. As it is, a person in Wyoming has up to triple the say. Don't come to me with the bullshit argument that "Oh whine, if people in New York had as much power as me, I'd be ignored!" because you wouldn't - Your vote would be as important as everyone else, as opposed to yours meaning more, just because.

The system, as is, also falls apart when the electoral college itself is not proportional. Again: 24% of the population is all it takes for a president to win, with 100% voter turnout. In part, because some people's votes count for more and in part because once a party has the majority of the vote, it gets All the electoral votes, as opposed to getting the proportion they should be entitled to.

Until you can create a system where it actually takes 51% of the popular vote to win, I'm not willing to consider such a system fair.

I love how you give an example that has not ever and will not ever happen. There have been some cases where the popular vote favored the candidate who lost, but only by a small amounts. Talking about problems that don't actually happen ever is not a way to make an argument.

I claim the electoral college protects us from aliens because they will focus on the electors since they have all the power. The fact that we've never been attacked by aliens isn't relevant, is it?

Not fair? Hehe. Why not get rid of states? What do we need them for? And villages. And counties. I mean, it's not like we're a collection of states and those states are granted rights by the Constitution. Nah.

Improve electoral system without dismantling it?

Just divide the electorates by candidate vote count.

Say, California and its 55 electorates (picked up earlier from this thread) votes like this:
- 70% to Obama
- 20% to McCain
- 5% to 3rd candidate
- 3% to 4th candidate
...

=
38 electoral votes for Obama
11 electoral votes for McCain
6 electoral votes for minor candidates

See, we made USA's presidential election multiparty at one strike!

edit:
Another modification would be to give electoral votes based on area instead of population :D

This can already happen. The problem is that the states who control how their electors are assigned choose not to. You're hoping we'll take rights away from the states? Good luck getting that passed.

Again, this doesn't address, at all, the reasons for an electoral college. Address them and I'll be happy to address your argument. Because in your system, you completely ignore that the state, which by the nature of its size already has more representation, would continue to have more representation. Your individual vote isn't the only concern. We're not a strict democracy.

But, what if you don't believe that the electoral college actually serves a valid purpose?

You say "we're not a strict democracy"... but, why shouldn't we be?

There are reasons why we're NOT, but we're not necessarily discussing the is-and-isn'ts... are we?

Me, I'm old fashioned. "One person, one vote" sounds fairest.

Proposal

1. Get rid of the electoral college.

2. Enact a national ID card, complete with detailed database. This is now your voter registration card. Biometrics, smart card, the whole nine yards. If you don't have your national ID card, you don't fucking vote. If you have it, and the address on it says you're in a particular voting district, that's where you vote.

3. All candidates for elected Federal office should have to pass a comprehensive knowledge exam. It should start with the Foreign Service Exam, and branch outwards into various areas such as military (and military history), US history, current events, and current topics in Federal law. If you can't pass the test, you don't get to run. This would have excluded many of the Presidents and Vice Presidents (and candidates) of the past few decades.

4. If you are running for President, take the top vote getter and see where their count stands versus the total of all registered voters (i.e., everyone with a national ID card). If the total isn't 66% or more of the total number of possible voters, you do the election over again. Non-votes are counted as No, and you have to get a majority the popular possible votes to win. This would ensure that you have to get either every major metropolitan area (even in states you don't give a shit about), or hit up some rural areas to get your votes up there.

5. If you don't vote for three years in a row, you permanently lose the right to vote. Same for felons... - permanent loss of the right to vote. It will say it right on your ID card - no fucking way.

You could have squads of Judges, under the control of some kind of Voter Colonel, who maintains the purity of the ballotbox by making sure people vote 'the right way', too. In fact, you could purge 'opposition' parties from the ballots completely, and avoid a lot of those kinds of problems even starting.

But, what if you don't believe that the electoral college actually serves a valid purpose?

You say "we're not a strict democracy"... but, why shouldn't we be?

There are reasons why we're NOT, but we're not necessarily discussing the is-and-isn'ts... are we?

Me, I'm old fashioned. "One person, one vote" sounds fairest.

I don't mind if people wish we were a strict democracy. It's the people who claim the reasons for the EC suddenly disappeared.

One person, one vote makes sense in a smaller sense. But when you get to large it simply wouldn't be fair. Would you be okay if the world was a direct democracy as well? I wonder what country the world leader would be from if we had a world vote.

The country is desiged with the purpose of creating some sovereignty for the states in order to keep the power closer to the people. The downside to that is that if you do a direct democracy, certain areas would totally overwhelm others. So instead they chose representatives that represent the relative sizes and senators that represent each state equally. The electoral college is something in between.

It's interesting that people bitch about the electoral college but not the makeup of the senate. I seriously don't understand why people, if they really don't like the design the US government don't go to a country where the design is more to their liking. I'm not telling them to leave because they want rights, but, here, you're talking about changing the fundamental design behind the entire government.

It's interesting that people bitch about the electoral college but not the makeup of the senate. I seriously don't understand why people, if they really don't like the design the US government don't go to a country where the design is more to their liking. I'm not telling them to leave because they want rights, but, here, you're talking about changing the fundamental design behind the entire government.
Ooh, ooh, can I be an oblivious and self-absorbed too?

Just go to a flat popular vote. If certain states get under represented hey they should be. Besides they have the senate.

I don't mind if people wish we were a strict democracy. It's the people who claim the reasons for the EC suddenly disappeared.

One person, one vote makes sense in a smaller sense. But when you get to large it simply wouldn't be fair. Would you be okay if the world was a direct democracy as well? I wonder what country the world leader would be from if we had a world vote.
Popular vote for the president does not imply direct democracy. We still have senators chosen from each state and representatives chosen from each district; the president is not the all-powerful dictator. (And actually, it is unlikely the world leader would be from the most populous country if the winner was whomever won the majority. A coalition could form to counter the billion-plus people of China.)

It's interesting that people bitch about the electoral college but not the makeup of the senate. I seriously don't understand why people, if they really don't like the design the US government don't go to a country where the design is more to their liking. I'm not telling them to leave because they want rights, but, here, you're talking about changing the fundamental design behind the entire government.
Yes, but it's just one part of the fundamental design of the government. It's possible to be happy with the rest and still want to change some things.

Combine the Scandinavian economic structure (taxes are high, but that is the price you pay for an extensive welfare state- parecon preferred to traditional socialism) with the Swiss political system (democracy's the way to go, parpolity is just as good), then you have the ideal country in my opinion. Only difference is that, as an American, I love the religiousity and patriotism of my people. That would be the one thing I would not change... its ethics are good, btw we have the coolest sports on the planet, and basketball does not count.

Popular vote for the president does not imply direct democracy. We still have senators chosen from each state and representatives chosen from each district; the president is not the all-powerful dictator. (And actually, it is unlikely the world leader would be from the most populous country if the winner was whomever won the majority. A coalition could form to counter the billion-plus people of China.)

The point is that people keeping claiming that the electoral vote is undemocratic. The fact is it isn't. It's consistent with the entire rest of the system. In fact, the way the electoral college is allotted is according to the entire rest of the system. It treats us like a representative democracy and it's only unfair if representative democracy is unfair.


Yes, but it's just one part of the fundamental design of the government. It's possible to be happy with the rest and still want to change some things.

One part? I hate your personality. I'm not complaining about you, though. You could change your personality and you'd still be the same person. I mean, I'm not complaining about the length of your arms. And I haven't brought up your legs. Clearly, it doesn't matter if I change the core of you as long as some aspects don't change, no?

I don't mind if people wish we were a strict democracy. It's the people who claim the reasons for the EC suddenly disappeared.

One person, one vote makes sense in a smaller sense. But when you get to large it simply wouldn't be fair. Would you be okay if the world was a direct democracy as well? I wonder what country the world leader would be from if we had a world vote.

The country is desiged with the purpose of creating some sovereignty for the states in order to keep the power closer to the people. The downside to that is that if you do a direct democracy, certain areas would totally overwhelm others. So instead they chose representatives that represent the relative sizes and senators that represent each state equally. The electoral college is something in between.

It's interesting that people bitch about the electoral college but not the makeup of the senate. I seriously don't understand why people, if they really don't like the design the US government don't go to a country where the design is more to their liking. I'm not telling them to leave because they want rights, but, here, you're talking about changing the fundamental design behind the entire government.

Suck it up or get out?

For real?

I don't think you really believe your own press, to be honest... I don't accept that you've resigned yourself to the status quo and have decided nothing should be changed. Indeed, from what I recall, your political positions have moved quite a long way from conservative towards reform even over the time you've been here - and I assume that you vote accordingly, and are political accordingly.

Why? Because that's what we do - we try to make the places we are in 'better'.

It's my opinion that the way presidents are elected could be 'better'. It's my opinion that the representation of the people in government could be 'better'. Clearly you think so too, since you've presented your own suggestions for 'making it better' right in this thread.

So - let's maybe not resort to the 'suck it up or get out' politics. Not only is it beneath you, my friend... but it's almost exactly what you were decrying in the Republican party just a few posts ago.


Regarding the fundamental point here - state sovereignty - I'm incline to agree with the post earlier that said it's time has been and gone. I think that 'states' are a destructive influence - just another flavour of division - not to mention massively arbitrary. I tend to favour almost the exact opposite of 'state rights', at BOTH ends of the spectrum at once. That is - power than can devolve effectively downwards SHOULD be devolved downwards to much smaller categories... and power that would be more effectively handled at the national level should be centralised, or at least regionalised.

Given that model, 'state sovereignty' is hardly a concern for me... and protecting that model isn't a good excuse for sticking with the status quo.

The point is that people keeping claiming that the electoral vote is undemocratic. The fact is it isn't. It's consistent with the entire rest of the system. In fact, the way the electoral college is allotted is according to the entire rest of the system. It treats us like a representative democracy and it's only unfair if representative democracy is unfair.
But the entire point of representative democracy is that we choose people to make their own decisions. My congressman isn't just a mouthpiece for what I want, he is someone I think has the beliefs and talent necessary to influence the Congress in the right way. (At least, my ideal congressman. My actual one is a bit thick.) Electors, as they exist nowadays, are not representatives because they do nothing other than act as an intermediary between the votes and the government.

One part? I hate your personality. I'm not complaining about you, though. You could change your personality and you'd still be the same person. I mean, I'm not complaining about the length of your arms. And I haven't brought up your legs. Clearly, it doesn't matter if I change the core of you as long as some aspects don't change, no?
The electoral college isn't the core of our system, though.

Suck it up or get out?

For real?

I don't think you really believe your own press, to be honest... I don't accept that you've resigned yourself to the status quo and have decided nothing should be changed. Indeed, from what I recall, your political positions have moved quite a long way from conservative towards reform even over the time you've been here - and I assume that you vote accordingly, and are political accordingly.

Why? Because that's what we do - we try to make the places we are in 'better'.

It's my opinion that the way presidents are elected could be 'better'. It's my opinion that the representation of the people in government could be 'better'. Clearly you think so too, since you've presented your own suggestions for 'making it better' right in this thread.

So - let's maybe not resort to the 'suck it up or get out' politics. Not only is it beneath you, my friend... but it's almost exactly what you were decrying in the Republican party just a few posts ago.


Regarding the fundamental point here - state sovereignty - I'm incline to agree with the post earlier that said it's time has been and gone. I think that 'states' are a destructive influence - just another flavour of division - not to mention massively arbitrary. I tend to favour almost the exact opposite of 'state rights', at BOTH ends of the spectrum at once. That is - power than can devolve effectively downwards SHOULD be devolved downwards to much smaller categories... and power that would be more effectively handled at the national level should be centralised, or at least regionalised.

Given that model, 'state sovereignty' is hardly a concern for me... and protecting that model isn't a good excuse for sticking with the status quo.

Yes. For real. It's one thing to want to change some little thing. Or to simply want to generally make a good system better. But you want to ignore the very foundation of the nation. It's a union of states. So much so that it's the name.

You might as well say you'd like the country to become a kingdom.

And to some extent I like that there are varied governments around the world and that we may choose to live under them or move on.

I mean it seriously, too. If a large exodus happened, it would be more likely to change our goverment's behavior. Similarly, if the majority of the country or even a large plurality were so upset with the style of government to engage in revolution, I'd join them if I believed in the change they were fighting for. But when it's just a couple people on the internet complaining that being a collection of states is unfair.... well.

To put it in perspective, I am very strongly going to consider leaving if McCain wins. It's one thing to fight to make a system that is generally good better. But when you don't actually believe in the foundation of it, what's the point? If McCain wins, it will be a demonstration that the majority of the American people are happy with this government as it is. As such, I not only wouldn't approve of the level of corruption in this government, but I wouldn't be motivated to correct just to pretect such a large populace of people who prefer it this way. I view the state thing the same way. If the only way to change the government is to completely ignore the foundations of it, then why not go somewhere you'll actually be happier?

But the entire point of representative democracy is that we choose people to make their own decisions. My congressman isn't just a mouthpiece for what I want, he is someone I think has the beliefs and talent necessary to influence the Congress in the right way. (At least, my ideal congressman. My actual one is a bit thick.) Electors, as they exist nowadays, are not representatives because they do nothing other than act as an intermediary between the votes and the government.

Electors are guided by the rules of the place they come from. Those rules aren't set by the federal government. Some states decided they'd prefer to force them to follow their popular vote en masse. Some in a representative way. And some are free to change their vote as has happened in the past.


The electoral college isn't the core of our system, though.

The idea that states are represented disproportionately (in the way you define disproportionately) IS. Don't you read your own points? Do I need to start listing which point I'm replying to in order for you to follow?

Electors are guided by the rules of the place they come from. Those rules aren't set by the federal government. Some states decided they'd prefer to force them to follow their popular vote en masse. Some in a representative way. And some are free to change their vote as has happened in the past.
The point is electors only do one thing: vote for president. The way they vote is based not on their own personal convictions, but on the popular vote somewhere (state or district). There have been instances of faithless electors but they are the exception, and there has never been a case where a faithless elector affected the outcome of the election.

The idea that states are represented disproportionately (in the way you define disproportionately) IS. Don't you read your own points? Do I need to start listing which point I'm replying to in order for you to follow?
What point are you talking about? I never brought up the concept of disproportional representation, I just said I don't think disagreeing with the means of choosing one branch of the national government counts as disagreeing with the fundamental core of our government.

Yes. For real. It's one thing to want to change some little thing. Or to simply want to generally make a good system better. But you want to ignore the very foundation of the nation. It's a union of states. So much so that it's the name.

You might as well say you'd like the country to become a kingdom.

And to some extent I like that there are varied governments around the world and that we may choose to live under them or move on.

I mean it seriously, too. If a large exodus happened, it would be more likely to change our goverment's behavior. Similarly, if the majority of the country or even a large plurality were so upset with the style of government to engage in revolution, I'd join them if I believed in the change they were fighting for. But when it's just a couple people on the internet complaining that being a collection of states is unfair.... well.

There's a quote out there somewhere about how it's wrong to assume that a small group of people who really want change can never get anything done... in fact, that's the only way anything EVER gets done. Words to that effect.

I have always opposed racism, sexism... persecution of minorities. I've always argued for equality for people regardless of who they sleep with, who they vote for, whether they are boy or girl, black or white. And often - that puts me in a minority. Most of America doesn't WANT homosexuals to be allowed to get married - but I'll fight them, because it's what is right.

I don't think it's bad to be the minority fighting the majority. Even the few, or the one, swimming against the tide.

You say we've got a whole world of choices of governments out there to choose from... but how do you think that happened? This 'union of states' is an artificial construct overthrowing the natural order when it was founded. The majority even opposed it. The only reason it still exists today is inertia... and applied pressure to maintain the status quo. Sometimes, by spilling blood.

But, I disagree with your conclusion. I don't think the answer is shape up or get out. You say I propose too much - that it would reshape the very foundation of the nation. I'm strangely comfortable with that. I don't care that this nation was 'founded' as a union of states. I don't think historical precedence was a good enough reason to oppose emancipation of slaves, or female suffrage. I don't think historical precedence is a good enough reason to maintain this model if it's fundamentally wrong. I certainly don't think the argument that 'that's what it's called' is a good enough argument to avoid change.

Do I think the country should be a kingdom? No - I think that's a step in the wrong direction - but I don't oppose the idea that it COULD become a kingdom, just because it's not one. Wouldn't that be a huge paradigm shift? Sure - in some ways- but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

There are good things about this coutnry, and there are bad things. This model is unfair, and that's a bad thing. One of many. And they should all be on the table for change.

As far as I can tell, the electoral college is too entrenched to be fixed. Personally, I don't have a serious problem with it, whereas I do have a problem with straight out popular vote.

Anyway, the most pressing thing needed in your system is an independent, non-partisan, well funded electoral body. In Aus, we have the AEC (http://www.aec.gov.au/), which is an independent body set up to oversee elections. They set up the electoral boundaries based PURELY upon population, they ensure uniform secret ballots and prevent vote fraud. In the US, to have voting decided by states is ridiculous, and encourages the voter fraud by the DIEBOLD machines.

Actually, that's the other thing. Paper ballots, damnit. It isn't that hard. Electronic is just too easy to screw up.

I know that in the US, when you vote you vote on all sorts of things, including Senate polls, specific legislation, and so forth. But a well funded body could deal with that well.

As far as I can tell, the electoral college is too entrenched to be fixed. Personally, I don't have a serious problem with it, whereas I do have a problem with straight out popular vote.

Anyway, the most pressing thing needed in your system is an independent, non-partisan, well funded electoral body. In Aus, we have the AEC (http://www.aec.gov.au/), which is an independent body set up to oversee elections. They set up the electoral boundaries based PURELY upon population, they ensure uniform secret ballots and prevent vote fraud. In the US, to have voting decided by states is ridiculous, and encourages the voter fraud by the DIEBOLD machines.

Actually, that's the other thing. Paper ballots, damnit. It isn't that hard. Electronic is just too easy to screw up.

I know that in the US, when you vote you vote on all sorts of things, including Senate polls, specific legislation, and so forth. But a well funded body could deal with that well.

We have the Federal Elections Commission. I'm not quite sure what they do, actually; I think it's mostly campaign funding.

To put it in perspective, I am very strongly going to consider leaving if McCain wins. It's one thing to fight to make a system that is generally good better. But when you don't actually believe in the foundation of it, what's the point? If McCain wins, it will be a demonstration that the majority of the American people are happy with this government as it is. As such, I not only wouldn't approve of the level of corruption in this government, but I wouldn't be motivated to correct just to pretect such a large populace of people who prefer it this way. I view the state thing the same way. If the only way to change the government is to completely ignore the foundations of it, then why not go somewhere you'll actually be happier?

Because I don't care how it was founded, or what it was built upon.

Will I consider returning to my roots if McCain wins? Absolutely. Because I think it will be strong evidence of a fundamentally corrupt system, and maybe evidence of a level of xenophobia in the US that I can barely conceive of.

Would I be thinking the same way if I didn't have family? Maybe not. I haven't decided that everything else about this country is worth giving up on yet... but given that I do have family - I have to take them in to account.

But, if there's a possibility that things can be changed for the better, isn't that a worthy goal? Was the crucifixion just a waste of good nails?

There's a quote out there somewhere about how it's wrong to assume that a small group of people who really want change can never get anything done... in fact, that's the only way anything EVER gets done. Words to that effect.

I have always opposed racism, sexism... persecution of minorities. I've always argued for equality for people regardless of who they sleep with, who they vote for, whether they are boy or girl, black or white. And often - that puts me in a minority. Most of America doesn't WANT homosexuals to be allowed to get married - but I'll fight them, because it's what is right.

In that case you're fighting to protect who want you to do so. Here people aren't harmed by the state system. In fact, some have pointed out the benefits. Rural America would cease to exist if not for the electoral college and the senate. What's right? It's one thing when you're talking about systemic disenfranchisement of people or the denial of rights. But no one's rights are being denied here. This is just a disagreement on whether it's better to have a system that protects the needs of the various states in a country so vast or whether it's better to simply make it direct.

I say, you're defending direct votes is like defending Nazis. It's not, but why should we make valid comparisons?



I don't think it's bad to be the minority fighting the majority. Even the few, or the one, swimming against the tide.

I do when it's the KKK. I do when it's a minority seaking to suppress the majority. Here, you're not talking about rights, you're talking about a desire for a style of government and you've not given a remotely good reason why the minority should be permitted to deny the majority their preferred government.



You say we've got a whole world of choices of governments out there to choose from... but how do you think that happened? This 'union of states' is an artificial construct overthrowing the natural order when it was founded. The majority even opposed it. The only reason it still exists today is inertia... and applied pressure to maintain the status quo. Sometimes, by spilling blood.

Sure. Again, that was about people fighting for representation. You're not talking about that. In fact, you're trying for the opposite.



But, I disagree with your conclusion. I don't think the answer is shape up or get out. You say I propose too much - that it would reshape the very foundation of the nation. I'm strangely comfortable with that. I don't care that this nation was 'founded' as a union of states. I don't think historical precedence was a good enough reason to oppose emancipation of slaves, or female suffrage. I don't think historical precedence is a good enough reason to maintain this model if it's fundamentally wrong. I certainly don't think the argument that 'that's what it's called' is a good enough argument to avoid change.

Of course you don't. Let's see. You don't like that America is full of rednecks. (Go ahead, pretend you didn't say that.) You don't like idea of states. You don't the fundamentals of those states being represented. And you admit that we don't even offer equality. I can see why you'd be committed to stay. We're not England. We aren't going to be.

I know it seems like I'm being rude, but I'm not insulting you. Obviously, I like you and I like that you're here. I just think it's funny that you added into your attacks on the government (which I regard as valid criticism) and your attacks on the American people in general the idea that fundamentals of the system of government are wrong as well. But, hey, it's not like you take issue with anything major.

Do I think the country should be a kingdom? No - I think that's a step in the wrong direction - but I don't oppose the idea that it COULD become a kingdom, just because it's not one. Wouldn't that be a huge paradigm shift? Sure - in some ways- but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Again, why even come in the first place? Seriously? It's one thing when you're fighting for rights or freedom. But, here you're not. You're joining the vfw and then telling them you'd prefer not to have to associate with veterans.


There are good things about this coutnry, and there are bad things. This model is unfair, and that's a bad thing. One of many. And they should all be on the table for change.

You keep saying that. It's "unfair". You're definition of fair doesn't fix the problem. It actually exasperates it. Tyranny of the majority is what it's called. It's the reason why have a bill of rights. The founders rightly wanted to keep the power close to the people.

You ignored my question about choosing a leader for the world? Do you think, for example, the leader of the UN should be chosen by a direct vote by the citizens of each of the countries? Should the UN give weighting to the wishes of it's member nations solely based on population?

Because I don't care how it was founded, or what it was built upon.

That's okay. We do.


Will I consider returning to my roots if McCain wins? Absolutely. Because I think it will be strong evidence of a fundamentally corrupt system, and maybe evidence of a level of xenophobia in the US that I can barely conceive of.

Agreed.


Would I be thinking the same way if I didn't have family? Maybe not. I haven't decided that everything else about this country is worth giving up on yet... but given that I do have family - I have to take them in to account.

What exactly are you trying to save? You don't like the people or the government. Is it the flowing grain you're trying to protect?


But, if there's a possibility that things can be changed for the better, isn't that a worthy goal? Was the crucifixion just a waste of good nails?

When you're talking about fundamental rights, certainly? But I'm not going to join a club so I can change their uniforms to something more flattering. Despite your attempts to act like you're crusading for rights, your government changes don't offer anything to help protect people. Under your system there would be other groups of people who were "fairly" represented. You compared you suggestion to other attempts to prevent tyranny by the majority. The truth is a crusade to keep the electoral college is more comparable.

In that case you're fighting to protect who want you to do so. Here people aren't harmed by the state system.


Sure they are. They are disenfranchised by it. Their laws are arbitrarily set by it.


In fact, some have pointed out the benefits. Rural America would cease to exist if not for the electoral college and the senate.


Of course it wouldn't. Has 'rural England' disappeared because of our form of government?

Maybe, what you mean is, a geographical sense of entitlement would die out. I don't see that as a bad thing.


What's right? It's one thing when you're talking about systemic disenfranchisement of people or the denial of rights. But no one's rights are being denied here.


Only because you don't think democratic representation is important.

If you live in New York City, your right to democratic representation is being denied. You are proportionally less important than some guy in a shack in the Appalachians.


I do when it's the KKK. I do when it's a minority seaking to suppress the majority. Here, you're not talking about rights, you're talking about a desire for a style of government and you've not given a remotely good reason why the minority should be permitted to deny the majority their preferred government.


I oppose the KKK, but not because they are a minority trying to change their world. I oppose them because they are causing harm to people, and because they are perpetuating things that are wrong with this country.


Sure. Again, that was about people fighting for representation. You're not talking about that. In fact, you're trying for the opposite.


The Civil War was about protecting representation? What happened to the right to secession?


Of course you don't. Let's see. You don't like that America is full of rednecks. (Go ahead, pretend you didn't say that.)


When did I say that? In this debate?

I don't mind rednecks. I don't care for redneck assholes.


You don't like idea of states.


I don't mind the idea of states. I think 'states' are destructive in THIS situation.


You don't the fundamentals of those states being represented.


I don't like how the representation is done, no - because I think 'representation by state' is the wrong way to do it.


And you admit that we don't even offer equality.


I admire that, to an extent, it's a nation that's trying, though.

WHich is one of the reasons I judge it so harshly when it fails.


I can see why you'd be committed to stay. We're not England. We aren't going to be.


That doesn't mean the US can't learn some lessons from - for example - the UK.


Again, why even come in the first place? Seriously?


My wife is a citizen.


It's one thing when you're fighting for rights or freedom. But, here you're not. You're joining the vfw and then telling them you'd prefer not to have to associate with veterans.


No, I'd be joining the vfw and telling them I don't think their leadership should be appointed by the old boys network.


You keep saying that. It's "unfair". You're definition of fair doesn't fix the problem.


The 'problem' we're discussing is the representation of voters. Even you have stated objections to what is current. I think any model that ignores the democratic approach IS 'the problem'. You seem not to agree.


It actually exasperates it. Tyranny of the majority is what it's called. It's the reason why have a bill of rights. The founders rightly wanted to keep the power close to the people.


If that's the case, they've failed. Maybe their model worked for a while, but now it's not helping. My 'state' is a huge unwieldy blob, bigger than a country, that doesn't care about my community. The model needs to change - like I said - devolve down to a much more local area, and push other stuff up higher. This arbitrary middleground just creates 50 'tyranny of the majorities'.


You ignored my question about choosing a leader for the world? Do you think, for example, the leader of the UN should be chosen by a direct vote by the citizens of each of the countries? Should the UN give weighting to the wishes of it's member nations solely based on population?

I didn't ignore the question. I didn't realise it was expecting an answer. I took it for a parallel - an example. I don't think there SHOULD be a 'leader of the world'. If there is ever a world government, I think it needs to be a powershare of some kind. A committee, maybe. Sure - elect the members proportionately... one candidate for every ten million people, or something.

I know it seems like I'm being rude, but I'm not insulting you. Obviously, I like you and I like that you're here. I just think it's funny that you added into your attacks on the government (which I regard as valid criticism) and your attacks on the American people in general the idea that fundamentals of the system of government are wrong as well. But, hey, it's not like you take issue with anything major.


This was taken as read. No insult is being taken.

My 'attacks on the American people' are observational. When I see a bearcub shot in the head in the Carolinas, and an Obama sticker hung round it's neck... or I read about a guy in Ohio (I think) hanging an effigy of Obama - I despair for the nation.

I try to tell myself it's a disproportionately loud minority - but you see what I see. You saw the Indian Sikh gunned down outside a gas station after 9/11. You see when a shooting in California is taken as an indictment of immigration. Hell, you see Fox - enough said. You saw Bush elected to a second term despite the evils of the first. Try to tell em you don't feel the same unease I feel.

The difference between you and I, old friend, is something we've discussed before - you're an optimist.

My attacks on the government are also observational - I think the current regime, moreso than any in American history that I'm familiar with (except maybe for Lincoln) is corrupt and evil.

My attacks on the FORM of government are idealistic. There is NO government that does what I want it to. America might be the best bet - so this is where I've pitched my claim.

That's okay. We do.


I know. And I think that's a problem.

I think being too hooked up in where you came from holds you back, as a nation. It's the same flaw as patriotism.


What exactly are you trying to save? You don't like the people or the government. Is it the flowing grain you're trying to protect?


I do like some of the people, and - misanthropic though I may sometimes (often?) appear, I actually like 'people'.

Think of me like God. I may hate a lot of the things people do, but I am actually rather fond of the general concept of people.


When you're talking about fundamental rights, certainly? But I'm not going to join a club so I can change their uniforms to something more flattering. Despite your attempts to act like you're crusading for rights, your government changes don't offer anything to help protect people. Under your system there would be other groups of people who were "fairly" represented. You compared you suggestion to other attempts to prevent tyranny by the majority. The truth is a crusade to keep the electoral college is more comparable.

If you had already joined a club, and they were talking about new uniforms.. you WOULD suggest they got rid of those unflattering shorts, though, right?

As a little niggle - I haven't really suggested what I consider to be the ideal, I've just supported general trends, and opposed general trends.

My own personal model (if you're going to attack something, it might as well be my own model, right?) would be a kind of an advocacy - a form of representation still (because representation IS less democratic, but it's also more efficient) where the candidates are not chosen based on boundaries in the dirt... or not SOLELY by that measure.

I would allocate each (eligible) voter one vote for whoever they choose - and that would be the end of government involvement. If you chose to endorse your Union rep... or your preacher... or your mayor... or your state representative... that would be up to you. Government would be by proxy - you vote for your preacher, and so do 9,999 other people, your preacher gets to sit in governance with an effective 10,000 votes behind everything he says. (Note - in my model, those representatives are supported by their voters, also....)

What my model would allow is a real representative democracy, not just a convenience of state lines. Single Issue voters would actually DETRACT from 'big party' numbers, rather than powering them. Lobbyists would become irrelevent, because it doesn't MATTER how many of the CEO's back 'lobbyist X'... he still only gets a proportion of power relative to their endorsement.

Sure they are. They are disenfranchised by it. Their laws are arbitrarily set by it.

Disenfranchised? How so? Their votes count. Some of them don't seem to count as much, but this would also be true in your system. That's the point. You're not doing anything to actually correct the problem. You're just shifting it.

Of course it wouldn't. Has 'rural England' disappeared because of our form of government?

Maybe, what you mean is, a geographical sense of entitlement would die out. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Your country isn't nearly as large as ours. That's exactly the point.

What I mean is that "a geographic sense" that recognizes that ranchers in Utah have different needs than New Yorkers.


Only because you don't think democratic representation is important.

If you live in New York City, your right to democratic representation is being denied. You are proportionally less important than some guy in a shack in the
Appalachians.

It is democratic. It's just not direct. And they proportionately less important. Because they have a state government that represents them to an actually much stronger degree than other states. That's why there are multiple systems designed behind representing multiple needs. You're focusing on one of those needs and ignoring the rest of them.



I oppose the KKK, but not because they are a minority trying to change their world. I oppose them because they are causing harm to people, and because they are perpetuating things that are wrong with this country.

So would you be. What your doing helps no one and harms many. It was specifically discussed when designing the government. They created a system that addresses the needs of cities and those who are rural. You'd like to ignore one for the other.

I realize that you don't like conservatives, but trying to simply overwhelm them by changing the government is a poor way to deal with it. In fact, it's kind of similar to the methods I don't like the GOP using.


The Civil War was about protecting representation? What happened to the right to secession?

Huh? What the hell are you talking about? The civil war had nothing to do with equal rights. I was talking about the efforts to prevent Tyranny by the Majority, which is what you'd prefer.

When did I say that? In this debate?

I don't mind rednecks. I don't care for redneck assholes.

You've said it lots of times. Are you seriously going to suggest that you've have repeatedly bashed the citizenry of the US during your time here? Not just on here but in private conversations with me?


I don't mind the idea of states. I think 'states' are destructive in THIS situation.

You don't mind the idea of states provide the states are just lines in the sand. If they're governments collected into a union, you have an issue with that, huh?

I don't like how the representation is done, no - because I think 'representation by state' is the wrong way to do it.

Like I said, it's one thing to fight to impose your will on everyone else when it's a matter of rights, but here "I think it's the wrong way to do it" is a whole other thing. Good to know you know so much better and you've arrived to fix everything.

I admire that, to an extent, it's a nation that's trying, though.

WHich is one of the reasons I judge it so harshly when it fails.

Your admiration is overwhelming. You like everything but the people, the choices they make, their leadership and their style of government. That they're "trying", though...


That doesn't mean the US can't learn some lessons from - for example - the UK.

No thanks. You guys are pretty good examples on the nature of rights, but I think we've gotten enough from you, otherwise.


My wife is a citizen.

I'm sure she's sorry she forced you suffer here. Good on you to fix it for us.

Or, well, we could talk about why YOU want to be here and leave your wife out of it.


No, I'd be joining the vfw and telling them I don't think their leadership should be appointed by the old boys network.

This would be an apt comparison if that's what you were trying to fix. But we're not talking about the parties. Electors are hardly appointing someone from the "old boys network". Seriously, you're all over the place here.

You're not remotely addressing the "old boys network". In fact, you'd simply replace one for another.

The 'problem' we're discussing is the representation of voters. Even you have stated objections to what is current. I think any model that ignores the democratic approach IS 'the problem'. You seem not to agree.

The problem is the disenfranchisement of voters by making them feel like their vote doesn't matter. Your system would make it worse.

If that's the case, they've failed. Maybe their model worked for a while, but now it's not helping. My 'state' is a huge unwieldy blob, bigger than a country, that doesn't care about my community. The model needs to change - like I said - devolve down to a much more local area, and push other stuff up higher. This arbitrary middleground just creates 50 'tyranny of the majorities'.

Heh, and you'll fix it by making the blob more huge, more unwieldy and less likely to care about communities and more likely to care about appeasing cities and only cities because it's the best way to get bang for your buck.

There aren't just 50 "tyranny of the majorities". There are towns, counties, districts, states and the country. You want to remove one entity you say is too big and give its power to an even bigger entity. Fucking brilliant.


I didn't ignore the question. I didn't realise it was expecting an answer. I took it for a parallel - an example. I don't think there SHOULD be a 'leader of the world'. If there is ever a world government, I think it needs to be a powershare of some kind. A committee, maybe. Sure - elect the members proportionately... one candidate for every ten million people, or something.

Brilliant. Look China wins again. Boy, oh, boy, would that government be a great thing for Europe, no?

i would like to see a sytem set up where each state gets one vote. That way one state is just as important as the next...incase of a tie let there be a coin flipp to determine the winner.

I know. And I think that's a problem.

I think being too hooked up in where you came from holds you back, as a nation. It's the same flaw as patriotism.

Seriously, it really grinds that you and others do this. It's great you came here to save America. And I don't care if you really, really think you're right, after the terrible blowjob you gave me last time I bought you dinner, no soup for you.

I do like some of the people, and - misanthropic though I may sometimes (often?) appear, I actually like 'people'.

Think of me like God. I may hate a lot of the things people do, but I am actually rather fond of the general concept of people.

See, what I mean. Seriously, it's that level of "don't worry, I'm here to save you" that drives the xenophobia. You came here from somewhere else and appoint yourself God to help use because we're just so cute when we're trying.

I mean, I treat myself with just as much self-importance on this forum, but people genuinely don't like. Learn a friggin' lesson, ya cockney bastard.




If you had already joined a club, and they were talking about new uniforms.. you WOULD suggest they got rid of those unflattering shorts, though, right?

I totally fucked up that analogy.

I should have said you joined a club because you really like the uniform and then proceed to change everything else about it. And seriously, have you seen me in Blues, we really do have nice uniforms.

Actually, going back and rereading it, I THINK my point was that changing the uniforms because you don't like them is hardly a question of right or wrong. Stop acting like you're a crusader for the people. In a country this large, there is a problem that different small groups that need representation. They get it by forming together in communities, then counties, then districts, then states, then a country. It's the fundamental design and purpose of our style of government.


As a little niggle - I haven't really suggested what I consider to be the ideal, I've just supported general trends, and opposed general trends.

My own personal model (if you're going to attack something, it might as well be my own model, right?) would be a kind of an advocacy - a form of representation still (because representation IS less democratic, but it's also more efficient) where the candidates are not chosen based on boundaries in the dirt... or not SOLELY by that measure.

I would allocate each (eligible) voter one vote for whoever they choose - and that would be the end of government involvement. If you chose to endorse your Union rep... or your preacher... or your mayor... or your state representative... that would be up to you. Government would be by proxy - you vote for your preacher, and so do 9,999 other people, your preacher gets to sit in governance with an effective 10,000 votes behind everything he says. (Note - in my model, those representatives are supported by their voters, also....)

What my model would allow is a real representative democracy, not just a convenience of state lines. Single Issue voters would actually DETRACT from 'big party' numbers, rather than powering them. Lobbyists would become irrelevent, because it doesn't MATTER how many of the CEO's back 'lobbyist X'... he still only gets a proportion of power relative to their endorsement.

At least you're finally addressing the problem rather than exasperating it because it feels more "fair" to you. Let's discuss that. It's better than simply shifting a problem from one institution to another. Well, it addresses one problem. The issue is that, it would be tyranny by the majority. For example, if the largest portion of the country are corn farmers or those that work for them, do you think we'd have ANY chance of sugar ethanol competing? Nope. Corn ethanol is 'best' for everyone because it's 'best' for the majority. There is no way for anyone to address that, because our government works by simple majority.

This can already happen. The problem is that the states who control how their electors are assigned choose not to. You're hoping we'll take rights away from the states? Good luck getting that passed.

If it was a matter of realistic propositions then this thread wouldn't even exist as the status quo seems to be desired by many, accepted by many more and ignored by the rest.

Heck, I'm willing to bet the dissidents of the inarguably inane system are outnumbered, in USA, by those who think complaining about the electoral system is Anti-American! :tongue:

Besides, the president of USA is the president of the entire country elected by the people of the nation, therefore uniform electoral policy is the only one that makes any sense.

edit:
Consider eg. EU elections, they're of more or less uniform style across the nations with guidelines imposed by the supranational entity even though the nations have their own independency and greatly varying political standards.

I'm pretty certain that to most knowledgeable Europeans the current voting scheme in USA, or the power the president wields for that matter, seems...irrational at best, manipulative at worst.

Hey, Cruci, I know it's off topic, but out of curiosity...what exactly prompted you to emigrate to the United States to begin with? From what you keep saying, it sounds like you never really would have considered it.

1. Get rid of the electoral college.

I agree.

2. Enact a national ID card, complete with detailed database. This is now your voter registration card. Biometrics, smart card, the whole nine yards. If you don't have your national ID card, you don't fucking vote. If you have it, and the address on it says you're in a particular voting district, that's where you vote.

If you already hand out a "National ID Card" you could do it in an intelligent manner. Kill the districts. Every one over 18 years old gets one. It could also be used for driver's licence, social security, IRA number, whatever other permit the states or federal government hand out.
Anyone possessing such card could vote anywhere (even an embassy if he/she were abroad) by being matched with a national database. That could also be a boon against fraudolent absentee votes.

3. All candidates for elected Federal office should have to pass a comprehensive knowledge exam. It should start with the Foreign Service Exam, and branch outwards into various areas such as military (and military history), US history, current events, and current topics in Federal law. If you can't pass the test, you don't get to run. This would have excluded many of the Presidents and Vice Presidents (and candidates) of the past few decades.

I'm more partial with a "Cursus Honorum" as was in use in Rome. Something like this.
First you have to have held a district (county?) function (major or councilperson possibly sheriff, judge?).
Second you have to have held a state function (governor or state representative).
Third you have to have held a federal function (Representative or Senator).
At any time you have to have held a minimum one year mission abroad (consular function or such) or minimum four years living in another country (And I mean real living, you would have to demonstrate that you had an actual job with some interaction with the local people. You cold also have any foreign study experience counted in it).

This should be used for any level of government, i.e. you cannot run for governor if you haven't held any district function.

If you are running for President, take the top vote getter and see where their count stands versus the total of all registered voters (i.e., everyone with a national ID card). If the total isn't 66% or more of the total number of possible voters, you do the election over again. Non-votes are counted as No, and you have to get a majority the popular possible votes to win. This would ensure that you have to get either every major metropolitan area (even in states you don't give a shit about), or hit up some rural areas to get your votes up there.

Easier option.
Not cast or invalid votes counted as "None of the above".
If "None of the above" is over 50% the election is void.
Election is held a second time and the candidates of the void election are barred from running for two years (in other words they are barred in running for this election cycle for you could get more than one "None of the above" reruns but may run again at the next one). Only exception could be candidates (actually the candidate) receiving 25% of votes total.

Example:
Turnover 51% of voters = 49% "None of the above"
Invalid or explicit "None of the above" votes = 2%
Candidate Alfa = 28%
Candidate Beta = 14%
Candidate Gamma = 7%
Would mean that the election is void and Candidates Beta and Gamma could not run in the reruns.

You could also add a fine for the running partyes for flunking the election based on the preferences of each candidate ("Your fault you didn't convince the people to get out and cast that vote"). Or it could be if explicit "None of the above" is over 5%.

If you don't vote for three years in a row, you permanently lose the right to vote. Same for felons... - permanent loss of the right to vote. It will say it right on your ID card - no fucking way.

In this scenario not voting is considered as casting a preference, the "None of the above" one. I agree to a limited extent to the loss of voting rights for convicted felons and bankrupts. Instead of permanent ban I'd rather put a four to twelve years ban according to the crime committed.

I feel that this setup would provide the following benefits:
1. One man one vote.
2. Experience of the candidate (I'm convinced that it's a non-issue if you were in the legislative or executive branch of a government).
3. If you are given shitty candidates your vote can change them. Given enough time the running partyes will, hopefully, try to give better candidates.
4. All running partyes are interested in getting the people to the vote not the other way around.

Now I'll wake up and stop dreaming that something like this would be remotely possible.
;)

edit:
Consider eg. EU elections, they're of more or less uniform style across the nations with guidelines imposed by the supranational entity even though the nations have their own independency and greatly varying political standards.

I'm pretty certain that to most knowledgeable Europeans the current voting scheme in USA, or the power the president wields for that matter, seems...irrational at best, manipulative at worst.

Actually being a citizen of Italy and Czech Republic and having lived and studyed in the US. I pretty much like the US system and would like something similar implemented in the EU.
I do not believe that calling the head of the executive President, Prime Minister, King or even Big Oompa Lumpa changes the essence of its powers.
I find flawed the electoral college idea though. IMO the President (or Big Oompa Lumpa) should be elected by the majority of the population, not by a strange concotion of the powers that be.
Oh, and i find the whole Executive privilege thing preposterous at best.

Actually being a citizen of Italy and Czech Republic and having lived and studyed in the US. I pretty much like the US system and would like something similar implemented in the EU.
You mean an elected King of EU?

Blargh. EU is not a single state nor should it be in the near future.
I do not believe that calling the head of the executive President, Prime Minister, King or even Big Oompa Lumpa changes the essence of its powers.
True, but the effective power the character can wield is considerably higher in USA than in most other democratic countries.

I find flawed the electoral college idea though. IMO the President (or Big Oompa Lumpa) should be elected by the majority of the population, not by a strange concotion of the powers that be.
There are benefits to having a disproportionate representation.

For example, if EU ever became a unified country I for one would not easily accept executive or legislative power directly proportionate to population, let alone direct vote in case of strong presidency.

In that case you're fighting to protect who want you to do so. Here people aren't harmed by the state system. In fact, some have pointed out the benefits. Rural America would cease to exist if not for the electoral college and the senate. What's right? It's one thing when you're talking about systemic disenfranchisement of people or the denial of rights. But no one's rights are being denied here. This is just a disagreement on whether it's better to have a system that protects the needs of the various states in a country so vast or whether it's better to simply make it direct.

Okay, seriously, where do you think they campaign in the states? In the cities or in rural america?

Rural america gets the shaft either way, because a state definitely has cities and these will always be more interesting than going out in the countryside.

The system, and your system, solves nothing.

With true proportional voting, rural america has, what, 10%? 20%? Not sure about the numbers, but they actually get a vote and it will count. It won't be a majority, but cities aren't homogenous either.

Currently, rural america does not really get a vote, because it's STILL the big cities that decide which way a state votes. And once that's done, ALL the votes go that way, meaning rural america gets the shaft, unless the cities vote their way too.

And in response to your question on whether or not I understand the reasons for the electoral college: I don't care. I don't care to understand the reasoning behind a supposedly democratic system that is neither democratic, nor fair.

You mean an elected King of EU?

Blargh. EU is not a single state nor should it be in the near future.

True, but the effective power the character can wield is considerably higher in USA than in most other democratic countries.


There are benefits to having a disproportionate representation.

For example, if EU ever became a unified country I for one would not easily accept executive or legislative power directly proportionate to population, let alone direct vote in case of strong presidency.

Yes, I'd like to have an elected Big Eompa lUmpa.
And the executive power should be wielded by someone that has the true support of the majority. And i hate the Commitee stile we have now in place.
For the legislative branch I find that the US idea of Parlament with mandates dicted by population and Senate with mandates dicted by states is pretty balanced.

And the executive power should be wielded by someone that has the true support of the majority.
This would not work in EU because the countries have extremely varying needs, goals and standards.

I for one wouldn't want to see a mediterranian president of EU based on the vastly different culture of populous Spain & Italy (btw. Berlusconi ftl). What about the hideously corrupted Eastern bloc with its Poland, Bulgaria and Romania: Would you welcome an openly crooked president, huh? :tongue:

EU is not ready for state-hood, let alone direct representation, not until western standards are present in the entire EU...maybe in five decades but not now, not by a long shot.

Direct vote for position of leadership should in my opinion be at minimum a century or two away.

I've never seen the point of the electoral college....

The states get their say via equal representation in the Senate, the senior house.

The President is supposed to represent the people.

Those are my opinions. I'm not going to argue them because I'm lazy and ignorant.

This would not work in EU because the countries have extremely varying needs, goals and standards.

I for one wouldn't want to see a mediterranian president of EU based on the vastly different culture of populous Spain & Italy (btw. Berlusconi ftl). What about the hideously corrupted Eastern bloc with its Poland, Bulgaria and Romania: Would you welcome an openly crooked president, huh? :tongue:

EU is not ready for state-hood, let alone direct representation, not until western standards are present in the entire EU...maybe in five decades but not now, not by a long shot.

Direct vote for position of leadership should in my opinion be at minimum a century or two away.

The problem is not in culture, but in how the existing systems are engineered so that who has power holds it forever. Be it mafia in Italy or the old Communist party in Czech Republic.
Actually being able to vote for some Irish (or whatever) candidate would be a breath of fresh air for me. Expecially if we could get the rules I talked about before.
That and voters actually caring about the program they are voting for. I'm so sick of if you don't vote for us the commies are going to win campaigns.

The President is supposed to represent the people.

I know you're not going to argue your points, but no the President isn't supposed to represent the people. The electoral college method of selecting the President is a balance in representing the states as political communities and the people as a whole.

Brilliant. Look China wins again. Boy, oh, boy, would that government be a great thing for Europe, no?

Europe could side with India and win ;)

Rank Country Population Date of Information
1 World 6,706,993,152 July 2008 est.
2 China 1,330,044,544 July 2008 est.
3 India 1,147,995,904 July 2008 est.
4 European Union 491,018,683 July 2008 est.
5 United States 303,824,640 July 2008 est.
6 Indonesia 237,512,352 July 2008 est.

And where are people getting this "the electoral college people evens the vote between rural and urban areas" horseshit? That only applies in a system where electoral votes are split proportionally in a state based on electoral blocks, which does not happen in a grand majority of states. The winner-take-all electoral college system is disenfranchising for rural voters and voters of a different political leaning. The electoral college system as a whole can no longer compensate for the disproportional populations of the states either. Thus there is no reason to continue its use.

Hey, Cruci, I know it's off topic, but out of curiosity...what exactly prompted you to emigrate to the United States to begin with? From what you keep saying, it sounds like you never really would have considered it.

This is true. I was pretty happy where I was, and was working on making a better world of the nation where I lived. My wife is American, and her little girl (now the oldest of our three) was American, so I ended up coming to where they were. I'm one of those stories of people that cross oceans for a love story, I literally arrived in America with a change of clothing and a suitcase.

Now, this is my adopted nation, and I'm going to make the world a better place, starting here.

I'm something of a Gypsy - the specific name you give to the ground under my feet is fairly unimportant to me. And citizenship of a nation is largely about where your taxes go, as far as I can tell. I consider myself to be a citizen of the World. All people are 'my people'. So, I guess I'm as happy here as I would be anywhere.

And where are people getting this "the electoral college people evens the vote between rural and urban areas" horseshit? That only applies in a system where electoral votes are split proportionally in a state based on electoral blocks, which does not happen in a grand majority of states. The winner-take-all electoral college system is disenfranchising for rural voters and voters of a different political leaning. The electoral college system as a whole can no longer compensate for the disproportional populations of the states either. Thus there is no reason to continue its use.

No, you're right, it doesn't entirely fix the problem. It does help when states like Iowa or Kansas are rural enough that there is some representation there. But there is a flaw, which is the point of this thread. Something has to be done to make it necessary for states to try to meet the needs of all their voters, not just the majority. If you disenfranchise Republicans in CA and they stop showing up to the polls, you lose standing in the federal government.

This would not work in EU because the countries have extremely varying needs, goals and standards.

I for one wouldn't want to see a mediterranian president of EU based on the vastly different culture of populous Spain & Italy (btw. Berlusconi ftl). What about the hideously corrupted Eastern bloc with its Poland, Bulgaria and Romania: Would you welcome an openly crooked president, huh? :tongue:

EU is not ready for state-hood, let alone direct representation, not until western standards are present in the entire EU...maybe in five decades but not now, not by a long shot.

Direct vote for position of leadership should in my opinion be at minimum a century or two away.

And there you go. That's actually the point of the Electoral College. It's designed because our country is no more homogenous that the EU. We have different values, different needs, different industries. The US government was designed to allow us to deal with the bigger issues as a whole, rights, defense, infrastructure, etc. It wasn't meant to be the main government. It was supposed to small, and not really particularly stronger than the states themselves that make it up.

This is true. I was pretty happy where I was, and was working on making a better world of the nation where I lived. My wife is American, and her little girl (now the oldest of our three) was American, so I ended up coming to where they were. I'm one of those stories of people that cross oceans for a love story, I literally arrived in America with a change of clothing and a suitcase.

Now, this is my adopted nation, and I'm going to make the world a better place, starting here.

I'm something of a Gypsy - the specific name you give to the ground under my feet is fairly unimportant to me. And citizenship of a nation is largely about where your taxes go, as far as I can tell. I consider myself to be a citizen of the World. All people are 'my people'. So, I guess I'm as happy here as I would be anywhere.
Fair enough. We need more people like you.

As for the electoral college: How about simply making the electoral votes proportional? That is, netting a certain percentage of the popular vote nets you a certain percentage of the electoral votes, etc etc.

Fair enough. We need more people like you.


:)

As for the electoral college: How about simply making the electoral votes proportional? That is, netting a certain percentage of the popular vote nets you a certain percentage of the electoral votes, etc etc.

I certainly prefer that idea over this allocation that basically rewards whoever is first past the post, and disenfranhcise as much as 49.9% of a state.