political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one)

May 2, 06 9:34

Post #1 of 44 Views: 1946

I saw this interview with Evan Bayh. Although I dissagree with some of his positions, I like the guy and I admire his impressive political accomplishments. I think he could've won the White House in '04 and he has a very good chance for '08. I wouldn't be so dissapointed if that happened, given some of the alternatives. Depending on who the Republican nominee is, I could even see myself supporting him (although I grant this isn't very likely and there are possibly only three Democrats I could support - but he is one of them). Anyway, the interview is here: http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/434527.html

I noticed two answers that seem to conflict with eachother. I want to preface this by stating my hopes this doesn't turn into a mindless rip. Bayh says:

"We also need to reach out to people in the Midwest and the South and let them know that we are not cultural elitists. We share their values."

That's fine and dandy. I think that is a sound strategy for both parties. But he goes on to give this answer on why he supports doing away with the Electoral College:

"I think our president should be chosen by the majority of the American people. That is ordinarily the case. But in 2000, as we all recall, we elected this president with fewer votes than the other candidate got. I just don't think in the modern era that is appropriate."

Don't the two statements conflict? If the Electoral Collage is abolished, doesn't that disenfranchise all voters that live in flyover country? How are midwestern values shared if their votes are suppressed by a much larger coastal population?

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [stl_triness] [ In reply to ]

May 2, 06 9:50

Post #2 of 44 Views: 1932

In Reply To:

Don't the two statements conflict? If the Electoral Collage is abolished, doesn't that disenfranchise all voters that live in flyover country? How are midwestern values shared if their votes are suppressed by a much larger coastal population?

I disagree. My vote in 2004 for Kerry was mostly a ceremonial gesture, as my state (also Bayh's state) has gone Republican since the late 1960s. Not surprisingly, I don't think Kerry even stopped here during his campaign because it was a foregone conclusion he would lose Indiana. Candidates know how the electoral college works and schedule visits as such. Removing the electoral college puts every vote in play, not just those in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and a few other swing states.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]

May 2, 06 9:59

Post #3 of 44 Views: 1924

Right. I see your point, but wouldn't it be the same with no electoral college? With the playing field the way it is now, no Democrat has any incentive to visit Indiana or Wyoming or a handfull of other states. And no Republican has much of a reason to visit New York, Vermont or Massachusets for the same reason you pointed out. The red/blue states are, for the most part, pretty well marked. The campaign visits and battles are held in the purple states. With no electoral college vote, no politician has any reason to visit ANYWHERE except the large coastal metropolitan areas.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]

May 2, 06 10:04

Post #4 of 44 Views: 1918

I think your concern would be better addressed by petitioning your state's legislature to change how electors are picked. My recollection is that there is no Constitutional requirement that all the electors go to the winner of any particular state. In fact, as I recall, the Constitution does not even require that electors be chosen by a vote. I think our electoral process is superior to a simple majority rule. After all, I think it is only twice in our history that the electoral winner was not also the general vote winner.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [stl_triness] [ In reply to ]

May 2, 06 10:18

Post #5 of 44 Views: 1911

I don't think that neccesarily follows. There are plenty of Republicans in New York, just as there are plenty of Democrats in Indiana. Eliminating the electoral college simply means that everyone's vote matters. There's plenty of apathy in states that have a high percentage one way or the other, enough that some people say "why bother". And, as much as we might disagree on the when and where, there IS electoral fraud that goes on. Eliminating the electoral college would vastly reduce the potential for fraud in one particular state to sway a national election one way or the other. Regardless of which way you think Florida 2000 went, a narrow number of votes in that state swayed the entire election. I don't like that. Remove the electoral college and you remove that opportunity.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [stl_triness] [ In reply to ]

May 2, 06 12:14

Post #6 of 44 Views: 1870

Quote:

The campaign visits and battles are held in the purple states.

Therein, perhaps, lies the answer.

All the states are purple states, actually. And, perhaps, if the EC votes were allocated by congressional district, with the Senate votes going to the winner, perhaps things would be different, and the politicos would campagn in the 'flyover states'.

Not that I'm actually proposing that the EC be changed, just an alternative to eliminating it. I'd like to think that Tom and Ben and the boys knew a little bit about Constitution writing.

---
"You'll find a slight squeeze on the hooter an excellent safety precaution, Miss Scrumptious."

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [Xenu] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 8:07

Post #7 of 44 Views: 1830

The Constitution is based on the assumption that, not only did people have individual rights, but the states had rights as well. That is why we got the Electoral College--so small states did not get run over by the interests of large states. Evan Bayh may not have thought the issue through, but eliminating the EC would probably hurt his state. Amending the Constitution to provide for direct election of Senators was another big erosion of the rights of the states.

Here's an interesting factoid--did you know that staes are not Constitutionally bound to even hold an election to select their EC Electors? The states may appoint them in any manner the legislature so chooses. IOW, they could have a WWF cage match winner take all contest if they wanted to. That is why all the "experts" running around during the 2000 election spouting off about how "every vote must count" were so pathetic.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [tri_bri2] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 8:18

Post #8 of 44 Views: 1823

The Constitution is based on the assumption that, not only did people have individual rights, but the states had rights as well.

Meh. That's why we have the Senate.

Plus, if smaller states have fewer electoral votes than larger ones, how does the EC help them? I sat get rid of the whole thing and go to a popular vote. The system is screwed up right now.

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 8:56

Post #9 of 44 Views: 1813

I'll bet Indiana has seen a large net loss of Republicans in the last two years. :) Aren't the Dems seeing that as a possible swing state now?

But, we'll see.

-Robert

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 9:01

Post #10 of 44 Views: 1811

If a state has say, 8% of the total population, they may have 10-12% of the EC votes. This is because they get one vote per Congressional District, which is based on population, and one vote for each senator. So--their influence as a state is relatively increased the smaller the state is population-wise.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [tri_bri2] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 9:04

Post #11 of 44 Views: 1808

Why should a presidental vote from sticksville, wherever count more than a vote from someone who happens to live in California, New York, or Illinois?

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 9:24

Post #12 of 44 Views: 1799

So that a few large states cannot dictate who the president is and disenfranchise a lot of smaller states.

If 120,000 votes had gone the other way in Ohio, you'd be happy as a pig in shit, I bet, because Kerry would be president even though he lost the popular vote by a wide margin and only won 20 or 21 states.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [tri_bri2] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 9:57

Post #13 of 44 Views: 1782

Isn't that what's happening anyway? Census 2000:

1. California

2. Texas

3. New York

4. Florida

5. Illinois

6. Pennsylvania

7. Ohio

Looks to me like big states 4 and 7 were the deciding factors the last two elections.

Edit: And no, I wouldn't have been happy if Kerry had won the election but not the popular vote. One of the reasons I'd like to see the electoral college go away is so that the president is always elected by a majority of the population, even if this were to require a run off aganst two cadidates with less than 50% of the total vote.

Last edited by: peter826: May 3, 06 10:03

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 9:59

Post #14 of 44 Views: 1781

There's plenty of apathy in states that have a high percentage one way or the other, enough that some people say "why bother".

I think that's likely true in any (and possibly EVERY) state that has one major city ... such as my state of IL, which has that one biggish city with all the wind and tower and stuff.

We're a traditional blue state, and if you tell people that "every vote matters", you're likely going to get a laugh in the face or just ignored. The outcome of Illinois might as well be predetermined .. as it was in the "Capone" days (or during the Kennedy election ... whoops did I just say that?).

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 10:18

Post #15 of 44 Views: 1768

If Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he would have been President.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [tri_bri2] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 10:36

Post #16 of 44 Views: 1763

The Constitution is based on the assumption that, not only did people have individual rights, but the states had rights as well.

Bah. Federalism is dying, as a concept. People just don't believe in it anymore. I would not be at all surprised to see the EC abolished within my lifetime.

The states may appoint them in any manner the legislature so chooses.

True, and given that, I'm sort of surprised that more people haven't tried to change their own state's method of appointing electors. I know at least one state requires their electoral votes to be proportianate to the popular vote in that state. If people don't like the all or nothing system, they can change that pretty easily in their own state, probably.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [tri_bri2] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 10:37

Post #17 of 44 Views: 1763

In Reply To:

So that a few large states cannot dictate who the president is and disenfranchise a lot of smaller states.

Can you name me an actual scenario where a popular vote would disenfranchise smaller states?

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 10:57

Post #18 of 44 Views: 1744

I know at least one state requires their electoral votes to be proportianate to the popular vote in that state. If people don't like the all or nothing system, they can change that pretty easily in their own state, probably.

That's a good idea too.

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 11:01

Post #19 of 44 Views: 1741

Montana (generally Republican) has 928,000 residents. California (generally Democrat) has 36 million residents. Even if every person of voting age in Montana voted Republican, its interests in the selection of the President would be completely overwhelmed by the voters in California. Because of the electoral college, Montana's voice can be heard even if it only has three electoral votes.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 11:06

Post #20 of 44 Views: 1738

Can you name me an actual scenario where a popular vote would disenfranchise smaller states?

I'm sure such a scenario could be postulated. Whether or not it would actually happen is dependent on a lot of variables.

But consider this analogy: When I lived in Maryland, the governor was elected even though he lost the popular vote in every county in the mostly rural state except one- Baltimore County. Of course, there's no equivalent of the EC on the state level, and that's just how it goes. But the end result is that the state's governor was elected by one populous county whose interests were probably not reflective of the interests of the rest of the state.

Similar things happen in both Washington state and Idaho, actually. Seattle and Boise dominate state politics by virtue of population numbers, and the people spread throughout the rest of the state arguably are not represented equally.

The EC is designed to mitigate that kind of effect on the national level.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [Brick] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 11:26

Post #21 of 44 Views: 1720

In Reply To:

Montana (generally Republican) has 928,000 residents. California (generally Democrat) has 36 million residents. Even if every person of voting age in Montana voted Republican, its interests in the selection of the President would be completely overwhelmed by the voters in California. Because of the electoral college, Montana's voice can be heard even if it only has three electoral votes.

That math doesnt always work Brick.

California ~34 million residents, 55 electoral votes

Montana ~1 million, 3 electoral votes.

In a hypothetical election, California goes 60/40 to the Democrats, Montana 90/10 to the Republicans. Under the EC, you now have 55 votes D, 3 votes R. Between the two states, 95% of the combined votes go to the Dems.

Take the same results with simply a popular vote.

Dems: (60% x 34) + (10% x 1) = 20.5 million votes

Repubs: (40% x 34) + (90% x 1) = 14.5 million votes.

Under a straight popular vote, only 59% of the votes go to Democrats. Republicans fare much better.

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 11:30

Post #22 of 44 Views: 1714

Similar things happen in both Washington state and Idaho, actually. Seattle and Boise dominate state politics by virtue of population numbers, and the people spread throughout the rest of the state arguably are not represented equally.

Same thing happens in Illinios too. But 1) the situation is not really analgous on the national level. And 2), who cares? The people out in the country are represented exactly proportionally to their population. Why should you feel you should be represented according to the surface area you take up? All that is is some wacky affirmative action for less populous states/counties.

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 11:37

Post #23 of 44 Views: 1706

I don't think you'd ever get 2/3's of both Houses of Congress plus ratification from 3/4's of all states in favor of abolishing the EC. No way. Only 12 states have to vote not to ratify to kill it. Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Alabama, Mississippi--there's 15 right there. Colorado just defeated a state amendment to split up their electoral vote. Wasn't even close as I recall.

So, we're really wasting our time even debating it IMO. But then, what is the LR for?

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 11:37

Post #24 of 44 Views: 1706

the situation is not really analgous on the national level.

Why not?

who cares?

People who live in less populous states, I guess.

The people out in the country are represented exactly proportionally to their population. Why should you feel you should be represented according to the surface area you take up?

Yeah, the people out in the country are represented exactly proportionally to their population, or would be in a popular vote. The point is not geographic, it's that if you live in a state that's sparsely populated, that state likely has a lot of different interests and needs than a more densely populated state, and under a popular election type of system, those interests are never going to get representation.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 11:41

Post #25 of 44 Views: 1698

It seems to me like those interests get representation in the house and particularly the senate, with equal representation from all states.

What decisions is the president making that have such an effect on any one particular state, and how does that state having more electoral votes make a difference?

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 11:57

Post #26 of 44 Views: 869

Who are we kidding? The 1% rules America regardless of elections.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 11:57

Post #27 of 44 Views: 869

Why not?

For one thing, the big state/small state difference isn't as neat as the urban/rural difference when talking about state elections.

People who live in less populous states, I guess.

Tough shit. I'm all for protecting the minority, but I don't think giving them extra votes is the solution.

those interests are never going to get representation

They get representation the Senate. So what if they get less representation in the presidential vote?

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 11:58

Post #28 of 44 Views: 866

What decisions is the president making that have such an effect on any one particular state, and how does that state having more electoral votes make a difference?

Thanks - this is what I was trying to get at.

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 12:02

Post #29 of 44 Views: 864

What decisions is the president making that have such an effect on any one particular state, and how does that state having more electoral votes make a difference?

OK, just as one example- logging.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 12:09

Post #30 of 44 Views: 859

Can you elaborate, or point me toward a source that discusses how a presidential decision on logging effects one particular state? I know nothing about logging, sorry.

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 12:19

Post #31 of 44 Views: 857

OK. Here in Idaho logging is (or was) a big part of the economy. Same thing for at least a couple of other sparsely populated states.

In the later days of the Clinton presidency, he imposed a ban on logging in 60 million acres of national forests. 9 million of those acres were in Idaho. I'm sure most of the country didn't care all that much, and also that a lot of people in some of the more populous states thought it was great. Here in Idaho, not so much. In addition to the economic impact, we had to worry about a seriously increased risk of forest fires. (I remember, actually, a lot of comments from outside the state to the effect of "Tough," about the increased risk of fires.)

It's just one small example, but illustrative, I think. This is one of the interests smaller states have that would get even less consideration under a system of popular election.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 12:29

Post #32 of 44 Views: 851

You miss my point and that is likely because I identified the states by political party. Without the electoral college, the residents of Montana would have practically no say in who is elected president. The states with overwhelmingly large populations will always prevail. I think the electoral college requires a successful candidate to appeal to appeal to residents of more states than a popular vote system. Ask yourself this question: If you were the Governor of a sparsely populated state, and you had to decide whether a popular vote or the electoral college system would better represent your state's interest in the selection of the president, which system would you choose?

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [Brick] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 12:55

Post #33 of 44 Views: 838

You miss my point and that is likely because I identified the states by political party. Without the electoral college, the residents of Montana would have practically no say in who is elected president.

I didn't miss your point, I pointed out that the point was a logical fallacy. Doesn't do you any good if you get a tiny bit of extra influence when the system screws folks in other states who may think like you. And even if you're looking at issues specific to Montana only... Montana gets more influence under the EC, but not that much more. You can't really say that 1 vote is no say whatsoever, but 3 votes really makes their voices heard.

I think the electoral college requires a successful candidate to appeal to appeal to residents of more states than a popular vote system

No, it requires them to appeal to the voters of swing states. If a state is locked one way or another, even if only by a 10-15% margin, the minorty in that state essentially gets no vote. And that's the problem.

If you were the Governor of a sparsely populated state, and you had to decide whether a popular vote or the electoral college system would better represent your state's interest in the selection of the president, which system would you choose?

Almost no one voluntarily gives up power. Doesn't mean the status quo is right though.

_______________________________________________

Last edited by: jhc: May 3, 06 13:03

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 13:31

Post #34 of 44 Views: 829

States with a lot of federal land are going to be at the whim of the federal government, and the consequences have more to do with the politics of the president (Clinton banned logging, Bush wants to open ANWR) than the small bit of influence that might be lost by going to a popular vote.

You want to save logging? You do better if you allowed Republicans in California and Illinois to actually have a say in the presidential election IMO.

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 13:40

Post #35 of 44 Views: 823

States with a lot of federal land are going to be at the whim of the federal government, and the consequences have more to do with the politics of the president (Clinton banned logging, Bush wants to open ANWR) than the small bit of influence that might be lost by going to a popular vote

It was just an example, jhc. The point here is not Republican vs Democrat- it's that different states have different interests, and the EC helps stop the bigger states from trampling all over the smaller states' interests in a presidential election.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 13:47

Post #36 of 44 Views: 817

It was just an example, jhc. The point here is not Republican vs Democrat- it's that different states have different interests, and the EC helps stop the bigger states from trampling all over the smaller states' interests in a presidential election.

1. I'm not al all convinced that residents of smaller states have such unique interests that are not shared by other residents of larger states, and even if they did

2. I'm not at all convinced that the EC provides much in the way of tangible protection, and even if it did

3. Whatver benefit doesn't outweigh a screwed up system where the minority in any state, no matter how numerous, is completely disenfranchised, and the presidential election hinges on a few swing states every time.

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 14:01

Post #37 of 44 Views: 811

I'm not al all convinced that residents of smaller states have such unique interests that are not shared by other residents of larger states

Come on. Sure they do. Again, having nothing to do with Republican versus Democrat- different states have different interests. Florida's interests are different than California's interests, which are different than Wyoming's interests which are different than Vermont's interests.

I'm not at all convinced that the EC provides much in the way of tangible protection

It doesn't provide any guarantees, of course. It's a compromise solution. It's designed to help provide a measure of protection to states like the one I live in- presidential candidates have to give a little more consideration to Idaho's voters than they would in a direct election. Not much more, but a little.

Whatver benefit doesn't outweigh a screwed up system where the minority in any state, no matter how numerous, is completely disenfranchised, and the presidential election hinges on a few swing states every time.

Simple solution for that is for you to change your state's method of allocating electoral college votes.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 14:14

Post #38 of 44 Views: 803

Since we're changing things, can we stop voting on Tuesday. How about voting at anytime over the two day period of Friday and Saturday?

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [GJS] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 14:17

Post #39 of 44 Views: 798

How about we keep it on Tuesday, but mandate a day off for everyone by law?

;)

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 14:17

Post #40 of 44 Views: 798

Simple solution for that is for you to change your state's method of allocating electoral college votes.

If every state did that I'd be happy.

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 14:24

Post #41 of 44 Views: 793

If every state did that I'd be happy.

You are destined to be unhappy, then.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 14:25

Post #42 of 44 Views: 791

In Reply To:

If every state did that I'd be happy.

You are destined to be unhappy, then.

you're telling me

_______________________________________________

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 14:27

Post #43 of 44 Views: 790

okay, as long as the children and the illegal immigrants have to keep working on that day.

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [GJS] [ In reply to ]

May 3, 06 14:31

Post #44 of 44 Views: 787

as long as the children and the illegal immigrants have to keep working on that day.

Hey, whatever it takes to keep them from voting.

;)

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.