political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one)

May 2, 06 9:34

Post #1 of 44 (1964 views)

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 (1950 views)

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 (1942 views)

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 (1936 views)

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 (1929 views)

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 (1888 views)

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 (1848 views)

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 (1841 views)

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 (1831 views)

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 (1829 views)

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 (1826 views)

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 (1817 views)

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 (1800 views)

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 (1799 views)

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 (1786 views)

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 (1781 views)

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 (1781 views)

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 (1762 views)

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 (1759 views)

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 (1756 views)

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 (1738 views)

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 (1732 views)

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 (1724 views)

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 (1724 views)

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 (1716 views)

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?

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.