Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Who are we kidding? The 1% rules America regardless of elections.
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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?

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [peter826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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?
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [Brick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [GJS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
If every state did that I'd be happy.

You are destined to be unhappy, then.
you're telling me

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: political observation (hopefully a kindler, gentler one) [GJS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply

Prev Next