IMO, the electoral college is IMO, the electoral college is an anachronism that should be eliminated after this election. It reduces the marginal value of any voter that doesn’t reside in a “battleground state,” while doing just the opposite for voters in those select states.
meadandale
September 9, 2008 @
9:13 AM
It’s funny because I was It’s funny because I was having this very debate last night.
Eliminating the Electoral College would mean that the population centers on the coasts would largely be responsible for the election of the president and you’d essentially be disenfranchising all those people in the fly over states.
Most of the population centers vote overwhelmingly democratic (since that’s where the poor people are and they’ll vote for the person that ‘gives them stuff’). Most of the fly over states are overwhelmingly conservative.
And not surprisingly, most people that want to eliminate the electoral college are Democrats.
As with most of the institutions they conceived, the founding fathers establishment of the Electoral College was brilliant in what it achieved.
jficquette
September 9, 2008 @
9:32 AM
meadandale wrote:It’s funny [quote=meadandale]It’s funny because I was having this very debate last night.
Eliminating the Electoral College would mean that the population centers on the coasts would largely be responsible for the election of the president and you’d essentially be disenfranchising all those people in the fly over states.
Most of the population centers vote overwhelmingly democratic (since that’s where the poor people are and they’ll vote for the person that ‘gives them stuff’). Most of the fly over states are overwhelmingly conservative.
And not surprisingly, most people that want to eliminate the electoral college are Democrats.
As with most of the institutions they conceived, the founding fathers establishment of the Electoral College was brilliant in what it achieved.[/quote]
I didn’t realize how brillant it was until the 2000 Election. Your’re right. If we didn’t have it we would have the entire country ran by those giving the hand outs to those in the big urban centers.
John
Aecetia
September 9, 2008 @
9:43 AM
Bread and circuses. Bread and circuses.
seattle-relo
September 9, 2008 @
10:09 AM
jficquette wrote:meadandale [quote=jficquette][quote=meadandale]It’s funny because I was having this very debate last night.
Eliminating the Electoral College would mean that the population centers on the coasts would largely be responsible for the election of the president and you’d essentially be disenfranchising all those people in the fly over states.
Most of the population centers vote overwhelmingly democratic (since that’s where the poor people are and they’ll vote for the person that ‘gives them stuff’). Most of the fly over states are overwhelmingly conservative.
And not surprisingly, most people that want to eliminate the electoral college are Democrats.
As with most of the institutions they conceived, the founding fathers establishment of the Electoral College was brilliant in what it achieved.[/quote]
I didn’t realize how brillant it was until the 2000 Election. Your’re right. If we didn’t have it we would have the entire country ran by those giving the hand outs to those in the big urban centers.
John[/quote]
Oh yes, thank god Bush stole (oops, I mean won) that election. He has been the best president ever!
John , what state did you grow up in? Just curious.
jficquette
September 9, 2008 @
10:32 AM
seattle-relo wrote:jficquette [quote=seattle-relo][quote=jficquette][quote=meadandale]It’s funny because I was having this very debate last night.
Eliminating the Electoral College would mean that the population centers on the coasts would largely be responsible for the election of the president and you’d essentially be disenfranchising all those people in the fly over states.
Most of the population centers vote overwhelmingly democratic (since that’s where the poor people are and they’ll vote for the person that ‘gives them stuff’). Most of the fly over states are overwhelmingly conservative.
And not surprisingly, most people that want to eliminate the electoral college are Democrats.
As with most of the institutions they conceived, the founding fathers establishment of the Electoral College was brilliant in what it achieved.[/quote]
I didn’t realize how brillant it was until the 2000 Election. Your’re right. If we didn’t have it we would have the entire country ran by those giving the hand outs to those in the big urban centers.
John[/quote]
Oh yes, thank god Bush stole (oops, I mean won) that election. He has been the best president ever!
John , what state did you grow up in? Just curious.
[/quote]
Gore tried to steal the election but our system didn’t allow it. His idea of just recounting Democratic counties is something Stalin would have come up with.
I grew up Alabama. I left when I graduated college and moved to Atlanta, then New Orleans, then Houston, then back to Atlanta then here in 1998, back to Atlanta in 2006 back here in 2007.
John
Mark Holmes
September 9, 2008 @
11:51 AM
John.
Seriously?
Gore tried John.
Seriously?
Gore tried to steal the election?
You must watch Fox News and listen to Limbaugh every day.
Gore, some remember, won half-a-million more votes in 2000. Actually, it was 543,816. But why should we count every vote, right?
jficquette
September 9, 2008 @
12:07 PM
Mark Holmes [quote=Mark Holmes]John.
Seriously?
Gore tried to steal the election?
You must watch Fox News and listen to Limbaugh every day.
Gore, some remember, won half-a-million more votes in 2000. Actually, it was 543,816. But why should we count every vote, right?[/quote]
Yes Gore tried to steal the election by vote rigging and manipliation. Democrats more then likely stole the 1960 election do but Nixon didn’t want to drag the country through it.
Democrats love to steal votes, double count, allow illegals to vote, lie cheat etc whatever it takes to win, except nominate a candidate that the public thinks is worthy.
John
seattle-relo
September 9, 2008 @
12:20 PM
John – I thought you were John – I thought you were from the south (I guessed either Georgia or Louisiana)…I could almost hear a southern accent coming through your posts…I mean that in a good way, even though your a Bush lover! 🙂
jficquette
September 9, 2008 @
12:38 PM
seattle-relo wrote:John – I [quote=seattle-relo]John – I thought you were from the south (I guessed either Georgia or Louisiana)…I could almost hear a southern accent coming through your posts…I mean that in a good way, even though your a Bush lover! :)[/quote]
Most people who meet me think I am from Texas! Good guess about being from the South!
Thanks
John
equalizer
September 9, 2008 @
9:11 PM
Follow the money
I have been Follow the money
I have been calling dems dumb for a long time and can ignore some of their ideas cause they are too busy working at the mart to pick up a book. However, when some of my fellow republicans make grandiose claims it is truly frightening. Frightening cause even if the soundbite works (cause it fits the common perception), and the hypothesis is misleading at best, they don’t care. Anything to insult their fellow Americans, should we just deport everyone from welfare blue states?
For example, take the claim that all the blue states are welfare states. #1 myth in USA.
N.J. gets lowest state return on its federal tax dollars 61 cents per dollar. (check the jn.com link, repb’ posters want MORE earmarks!)
In fiscal year 2004, New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota (range from 1.7-2.0 to 1) received substantially more from the federal government than they paid in taxes, while New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Illinois paid much more in taxes than they received in spending.
Of course, big reason for this huge discrepancy is pop. density, infrastructure to people ratio. But avg salaries are higher in blue states and that cant be ignored. But I digress, all the people I remember near Cedar Point (Ohio) were driving a Cadillac in the 70’s, while richest New Yorkers were driving Pintos.
“In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Al Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending. A state’s ratio of federal spending to tax dollars, particularly non-defense spending, is a statistically and substantively significant predictor of Bush’s margin of victory across the states.” [Predictor, not causation, correlation], that’s why election was likely over before it started.
The electoral college is a The electoral college is a system to ensure that everyone gets a say in the choice of Prez. It is a way to keep the pandering to the masses to a minimum, because you now have to pander to ALL the masses, and that is alot harder than it seems. Back when politics was a national past time (yes, americans use to care)it was a brilliant idea.
And Bush didnt steal the election, stupid people lost it. (Seriously. Show up on preselected day, punch hole in card, go home. How hard is that?) Same as the Chargers didnt have that game stolen from them, they just had fewer points at the end of the game, even if they had ‘better’ plays and players in the game.
desmond
September 9, 2008 @
12:42 PM
I would say if they lose to I would say if they lose to the Aztecs, not sure when they play, then yes, drop them.
HereWeGo
September 9, 2008 @
3:04 PM
Bush won the popular vote in Bush won the popular vote in 2004, so I’m not sure I agree with the comment about the elimination of the Electoral College ensuring Democratic victories.
It’s ridiculous to have “battleground” states. This is a national election for the presidency. Every citizen’s vote should count equally, regardless of their location.
Can anyone doubt that the auto companies’ chutzpah in demanding another 25B before the election is due in large part to Michigan’s status as a “battleground” state?
Eugene
September 9, 2008 @
3:51 PM
Electoral college is an Electoral college is an archaic system, it is unfairly biased towards fly-over states, and it makes voters in many states (e.g. California and Texas) irrelevant. But it is almost impossible to replace, because an amendment to change it would need to be approved by the House and the Senate and then ratified by 38 state legislatures. Most fly-over states and their senators would not want to give up their powers.
meadandale
September 9, 2008 @
3:53 PM
esmith wrote:Electoral [quote=esmith]Electoral college is an archaic system, it is unfairly biased towards fly-over states, and it makes voters in many states (e.g. California and Texas) irrelevant. But it is almost impossible to replace, because an amendment to change it would need to be approved by the House and the Senate and then ratified by 38 state legislatures. Most fly-over states and their senators would not want to give up their powers.
[/quote]
It’s hardly ‘biased’ towards the fly over states. Rather, it ensures that they are represented at the national level.
This is a more eloquent argument than I could make:
A vote is a vote. Why should A vote is a vote. Why should a vote in California or Texas (700,000 people/elector) matter less than a vote in Rhode Island or South Dakota (260,000 people/elector)? And why should a vote of a Republican in CA or a Democrat in TX be irrelevant because their states would end up sending all their electors to vote Democrat or Republican, with so much certainty that most presidential candidates won’t even bother running their ads there?
I wouldn’t be so much against the electoral college if it was fair. If all states got the level of representation that’s proportional to their population, and all electors were allocated in proportion to the popular vote in their state. But that’s even less likely to happen.
Eugene
September 9, 2008 @
4:16 PM
meadandale wrote:
This is a [quote=meadandale]
This is a more eloquent argument than I could make:
Cato Institute is a Republican think tank, and Bush only won the 2000 election because of the electoral college. What position did you expect??
The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.
Amazing, just amazing. Here’s your making sure no state is left behind:
esmith: Partisanship aside, esmith: Partisanship aside, the Cato article does make one very important and often overlooked point: The Founding Fathers made a republic and not a democracy.
While many people don’t fully understand the differences and tend to treat them as being the same thing, they aren’t.
jficquette
September 9, 2008 @
4:33 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]esmith: Partisanship aside, the Cato article does make one very important and often overlooked point: The Founding Fathers made a republic and not a democracy.
While many people don’t fully understand the differences and tend to treat them as being the same thing, they aren’t.[/quote]
I was going to make that comment too. We are republic of 50 states and not a pure democracy.
John
Arraya
September 10, 2008 @
10:01 AM
The reality is that our The reality is that our Constitution empowers the interests of the most backwards and insular parts of the country over the interests of the more populous, advanced, educated, wealthy, and cosmopolitan parts.
This is why the right uses words like elite to describe democrats. This is why Palin was a good strategy. MIndlessness as a tool.
Ironically, fly over country has been completely fucked by the people they vote for. They raise a lot of emotionally laden insignificant issues like abortion, religion and guns to keep them solidified however those issues don’t raise their standard of living. All the right has to do is let them keep their guns, say they don’t like abortion and mumble some bullshit about religion and they win. What really affects people such as financial matters is a little to complex for the majority. And as far as foreign policy all they have to do is say we are fighting for freedom and nobody questions because it would be unpatriotic. Just label a country a “terrorist state” and off to the races we go and if it happens to make a few people wealthy, well that was just an unintended consequence of good ole american capitalism. Even more irony is that it is fly over country people that will be dying for our global domination wars, er I mean freedom wars.
So they get double fucked, jobs outsourced, standard of living diminished and sent of to die for some ill conceived war. But hey they get a hot chick that shoots guns and babbles about God’s will for VP so it’s a ok
The one sole enjoyment I will get after McIdiot and Pussygalore win the election is the watching the contorted logic the right will use to explain why the country is such a mess. I’m sure it will include liberal elites, Islamofascists, which is an oxymoron, clinton or the russians.
Anonymous
September 10, 2008 @
2:17 PM
IMHO I don’t think the IMHO I don’t think the electoral college should ever trumph the popular vote.
I also think there should be certain intellectual and psychological tests that a president and anyone elected to public office must pass. Think about that…
MadeInTaiwan
September 10, 2008 @
4:19 PM
I think good compromise is I think good compromise is not to award electoral votes as winner takes all per state, which is the method for all save two states.
For example, California has 55 electoral votes. Let’s say Obama wins 60% of popular vote. The state could award the two electoral votes (representing the senators) to Obama. That leaves 53, x 0.6 gives you 31.8 rounded up to 32. This method would give Obama 34 instead of all 55 electoral votes. Another variation “The Congressional district method” would award winner of each district one electoral vote.
I think some combination of this method will tilt slightly more towards population centers while maintaining some form of Republicanism. I’d like to think this will convert “Battleground states” to at least a lot more “Battleground districts” at the very least you don’t ignore entire states. The middle of U.S will not get completely ignored either. The electoral outcome will closer resemble the national vote, and we will less likely to have winner of electoral vote be the loser of the popular vote. There is an additional benefit (at least in my mind) that contesting votes or suppressing votes (depending on who you ask) will be too expensive. So a few cases of misconduct here or there will less likely turn the election. Either that or we see massive election mayhem, lawsuits, which in turn will force the entire country to take on the problem.
But with each state controlling how it allocates its electoral votes this will likely not happen. As no party will allow any state that it controls Dems in California and Repubs in Texas to enact such a change because it will lead to a loss to the next Presidential election.
I seem to recall that Texas Repubs help fund such a California consitutional change after defeating the same in Texas.
September 8, 2008 @ 6:34 PM
IMO, the electoral college is
IMO, the electoral college is an anachronism that should be eliminated after this election. It reduces the marginal value of any voter that doesn’t reside in a “battleground state,” while doing just the opposite for voters in those select states.
September 9, 2008 @ 9:13 AM
It’s funny because I was
It’s funny because I was having this very debate last night.
Eliminating the Electoral College would mean that the population centers on the coasts would largely be responsible for the election of the president and you’d essentially be disenfranchising all those people in the fly over states.
Most of the population centers vote overwhelmingly democratic (since that’s where the poor people are and they’ll vote for the person that ‘gives them stuff’). Most of the fly over states are overwhelmingly conservative.
And not surprisingly, most people that want to eliminate the electoral college are Democrats.
As with most of the institutions they conceived, the founding fathers establishment of the Electoral College was brilliant in what it achieved.
September 9, 2008 @ 9:32 AM
meadandale wrote:It’s funny
[quote=meadandale]It’s funny because I was having this very debate last night.
Eliminating the Electoral College would mean that the population centers on the coasts would largely be responsible for the election of the president and you’d essentially be disenfranchising all those people in the fly over states.
Most of the population centers vote overwhelmingly democratic (since that’s where the poor people are and they’ll vote for the person that ‘gives them stuff’). Most of the fly over states are overwhelmingly conservative.
And not surprisingly, most people that want to eliminate the electoral college are Democrats.
As with most of the institutions they conceived, the founding fathers establishment of the Electoral College was brilliant in what it achieved.[/quote]
I didn’t realize how brillant it was until the 2000 Election. Your’re right. If we didn’t have it we would have the entire country ran by those giving the hand outs to those in the big urban centers.
John
September 9, 2008 @ 9:43 AM
Bread and circuses.
Bread and circuses.
September 9, 2008 @ 10:09 AM
jficquette wrote:meadandale
[quote=jficquette][quote=meadandale]It’s funny because I was having this very debate last night.
Eliminating the Electoral College would mean that the population centers on the coasts would largely be responsible for the election of the president and you’d essentially be disenfranchising all those people in the fly over states.
Most of the population centers vote overwhelmingly democratic (since that’s where the poor people are and they’ll vote for the person that ‘gives them stuff’). Most of the fly over states are overwhelmingly conservative.
And not surprisingly, most people that want to eliminate the electoral college are Democrats.
As with most of the institutions they conceived, the founding fathers establishment of the Electoral College was brilliant in what it achieved.[/quote]
I didn’t realize how brillant it was until the 2000 Election. Your’re right. If we didn’t have it we would have the entire country ran by those giving the hand outs to those in the big urban centers.
John[/quote]
Oh yes, thank god Bush stole (oops, I mean won) that election. He has been the best president ever!
John , what state did you grow up in? Just curious.
September 9, 2008 @ 10:32 AM
seattle-relo wrote:jficquette
[quote=seattle-relo][quote=jficquette][quote=meadandale]It’s funny because I was having this very debate last night.
Eliminating the Electoral College would mean that the population centers on the coasts would largely be responsible for the election of the president and you’d essentially be disenfranchising all those people in the fly over states.
Most of the population centers vote overwhelmingly democratic (since that’s where the poor people are and they’ll vote for the person that ‘gives them stuff’). Most of the fly over states are overwhelmingly conservative.
And not surprisingly, most people that want to eliminate the electoral college are Democrats.
As with most of the institutions they conceived, the founding fathers establishment of the Electoral College was brilliant in what it achieved.[/quote]
I didn’t realize how brillant it was until the 2000 Election. Your’re right. If we didn’t have it we would have the entire country ran by those giving the hand outs to those in the big urban centers.
John[/quote]
Oh yes, thank god Bush stole (oops, I mean won) that election. He has been the best president ever!
John , what state did you grow up in? Just curious.
[/quote]
Gore tried to steal the election but our system didn’t allow it. His idea of just recounting Democratic counties is something Stalin would have come up with.
I grew up Alabama. I left when I graduated college and moved to Atlanta, then New Orleans, then Houston, then back to Atlanta then here in 1998, back to Atlanta in 2006 back here in 2007.
John
September 9, 2008 @ 11:51 AM
John.
Seriously?
Gore tried
John.
Seriously?
Gore tried to steal the election?
You must watch Fox News and listen to Limbaugh every day.
Gore, some remember, won half-a-million more votes in 2000. Actually, it was 543,816. But why should we count every vote, right?
September 9, 2008 @ 12:07 PM
Mark Holmes
[quote=Mark Holmes]John.
Seriously?
Gore tried to steal the election?
You must watch Fox News and listen to Limbaugh every day.
Gore, some remember, won half-a-million more votes in 2000. Actually, it was 543,816. But why should we count every vote, right?[/quote]
Yes Gore tried to steal the election by vote rigging and manipliation. Democrats more then likely stole the 1960 election do but Nixon didn’t want to drag the country through it.
Democrats love to steal votes, double count, allow illegals to vote, lie cheat etc whatever it takes to win, except nominate a candidate that the public thinks is worthy.
John
September 9, 2008 @ 12:20 PM
John – I thought you were
John – I thought you were from the south (I guessed either Georgia or Louisiana)…I could almost hear a southern accent coming through your posts…I mean that in a good way, even though your a Bush lover! 🙂
September 9, 2008 @ 12:38 PM
seattle-relo wrote:John – I
[quote=seattle-relo]John – I thought you were from the south (I guessed either Georgia or Louisiana)…I could almost hear a southern accent coming through your posts…I mean that in a good way, even though your a Bush lover! :)[/quote]
Most people who meet me think I am from Texas! Good guess about being from the South!
Thanks
John
September 9, 2008 @ 9:11 PM
Follow the money
I have been
Follow the money
I have been calling dems dumb for a long time and can ignore some of their ideas cause they are too busy working at the mart to pick up a book. However, when some of my fellow republicans make grandiose claims it is truly frightening. Frightening cause even if the soundbite works (cause it fits the common perception), and the hypothesis is misleading at best, they don’t care. Anything to insult their fellow Americans, should we just deport everyone from welfare blue states?
For example, take the claim that all the blue states are welfare states. #1 myth in USA.
N.J. gets lowest state return on its federal tax dollars 61 cents per dollar. (check the jn.com link, repb’ posters want MORE earmarks!)
In fiscal year 2004, New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota (range from 1.7-2.0 to 1) received substantially more from the federal government than they paid in taxes, while New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Illinois paid much more in taxes than they received in spending.
Of course, big reason for this huge discrepancy is pop. density, infrastructure to people ratio. But avg salaries are higher in blue states and that cant be ignored. But I digress, all the people I remember near Cedar Point (Ohio) were driving a Cadillac in the 70’s, while richest New Yorkers were driving Pintos.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/62.html
“In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Al Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending. A state’s ratio of federal spending to tax dollars, particularly non-defense spending, is a statistically and substantively significant predictor of Bush’s margin of victory across the states.” [Predictor, not causation, correlation], that’s why election was likely over before it started.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/nj_gets_lowest_state_return_on.html
http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/lacy-osuconf.pdf
September 9, 2008 @ 10:30 AM
The electoral college is a
The electoral college is a system to ensure that everyone gets a say in the choice of Prez. It is a way to keep the pandering to the masses to a minimum, because you now have to pander to ALL the masses, and that is alot harder than it seems. Back when politics was a national past time (yes, americans use to care)it was a brilliant idea.
And Bush didnt steal the election, stupid people lost it. (Seriously. Show up on preselected day, punch hole in card, go home. How hard is that?) Same as the Chargers didnt have that game stolen from them, they just had fewer points at the end of the game, even if they had ‘better’ plays and players in the game.
September 9, 2008 @ 12:42 PM
I would say if they lose to
I would say if they lose to the Aztecs, not sure when they play, then yes, drop them.
September 9, 2008 @ 3:04 PM
Bush won the popular vote in
Bush won the popular vote in 2004, so I’m not sure I agree with the comment about the elimination of the Electoral College ensuring Democratic victories.
It’s ridiculous to have “battleground” states. This is a national election for the presidency. Every citizen’s vote should count equally, regardless of their location.
Can anyone doubt that the auto companies’ chutzpah in demanding another 25B before the election is due in large part to Michigan’s status as a “battleground” state?
September 9, 2008 @ 3:51 PM
Electoral college is an
Electoral college is an archaic system, it is unfairly biased towards fly-over states, and it makes voters in many states (e.g. California and Texas) irrelevant. But it is almost impossible to replace, because an amendment to change it would need to be approved by the House and the Senate and then ratified by 38 state legislatures. Most fly-over states and their senators would not want to give up their powers.
September 9, 2008 @ 3:53 PM
esmith wrote:Electoral
[quote=esmith]Electoral college is an archaic system, it is unfairly biased towards fly-over states, and it makes voters in many states (e.g. California and Texas) irrelevant. But it is almost impossible to replace, because an amendment to change it would need to be approved by the House and the Senate and then ratified by 38 state legislatures. Most fly-over states and their senators would not want to give up their powers.
[/quote]
It’s hardly ‘biased’ towards the fly over states. Rather, it ensures that they are represented at the national level.
This is a more eloquent argument than I could make:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4451
September 9, 2008 @ 4:10 PM
A vote is a vote. Why should
A vote is a vote. Why should a vote in California or Texas (700,000 people/elector) matter less than a vote in Rhode Island or South Dakota (260,000 people/elector)? And why should a vote of a Republican in CA or a Democrat in TX be irrelevant because their states would end up sending all their electors to vote Democrat or Republican, with so much certainty that most presidential candidates won’t even bother running their ads there?
I wouldn’t be so much against the electoral college if it was fair. If all states got the level of representation that’s proportional to their population, and all electors were allocated in proportion to the popular vote in their state. But that’s even less likely to happen.
September 9, 2008 @ 4:16 PM
meadandale wrote:
This is a
[quote=meadandale]
This is a more eloquent argument than I could make:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4451
[/quote]
Cato Institute is a Republican think tank, and Bush only won the 2000 election because of the electoral college. What position did you expect??
The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.
Amazing, just amazing. Here’s your making sure no state is left behind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004CampaignAttention.png
September 9, 2008 @ 4:23 PM
esmith: Partisanship aside,
esmith: Partisanship aside, the Cato article does make one very important and often overlooked point: The Founding Fathers made a republic and not a democracy.
While many people don’t fully understand the differences and tend to treat them as being the same thing, they aren’t.
September 9, 2008 @ 4:33 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]esmith: Partisanship aside, the Cato article does make one very important and often overlooked point: The Founding Fathers made a republic and not a democracy.
While many people don’t fully understand the differences and tend to treat them as being the same thing, they aren’t.[/quote]
I was going to make that comment too. We are republic of 50 states and not a pure democracy.
John
September 10, 2008 @ 10:01 AM
The reality is that our
The reality is that our Constitution empowers the interests of the most backwards and insular parts of the country over the interests of the more populous, advanced, educated, wealthy, and cosmopolitan parts.
This is why the right uses words like elite to describe democrats. This is why Palin was a good strategy. MIndlessness as a tool.
Ironically, fly over country has been completely fucked by the people they vote for. They raise a lot of emotionally laden insignificant issues like abortion, religion and guns to keep them solidified however those issues don’t raise their standard of living. All the right has to do is let them keep their guns, say they don’t like abortion and mumble some bullshit about religion and they win. What really affects people such as financial matters is a little to complex for the majority. And as far as foreign policy all they have to do is say we are fighting for freedom and nobody questions because it would be unpatriotic. Just label a country a “terrorist state” and off to the races we go and if it happens to make a few people wealthy, well that was just an unintended consequence of good ole american capitalism. Even more irony is that it is fly over country people that will be dying for our global domination wars, er I mean freedom wars.
So they get double fucked, jobs outsourced, standard of living diminished and sent of to die for some ill conceived war. But hey they get a hot chick that shoots guns and babbles about God’s will for VP so it’s a ok
The one sole enjoyment I will get after McIdiot and Pussygalore win the election is the watching the contorted logic the right will use to explain why the country is such a mess. I’m sure it will include liberal elites, Islamofascists, which is an oxymoron, clinton or the russians.
September 10, 2008 @ 2:17 PM
IMHO I don’t think the
IMHO I don’t think the electoral college should ever trumph the popular vote.
I also think there should be certain intellectual and psychological tests that a president and anyone elected to public office must pass. Think about that…
September 10, 2008 @ 4:19 PM
I think good compromise is
I think good compromise is not to award electoral votes as winner takes all per state, which is the method for all save two states.
For example, California has 55 electoral votes. Let’s say Obama wins 60% of popular vote. The state could award the two electoral votes (representing the senators) to Obama. That leaves 53, x 0.6 gives you 31.8 rounded up to 32. This method would give Obama 34 instead of all 55 electoral votes. Another variation “The Congressional district method” would award winner of each district one electoral vote.
I think some combination of this method will tilt slightly more towards population centers while maintaining some form of Republicanism. I’d like to think this will convert “Battleground states” to at least a lot more “Battleground districts” at the very least you don’t ignore entire states. The middle of U.S will not get completely ignored either. The electoral outcome will closer resemble the national vote, and we will less likely to have winner of electoral vote be the loser of the popular vote. There is an additional benefit (at least in my mind) that contesting votes or suppressing votes (depending on who you ask) will be too expensive. So a few cases of misconduct here or there will less likely turn the election. Either that or we see massive election mayhem, lawsuits, which in turn will force the entire country to take on the problem.
But with each state controlling how it allocates its electoral votes this will likely not happen. As no party will allow any state that it controls Dems in California and Repubs in Texas to enact such a change because it will lead to a loss to the next Presidential election.
I seem to recall that Texas Repubs help fund such a California consitutional change after defeating the same in Texas.