Abolish US Electoral College? - Page 4

DarthVeda · June 16, 2002, 23:10

The only time the Electoral college bothers anybody is when it's a close election. I bet in 10 years it won't even be an issue because NOBODY CARES.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 23:20

It's unfair now and it'll be unfair in ten years.

You guys in the US don't know what constitutional crises are. We've spent the last 20 years in one.

Ethelred · June 16, 2002, 23:48

Quote:

Originally posted by DarthVeda
The only time the Electoral college bothers anybody is when it's a close election. I bet in 10 years it won't even be an issue because NOBODY CARES.

Issue or not I have always been against it since I noticed how it worked. Thats considerably more than ten years.

Ramo · June 17, 2002, 00:08

The electoral college is an anachronism that deserves to die.

DarthVeda · June 17, 2002, 01:48

I bet you think the Senate is an antiquicated idea too.

You know it doesn't cost us much to have the electoral college around right now. It will be impossible to get it back later.

So aside from being one of the oldest and most guarded parts of the constitution, what else makes the electoral college a cancer to be cut out?

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 01:50

It's undemocratic and unfair to those living in large states.

Gatekeeper · June 17, 2002, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
750 000 Iowans are important. They're exactly as important as 750 000 New Yorkers. The current system makes the Iowans much more important than the New Yorkers, and that's stupid.

The EC is based on a state's population. The more people there are, the more representatives for the U.S. House they get. All states have at least two senators and one representative, hence the mininum 3-vote presence in the EC. Translation: If you're a populous state, your representative numbers will be much higher than, say, Iowa. That means your state has a stronger presence in the EC and, thus, means more during presidential campaigns.

Those 750,000 New Yorkers are represented by their member of the state's U.S. House delegation, which numbers in the dozens itself. People in my state have their one representative for the entire state because that's our population (roughly): 750,000. How does that translate into small population states having more power than the larger members of the Union? AFAIK, 750,000 is 750,000 regardless of where you live. Just because some representatives speak for an entire state while others speak for only a district in their state doesn't give the former power over the latter. The former is one man or woman. The latter is one man or woman in a frickin' delegation that, for New York, numbers in the dozens.

IOW, New York has a helluva lot more clout in the U.S. House than some "measly" state like North Dakota. The U.S. Senate then "balances" the natural advantage large states have in the U.S. House by having two senators for each state, regardless of population. It's part of the system of checks and balances, which doesn't just apply to the executive, judicial and legislative branches of the federal government. In this case, it's a checks and balances of sorts within the legislative branch itself.

It's worked pretty good over the last two centuries or so, IMHO. Yes, there have been some hiccups here and there, but that's better than pulling an Italy every six months or a year.

Gatekeeper

DarthVeda · June 17, 2002, 02:11

Well I've got news for you. The United States is a Republican Democracy, and this means that the people elect representatives to decide for them. The election is no different and if you believe it is, you are sorely mistaken.

People have come to expect that their electoral college representatives will vote for their respective candidates. In fact, in some states it is even law.

Now if you have a problem with the electoral college and you live in a large state, simply remove them from the equation by having a law abolishing their ability to change votes.

As for the population being disproportionate to the numebr of electoral votes, that's just how it is. One could argue the Senate is unfair since it gives disproportionate powers to the small states. This is exactly why the United States is a federal government and not a Confederacy right now. Because the states could agree to these terms over two hundred years ago. Institutions like the electoral college are part of an elaborately designed system that functions well as a whole, but is crippled when severed.

Imagine the U.S. without the Supreme Court. All the officials in there are not directly elected yet they have more domestic power than the Legislature and Executive offices combined!

and in closing... I'd like to see all those Californians with their 54 electoral votes get by without the oil that the 3 electoral votes of Alaska provides.

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 02:18

Quote:

Those 750,000 New Yorkers are represented by their member of the state's U.S. House delegation, which numbers in the dozens itself. People in my state have their one representative for the entire state because that's our population (roughly): 750,000. How does that translate into small population states having more power than the larger members of the Union? AFAIK, 750,000 is 750,000 regardless of where you live. Just because some representatives speak for an entire state while others speak for only a district in their state doesn't give the former power over the latter. The former is one man or woman. The latter is one man or woman in a frickin' delegation that, for New York, numbers in the dozens

Those 750 000 New Yorkers might only represent 1 electoral vote. The 750 000 Iowans represent 3. That's what's unfair.

DarthVeda · June 17, 2002, 02:21

If you don't like it, move to Iowa.

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 02:22

Quote:

and in closing... I'd like to see all those Californians with their 54 electoral votes get by without the oil that the 3 electoral votes of Alaska provides

So if a state provides something important then it deserves more say in elections? Are you deliberately being muddle-headed about this, or does it come naturally?

The EC and the 2 members per state Senate are relics from a bygone era of in US history of semi-independent states worried about their sovereignty. People who live in the larger states might want to wake to the fact that they're being had.

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 02:23

Quote:

If you don't like it, move to Iowa

I'd rather not, since I'm not a US citizen.

And why the hell would I move to Iowa? It's full of federally-subsidized corn. If the Iowans don't like living in a small state they can move to New York.

DarthVeda · June 17, 2002, 02:26

You are insane.

Gatekeeper · June 17, 2002, 02:28

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf
Having actually lived on a farm in canada i can tell you, that you don't have a clue what your talking about. The thing is canada doesn't subsidize its farms but the US and the EU do.

I bet I walked more bean fields, rogued more corn, threw more bales and picked more rocks from fields than you did. My point being that, I, too, grew up in an agricultural world. And, no, I probably don't know the complete ins-and-outs of Canadian ag, but I would say the same of you in regards to U.S. ag.

Quote:

The reason the US and EU do it is so they can starve the 3rd world countries and force them to buy grain. If there where no subsidies most 3rd world countries could grow massive amounts of crops competitively. Because if there where no EU or US subsidies the price of grain would rise world wide.

I can't speak for the EU, but that's a bunch of crappola in regards to the motives of U.S. farmers.

What profit do U.S. farmers get for allegedly holding these poor third world nations in food bondage? Nothing. A good deal of the food that is sent to these nations is in the form of aid. North Korea and Ethiopia come to mind immediately.

Now that's *not* to say U.S. farmers don't get profits from overseas sales. They do, especially from Asian nations such as Taiwan, China, India, and Japan among others. Why do you think food exporters fight so damn much over this part of the world? Asia is a cherished market for U.S. farmers, but not one that is held "hostage" to us by any means.

Has it ever crossed your mind that some trans-national corporations may be more responsible for alleged problems than individual farmers themselves? If I were to tell Farmer Bob that his grain that gets exported to Zimbabwe is, in effect, holding that nation hostage to his whims, he'd take his hat off, scratch his head, and ask me where the hell Zimbabwe was. Either that or he'd be one of these types of farmers who know down to a "t" just what's going on and where in the world of ag and would put me to shame in terms of inside knowledge.

Anyway, the point is that the policies of companies like ADM that can affect a "hostage" third world nation more than the decisions that Farmer Bob makes on an individual level. More often that not, he or she is too focused on trying to survive on $1.85 per bushel corn and $4.60 per bushel soybeans to even really have time to know what happens after the raw crop leaves his or her stewardship.

Gatekeeper

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 02:30

Quote:

Originally posted by DarthVeda
You are insane.

That's quite possible, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

DarthVeda · June 17, 2002, 02:34

So you're in favor of disbanding the Senate too?

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 02:35

No, I'm in favour of making it mor representational (wrt population). Having a regional review of legislation is an interesting, and possibly worthwhile idea.

Gatekeeper · June 17, 2002, 02:41

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Quote:

Those 750,000 New Yorkers are represented by their member of the state's U.S. House delegation, which numbers in the dozens itself. People in my state have their one representative for the entire state because that's our population (roughly): 750,000. How does that translate into small population states having more power than the larger members of the Union? AFAIK, 750,000 is 750,000 regardless of where you live. Just because some representatives speak for an entire state while others speak for only a district in their state doesn't give the former power over the latter. The former is one man or woman. The latter is one man or woman in a frickin' delegation that, for New York, numbers in the dozens

Those 750 000 New Yorkers might only represent 1 electoral vote. The 750 000 Iowans represent 3. That's what's unfair.

How thick-headed are you, KH?

Every state in the union has two senators; therefore, all the citizens of each state have at least two electoral votes "representing" them *ALL* in the EC. That's 100 electoral votes.

The U.S. House is where the population of each state is broken down into 750,000 people per representative, roughly. Therefore, the one rep that North Dakota gets represents 750,000 people scattered across the *entire* state. The one rep that the 750,000 folks in a particular district in New York get represents their particular district within the borders of New York. The members of such intra-state U.S. House districts in turn represent the entire state in the U.S. House.

Therefore, North Dakota has one guy in the U.S. House representing the entire state. New York, OTOH, has dozens of men and women representing the state in the House IN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR POPULATION. Translated (again and again), the more people that live the state, the *more* reps you will have in the U.S. House and, therefore, the more *power* your state will have in the House.

Does this make sense to anyone in this thread?!

Gatekeeper

DarthVeda · June 17, 2002, 02:41

Hail Gatekeeper!

DarthVeda · June 17, 2002, 02:44

And KH, if you don't like the EC, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 02:56

Gatekeeper, I find it astounding that you just called me thickheaded. I understand the setup of the EC. I also understand that New York has more electoral votes than Iowa; it's just that it doesn't have enough to represent its population.

Specifically, Iowa has 7 electoral votes, so the over-representation isn't as extreme as states with 3 electoral votes.

Let's take a look at the "worst" cases: Wyoming and California

Wyoming has a voter population (18+) of 317 645, who share 3 electoral votes. This gives one electoral college vote per 105 882 voters.

California has a voter pop. of 21 964 316. They share 54 electoral votes. This gives one electoral college vote per 406 747 voters.

In the end, this means that politicians value the vote of a Wyoming resident 4 times as much as they do the vote of a California resident.

Dress it up any way you want, but small states have been given political power out of all proportion to their population.

Gatekeeper · June 17, 2002, 03:46

KH:

I thought the comment was pretty mild on my part, especially considering some of the things others have said in the heat of the moment during past debates/flamefests. My apologies and allow me to chalk it up to tiredness after a long night at the office.

To the subject at hand: In order to change the "base" population per representative from 750,000 to another number, you will have to increase the number of U.S. House members (currently capped at an "x" number of people), or introduce some radical representation changes. That 750,000 number isn't set in stone; it changes. At one time, my state had two representatives in Washington, D.C., and that was before we had 750,000 people in the state. We now have one, but at another time we had two when we had *fewer* people. We grew population-wise, yet lost a rep anyway. More than likely, the slot set aside for our second rep went to one of the growing coastal states. (This all occurred back in the 1970 or 1980 Census ... not sure which one.)

If you shrink the minimum number of people to, say, 350,000, you would increase the size of the U.S. House dramatically. My "small" state would also regain its lost rep, but California would probably gain close to double its current number of reps and, therefore, EC presence. So I don't think that would be a solution to your "problem," which, to me, is a figment of one's imagination.

Smaller states do not have an undue amount of clout. Hell, California's at the point where a presidential candidate carrying that state — which doesn't have proportional divvying up of EC votes — has, I think, nearly 1/4 of the total they need to win the presidency of the entire Union of 50 states and territories! Now that's genuine clout, and that casts a freaking nuclear winter-type pale over anything the likes of North Dakota could offer. The only exception to this is when the "big" states are relatively evenly-divided in where their EC votes go. Then the "smaller" states such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana (and, yes, Iowa) do become important. But that doesn't happen often, as most of those states I mentioned are generally backers of the GOP presidential candidate in any given campaign year. IOW, we're accounted for long before November and, therefore, candidates spend their time in the big EC-rich states.

I'm not complaining. I rather like our system of checks and balances. But any proposal that further dilutes the power of the "smaller" states is simply asking for trouble. This nation works because everyone gives a little here and a little there. More federal tax money generally goes into more rural states than what those states pay in. Some larger states may not like that. Then again, they're also not home to thousands of nuclear missiles housed in silos and on Air Force bases; if a war would break out, it'd be the rural, "smaller" heartland that would get pounded into ruin by nudets while the populous cities along the coastlines were spared (assuming this doesn't turn into a strategic free-for-all). It's just one example of many where everyone gives up something in exchange for something else, albeit a slightly extreme one, I suppose.

Gatekeeper

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 04:14

GK, I wasn't saying that you're an incredibly rude person, but was instead turning the insult around. I thought it was clear from my posts that the basic working of the EC was understood by me.

California has 54 electoral votes for a reason: it has 21 million voters. Complaining that politicians focus on California is like complaining that politicians focus on the Midwest as a whole (they probably have similar populations). I understand the give-and-take of nationhood, but in my opinion the fundamental decision-making process must not be used as capital to bribe certain regions. I feel that my government should listen to my voice as an individual with as much attention as they give to those from any other region, and the current US system ensures that this will not be the case (ech. bad sentence. assumng I were a US citizen).

It might work to rig the electoral process so that certain interest groups are balanced, but it's not democracy. I mentioned this before, but the current US electoral map is starting to remind me of England prior to the Reform acts; the rotten boroughs of Wyoming and the like are just aching to be swept away...

Asher · June 17, 2002, 04:17

This argument looks very familiar.

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 04:19

You don't say...

Maybe that's cause I believe it?

Asher · June 17, 2002, 04:21

I meant the entire conversation in the thread, not just your beliefs.

Wraith · June 17, 2002, 08:47

Everyone's ignoring my comment about the Presidency not originally being intended to be a popular vote in the first place...

--"The Constitution guards against Wraith's three wolves scenarion."

It was supposed to, yes. All this talk about "democracy" in here is an indication it has failed to some extent.

--"I feel that my government should listen to my voice as an individual"

The original plan provided for just that. Politicians at the national level don't listen to you individually. They don't have time, for one. Your state and local officials are the ones you're supposed to have the most "individual time" with, which is one reason why it was originally left up to the state legislatures to pick the EC votes.

Wraith
"The way to find what the mainstream will do tomorrow is to associate with the lunatic fringe today."
-- Jean-Louis Gassee

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 08:52

I meant "listen" figuratively; that my vote carries the same weight with them as any other citizen's does.

Deathwalker · June 17, 2002, 09:27

Quote:

THAT system is retarded. The US' system is far and above a better idea.

Please how can you say the US system is so great. The fact is the president can be a man who get less votes than his oponent. That is not the way it should be. The Electoral College should be scrapped.

Lefty Scaevola · June 17, 2002, 11:48

You saw the legal circuss surrounding the result of a close presidential election, invole just a few counties in one state. with a close election by direct popular vote this would have been in EVERY COUNTY IN EVERY STATE, multiply more that 100 fold. Before the last election, I Might have supported amending the elctorial colledge, not now after seeing that.