Thoughts on the popular vote vs. Electoral College

[maxiep]

Which is as it should be, since a leader should be communicating with more people rather than less people. If more people lived in Wyoming than the Bay Area, then the prospective President should spend more time there. In a representative democracy, someone running for office should be campaigning to the largest amount of his/her future constituency as possible.

BTW, you missed my point. You can communicate with as many people as are in the Bay Area, but they're spread around a thousand miles rather than 50 miles. It's a tougher job. I think the bar should be set high for our candidates. Rural folks matter too.

 

[Minstrel]

BTW, you missed my point. You can communicate with as many people as are in the Bay Area, but they're spread around a thousand miles rather than 50 miles. It's a tougher job.

It's not a tougher job, it's a less efficient job. Talking to the same number of people spread over 1000 miles rather than 100 miles means more time is spent traveling and less time is spent time talking to and listening to people.

 

[maxiep]

No one bothers going to Wyoming, Nebraska, or the Dakotas now. I don't see how they'd be losing much.

Heck, as we've discussed in this thread, there's a big difference between Harney County and Portland. Does that mean Presidential candidates should hold rallies in Burns?

Part of living in the boonies is you have to travel to the big city if you want big city attractions. You don't expect the big city to come to you.

You are arguing for special privileges for rural voters, because... because they are special, I guess. You can apply that special treatment to any number of minority groups, if you are inclined to think minority groups should get special treatment.

barfo

Sure they do. I remember both candidates going to all the states you mentioned with derision. If it were a popular vote, no one would waste the time or effort because you could reach as many voters with much less of both.

And I do think candidates should campaign in Malheur County. I don't think running for political office is a "big city attraction"; I think it's something for all the people.

I'm not arguing for any special privileges; I just don't want entire sections of the country to be ignored. Given that you seem to hold those kind of people in contempt, I'm not surprised at your position.

 

[maxiep]

It's not a tougher job, it's a less efficient job. Talking to the same number of people spread over 1000 miles rather than 100 miles means more time is spent traveling and less time is spent time talking to and listening to people.

Gosh, what a shame that they'd have to work to talk to people that live in all regions of the country. Wouldn't it be great if people in major metropolitan areas were the only ones allowed to vote? Hey, how about just the Northeast? That would make the job really easy for the candidates; it would be very efficient.

Again, there's a real difference between people that live in urban areas and rural ones. I don't want anyone ignored.

 

[maxiep]

Are you saying that the electors would be based on the congressional districts? That's what I thought at first, but then you seemed to be saying the state would still be winner-takes-all, the winner of the state would just be determined on a different basis.

As for Texas, it was 20-12 before the 2010 elections. That's not close enough to justify a fight, if it is winner-take-all.

barfo

The EC is made up of the 435 members of the House and the 100 Senators. Each House member would vote the results of its own district while the Senators would vote the majority of the state. In the case of Texas (if your numbers are right), 22 votes would go to the GOP while 12 would go to the Democrats. Right now, all 34 would go to the GOP.

 

[barfo]

The EC is made up of the 435 members of the House and the 100 Senators. Each House member would vote the results of its own district while the Senators would vote the majority of the state. In the case of Texas (if your numbers are right), 22 votes would go to the GOP while 12 would go to the Democrats. Right now, all 34 would go to the GOP.

Ah, ok. I like that plan a lot, for the reasons you stated earlier.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Gosh, what a shame that they'd have to work to talk to people that live in all regions of the country.

Well, I'm all for them talking to as many people as possible, throughout the nation. I'm even for them talking to people in other nations...the more viewpoints the better. I just understand why they hit major population centers...when you have limited time and you want to get your message to as many people as possible, population density is the way to go.

But that's pretty much already the case. I don't see that changing even if they ditched the electoral college. What the electoral college actually means is that, due to the disproportionate allocation of electoral votes compared to population, a rural voter's vote counts for more than an urban voter's vote.

To quote a noted dealer of ad hominems, I can see why you'd want it that way...but it does violate the principle of each citizen having an equal voice in elections.

 

[Denny Crane]

The EC is made up of the 435 members of the House and the 100 Senators. Each House member would vote the results of its own district while the Senators would vote the majority of the state. In the case of Texas (if your numbers are right), 22 votes would go to the GOP while 12 would go to the Democrats. Right now, all 34 would go to the GOP.

The electoral college is 538, hence 270 to get an absolute majority. No state has fewer than 2.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, I'm all for them talking to as many people as possible, throughout the nation. I'm even for them talking to people in other nations...the more viewpoints the better. I just understand why they hit major population centers...when you have limited time and you want to get your message to as many people as possible, population density is the way to go.

But that's pretty much already the case. I don't see that changing even if they ditched the electoral college. What the electoral college actually means is that, due to the disproportionate allocation of electoral votes compared to population, a rural voter's vote counts for more than an urban voter's vote.

To quote a noted dealer of ad hominems, I can see why you'd want it that way...but it does violate the principle of each citizen having an equal voice in elections.

That's not the case at all. It's cheaper to advertise to everyone in the state of Montana or South Dakota than it is to the city of San Jose.

 

[Minstrel]

That's not the case at all. It's cheaper to advertise to everyone in the state of Montana or South Dakota than it is to the city of San Jose.

Whether or not that's true, I was referring to actual public appearances. The major party candidates run ads in every state/area that they feel is not "safe" for one side or the other.

 

[barfo]

Sure they do. I remember both candidates going to all the states you mentioned with derision.

Really? I sure don't. Wikipedia doesn't either - not that that necessarily proves anything, but I can't find a better source at the moment.

Because of Wyoming's status as a safe red state, none of the major party candidates campaigned in the state.

Obama visited the state once, in Fargo, North Dakota, while the Republican ticket didn't visit the state once.

Obama didn't visit the state, as McCain visited the state once, in Sturgis, South Dakota.

Both Obama and McCain visited the state once. Obama held a downtown rally at Omaha[4] and McCain traveled to both Omaha and Ashland. Palin also visited Omaha once.

If it were a popular vote, no one would waste the time or effort because you could reach as many voters with much less of both.

I don't even think that's true. It doesn't take much time to touch the plane down, shake a few hands, make a speech. Pandering to rural voters would still be done, although perhaps less than it is now. There would still be reason to want the rural vote (and the urban vote that sympathizes with the rural vote, such as yourself?).

And I do think candidates should campaign in Malheur County. I don't think running for political office is a "big city attraction"; I think it's something for all the people.

There are limits, however. Unless we are going to have 20 year long campaigns, no candidate can visit every burg in the nation.

I'm not arguing for any special privileges; I just don't want entire sections of the country to be ignored.

You are arguing for special privileges for land.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Whether or not that's true, I was referring to actual public appearances. The major party candidates run ads in every state/area that they feel is not "safe" for one side or the other.

Well, they'd raise a lot more money and spend it entirely on advertising going from biggest city to next biggest city until the polls say they win. But in the graphic I posted, Gore won most of the bigger cities and Bush lost the popular vote even though all the teeny tiny towns and counties outside those big cities add up to more population.

More importantly, Bush won in counties with almost 20M more people, yet lost the popular vote. Why? Because barely half the eligible voters actually do vote. Hence the question about quorum and absolute majority.

 

[barfo]

More importantly, Bush won in counties with almost 20M more people, yet lost the popular vote. Why? Because barely half the eligible voters actually do vote. Hence the question about quorum and absolute majority.

Not sure where you are going with that. You want to have a re-do if not enough people vote? Even fewer people would vote the second time, I'd bet.
Maybe you could pay people to vote. Or force them at gunpoint.
Or use vote-by-mail, that seems to work pretty well.
Or vote-by-internet?

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Or vote-by-internet?

I like it. Elections with the same reliability as a Zogby Online Poll.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not sure where you are going with that. You want to have a re-do if not enough people vote? Even fewer people would vote the second time, I'd bet.
Maybe you could pay people to vote. Or force them at gunpoint.
Or use vote-by-mail, that seems to work pretty well.
Or vote-by-internet?

barfo

It would go to the House where they'd choose the president.

Why not have a popular vote for all of congress, too? I mean, you have no respect for the states. Pelosi and her 9% approval rating can only win because her district supports her. In a national election, she'd get drubbed and her constituents would have not much say in things.

 

[barfo]

It would go to the House where they'd choose the president.

I sense a recurring theme here. You are kind of turned on by having the House choose the president, aren't you?

Why not have a popular vote for all of congress, too?

We currently do. There is no electoral college for congresspeeps. It's a direct election, guy with the most votes wins. You know, that system that you think would never work.

I mean, you have no respect for the states.

Not true. As maxiep will tell you, I respect the states that have coastline.

Pelosi and her 9% approval rating can only win because her district supports her. In a national election, she'd get drubbed and her constituents would have not much say in things.

Well, I guess that's why she won't be running for President, then...

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The recurring theme is what's written in the constitution.

And we don't have a popular vote for congress. Otherwise I could vote against Pelosi and Reid and Kerry.

 

[barfo]

The recurring theme is what's written in the constitution.

I think that constitution has been amended a few times as regards elections, so it isn't like it would be unbelievably radical to consider amending it once again. It may not have been amended as many times as the bible, but it is nevertheless not written in stone.

And we don't have a popular vote for congress. Otherwise I could vote against Pelosi and Reid and Kerry.

I know what you are trying to say. Do you know what I'm trying to say?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I think that constitution has been amended a few times as regards elections, so it isn't like it would be unbelievably radical to consider amending it once again.



I know what you are trying to say. Do you know what I'm trying to say?

barfo

Do you know what you're trying to say?

 

[barfo]

Do you know what you're trying to say?

Yep. Would you like me to use smaller words?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yep. Would you like me to use smaller words?

barfo

I have to ask again if you know what you're trying to say.

 

[barfo]

I have to ask again if you know what you're trying to say.

That's too bad. Apparently your reading comprehension is really terrible, since I just answered that question.

Or do you mean you have some sort of compulsion to ask questions repeatedly? If so I recommend Brandon Roy's psychologist.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

barfo,

In the 4 candidate case, no president is seated without getting the 270+ electoral votes. If there is no winner, it goes to the House of Representatives to choose the president.

As for the rest of your non-answers, they're.... non-answers.

He was answering non-questions.

Our current system is a farce, and a poor representation of what most Americans THINK is a democracy.

 

[MARIS61]

Well, there's really no argument against the electoral vote being best for the US Presidency.

Here's one. It's dishonest and easily controlled by outside interests. It's sole reason for being is to circumvent the popular vote when certain people want other results.

Oh, wait, that's two.

Denny laid out a short and good enough argument to support it.

He must have deleted it, leaving only that silly post of ramblings about Clinton.

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's one. It's dishonest and easily controlled by outside interests. It's sole reason for being is to circumvent the popular vote when certain people want other results.

Oh, wait, that's two.



He must have deleted it, leaving only that silly post of ramblings about Clinton.

Do you want barfo to use smaller words? Or me to use smaller words?

Though for barfo's benefit, smaller words don't do much for me.

 

[jlprk]

I haven't read the thread, but...if indirect voting is good, why not extend it to all other elections? Why not have the people elect a committee who will elect a committee who will elect the City Dogcatcher? For every single election in the country? ...if you really believe in indirect elections. This would serve as insulation against a really bad dogcatcher being elected. Or City Councilman, Water District Commissioner, State Senator, Congressman, you name it.

It's called Byzantine politics (or just backroom wheel dealing in a room filled with cigar smoke) and it caused European revolutions throughout the 1800s in favor of its opposite, Democracy.

 

[MARIS61]

How about when people from Portland vote on things that have nothing to do with them, nor do they have any knowledge of? You think one city should control the fate of the entire state?

Nobody is given the opportunity to "vote on things that have nothing to do with them". If it is on your ballot, it has something to do with you.

That's why the Miami mayoral election is not on my ballot.

Nor does Portland vote as a liberal block.

Right-wingers should all move to Portland if they want to change the balance of the Portland vote.

 

[MARIS61]

His vote should count more than yours when voting on issues like trapping to prevent predators from killing his livestock. Yes.

Certainly not.

 

[Denny Crane]

I haven't read the thread, but...if indirect voting is good, why not extend it to all other elections? Why not have the people elect a committee who will elect a committee who will elect the City Dogcatcher? For every single election in the country? ...if you really believe in indirect elections. This would serve as insulation against a really bad dogcatcher being elected. Or City Councilman, Water District Commissioner, State Senator, Congressman, you name it.

It's called Byzantine politics (or just backroom wheel dealing in a room filled with cigar smoke) and it caused European revolutions throughout the 1800s in favor of its opposite, Democracy.

We have indirect elections for every senator and every representative. You can't vote for representatives not running in your district, nor can you vote for senator of some state you don't live in. What makes it indirect is they hold national offices and the nation isn't able to vote for or against them.

The reasons for holding an indirect election for president are many, though on this specific question I would answer that the current scheme provides for a more independent office of the president. No matter how big one state's population might be, and how wildly popular a candidate might be in that state, it's nowhere near enough to win an electoral college election.

And as I've pointed out a few times, the electoral college scheme means the winner wins by an absolute majority. Consider the 2000 election again, Gore v. Bush. Gore won the popular vote by a plurality of 48.38%, yet 51.62% (a majority) didn't want him.

Imagine the recount, too, if it had to be nationwide. Recount 105M ballots or so.

 

[MARIS61]

Look at the map of Oregon and how the gubernatorial vote played out.... 90% of the geographic state voted for Dudley.

This is totally innaccurate.

About half of Oregon is Public Lands (belonging to all Americans), with no voting inhabitants on it.

A rather surprising mistake for a geography major to make.

So, to be fair and accurate, Dudley was the loser both in total votes and in geographical support.