posted on November 13, 2000 11:21:14 AM new
Hi Zazzie, it is confusing, for sure.
I think what this is showing is that the heavily populated areas such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc., are pretty overwhelmingly Democratic. That's how Gore came out ahead in the national popular vote although most of the map is red.
In a straight out popular vote, a candidate could (theoritcally) win by promising to give outrageous benefits to voters in the larger metropolitan centers, and promising to finance that by screwing everyone else in the lower populated areas. Who needs those other spread out voters, if you're assured of a win by targeting 6 large cities.
posted on November 13, 2000 11:22:36 AM new
Since I live in a sparsly poluated state, my vote wouldn't count either.
Candidates and campaign financiers would demand the candidate spend time where it is more profitable, densely populated urban areas where one can gain more votes per campaign dollar. Also the demographics of large urban areas have similar characteristics. Traditionally city folks want more, greater infastructure (read government intervention).
posted on November 13, 2000 11:28:06 AM new
What I see is a good case to eliminate the electoral college. All those counties in red have lots of people living in them that voted democrat and the ones in blue people that voted republican. Seems to me those people might like to have their individual vote count for something. That map looks different after every election.
posted on November 13, 2000 11:35:56 AM new
If the electoral college is ended, candidates would have no reason whatever to visit the 19 states that now have 6 or less electoral votes and no reason to even familiarize themselves with local issues that pertain to those states. If it was abolished, a candidate that had broad appeal on the coasts but little to none in the rest of the country could become president. If it was abolished, a guy like Ross Perot could command 19 percent of the vote (he did in '92, right?), probably giving neither major candidate a 51% majority. Since abolishing the electoral college would mean that a candidate needed a majority to govern there would have to be a runoff election between the two candidates that took the greatest percentages. That would mean both candidates would have to get the third party candidates votes, by sucking up and making promises to him. Or, instead of one additional candidate like Perot, you could have ten additional candidates. We would have a mess.
posted on November 13, 2000 11:50:45 AM newWhat I see is a good case to eliminate the electoral college. All those counties in red have lots of people living in them that voted democrat and the ones in blue people that voted republican. Seems to me those people might like to have their individual vote count for something. That map looks different after every election.
You're completely right. One man/woman - one vote.
I don't agree with the argument about the less populated states having less of a say under a popular vote only scenario. Where did the candidates spend their time during the campaign? The battlegroud states, the states that they knew would swing the electoral vote (and the election) one way or the other.
Take a state like New Mexico which is still too close to call. They have only five electoral votes. But when the dust settles, almost 1/2 of the state's population will have their vote count for nothing because all five electoral votes will go to the guy who won the state by probably 1% of the votes. This is insane!
posted on November 13, 2000 11:53:14 AM new
Zazzie...the Electoral System stops a candidate from stuffing the ballots in a large city and thereby throwing the vote nationally.
While discussing the Electoral College this weekend, we thought about the possibility of states dividing their points between candidates depending on the voters. For example, if a state has 10 electoral points and one candidate got 60% of the vote and another got 40%, instead of one getting all 10 of the points, one would get 6 and the other 4. The winner would still require 270 points to win.
I agree the electoral college is a good system and it's very rare that the electoral winner is not the popular winner. One close election is not a reason to scrap the system.
**********************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 13, 2000 11:55:46 AM new
Currently, the candidates at least visit all 50 states, and are prepped with talking points about local issues affecting that particular state, and thereby at least acknowledge those states' existence. As we see now, every electoral vote is crucial for a 270 majority, and all states have at least three electoral votes. I live in NY state with about 17 million other people. Don't some other states have under a million? Those states and those people would become completely irrelevant in choosing a president.
It would be a good time to remember the old "be careful what you wish for" line.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Nov 13, 2000 11:57 AM ]
posted on November 13, 2000 12:01:54 PM newZazzie...the Electoral System stops a candidate from stuffing the ballots in a large city and thereby throwing the vote nationally.
Actually the electoral college system can cause just this problem. Take as an example an election where the electoral vote is so close that one state with one large city (Chicago, IL for example) could swing the election.
One party raises the dead and a few thousand ineligible voters and gets them to the polls. IL now swings the election whereas the popular vote wouldn't have been affected overall by a few thousand illegal votes.
As you can see from this example, the electoral college makes it MORE likely that fraud in one large city can swing the election.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 13, 2000 12:04 PM ]
posted on November 13, 2000 12:04:30 PM new
Can someone compress that picture a bit and email it to [email protected]? The picture won't load all the way for me for some reaon.
posted on November 13, 2000 12:06:58 PM new
Another good reason for the one person/one vote. The media could not predict the winner till the winner had won! Living in Washington I feel my vote rarely counts. The whole thing is decided before we even get to the polls. Some people don't even vote as the outcome is generally known. [or at least predicted]
Njrazd,Nothing is going to stop a dishonest politician from trying to stuff ballot boxes.No matter what happens we the people have to keep a watchful eye.
James, Don't you think that some of those 17 million people in NY have voted a different way than the "color" of their state on a map would dictate their vote goes for? If we get a third party, and that is certainly a possibility in the near future, it will be nearly impossible for any candidate to get 51% of the vote. Our system will have to change accordingly. Majority of the vote will have to be the one with the most vote wins.
Really, I see it coming don't you? People do seem to want a three party system. I believe we would be better off with two good parties and two good candidates.
posted on November 13, 2000 12:23:33 PM new
The way the electoral college protects voters who live in less populated states is in the formula by which each state is apportioned electors.
Each state has its electoral votes recalculated after each 10 year census. (And if this election shows the importance of casting your vote, it also highlights the importance of filling out and returning your Census data) They're given electors in the same number as they're alloted congressman for the House of Representatives. And then every state, regardless of population, gets 2 more electoral votes. It's those 2 extra electoral votes for each state that works as the balancer.
You can see how important those 2 to a state, regardless of population, electoral votes are if you take them away from each canditate's electoral votes so far (not including non-reporting states)
Right now, Gore has 255 electoral votes, having carried 19 states. Without those 2 per state electoral votes, he would have 217 electoral votes.
Bush has 246 electoral votes, having carried 29 states. Without those 2 per state electoral votes, Bush would have 188 electoral votes.
Present scenario - Bush has approximately 96.5% of the electoral college votes that Gore has.
Without the 2 per state additions, Bush would have approximately 87% of the electoral collage votes that Gore would have.
How do these percentages compare to the popular nationwide vote? By CNN's websites total of the counted popular vote, Bush has 99.58% of the popular vote than Gore has.
So, the electoral college system hasn't, in this case, exactly matched the popular vote. But the 2 per state flat electoral college votes do go a long way towards narrowing the gap.
And what's the alternative? Rudy Guiliani for president, on the strength of the millions of voters of NYC and other large urban centers with similar concerns? In a popular nationwide vote, yes, your vote will count for more. But what sort of canditate would be able to garner enough support to win?
posted on November 13, 2000 12:33:03 PM new
rawbunzel~ I had to chuckle at your post. I am now in charge of handicapping at my local golf club. We have had similar, wrangling discussions.
The net conclusion is that you can't legislate honesty. Now matter how hard you try to make it for the bad guys, they will figure a way out to circumvent the system.
posted on November 13, 2000 12:41:07 PM newBut the 2 per state flat electoral college votes do go a long way towards narrowing the gap.
Your argument implies that there is an advantage in narrowing the "gap". What would this advantage be?
No matter how you look at it, the electoral college renders close to 1/2 of the votes cast by Americans irrelevant. This is unfair. Where a person happens to live should not determine the "worth" of his/her vote. One vote for President should be just that - one vote for President.
I live in Virgina which went heavily (as usual) for the Republican candidate. I'm happy about this. But roughly 40% of the state's voters chose the Democratic ticket. Should those 40% be ignored when it comes to choosing a President? I don't think so. Hawaii ALWAYS goes Democratic. But does that mean that the voters who vote Republican in Hawaii should have their vote automatically nullified in each election? Why would any Republican in Hawaii even bother going to the polls on election day (discounting local and statewide races)? Whether they vote or not it is a given that Hawaii's electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate. Is this fair? I don't think so.
The electoral college is confusing, unfair, and it causes more problems than it solves. This election is a perfect example.
posted on November 13, 2000 12:47:14 PM newIn a popular nationwide vote, yes, your vote will count for more. But what sort of canditate would be able to garner enough support to win?
This is a tough one but I'll take a stab at it:
The candidate with the largest number of votes.
The individual States already play a very important role in the election process with the State Primary elections.
Every American should be able to place a vote for the candidate of their choice and be comfortable in the knowledge that their choice is just as important as any other voter's.
posted on November 13, 2000 01:01:42 PM new
The electoral college wasn't thought up in a few seconds. There have been 700 porposals to dump it, all of them have failed. Hillary is now co-sponsoring a bill to dump it. I hope it meets with the same fate as the 700 attempts before it.
The electoral college is just as valid as our US legislature. One vote for each legislator a state has.
posted on November 13, 2000 01:06:44 PM new
Abingdon, it's always tempting to go for a simplistic view. One might say that in any election, whether using popular national vote or the electoral college system, close to 49% of peoples' votes wouldn't count, simply because their candidate didn't win.
To say that the candidate with the most votes wins is to realize that the candidate who most successfully courts the large urban centers' electorate wins. Right now, that might sometimes be true. In a straight out popular vote, that will always be true.
There has always been the realization that, without checks, the more densely populated urban areas will have a disproportionate power over those who live in the larger total area of less densely populated places. That's why there's a Senate.
posted on November 13, 2000 01:07:23 PM new
I don't see how the electoral college helps smaller states to any significant degree.
Whether the presidency is determined by the electoral vote or the popular votes, candidates are going to concentrate on the high population areas.
In this election, it looks like the smaller states are hurt by the electoral vote. Florida(25), Oregon(7), and New Mexico(5) were still undecided long after the election was over, but no one is paying attention to Oregon and NM because they don't have enough electoral votes to make a difference. If this was an election by popular vote every state would be important because every vote would count.
It's time to get rid of the Electoral College. Sure, the electoral vote and the popular vote rarely split, but the President should be elected by the majority ALL the time, not MOST of the time.
It may have failed 700 times but maybe the 701st will be the charm. You're right, it wasn't thought up in just a few seconds. But it was thought up when our nation was completely different than it is today. There isn't even one reason to keep it that outweighs any of the reasons to dump it. But if you know of one, please feel free to share it with us.
posted on November 13, 2000 01:18:01 PM newThere has always been the realization that, without checks, the more densely populated urban areas will have a disproportionate power over those who live in the larger total area of less densely populated places. That's why there's a Senate.
Exactly right. That's why there is the Senate. You just validated my point. We have a 3-branch system of Government that serves very well as a system of checks and balances. And the legislative branch is indeed split into 2 bodies to ensure that the smaller states are represented. Another reason to dump the electoral college. It is overkill as a means to ensure equal representation for the smaller states.
Again, the problems associated with the electoral college system simply outweigh the few small benefits (which in themselves are debatable) that it provides.
And I agree completely that a straight popular vote is a more simplistic process than the electoral college. I see this as a virtue.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 13, 2000 01:20 PM ]
posted on November 13, 2000 01:21:17 PM new
The original demographics and today's demographics are surely not in accord. There is no way the mayflower crowd planned today's demographics.
posted on November 13, 2000 01:36:08 PM new
This was in yesterday's NY Daily News editorial page, re: Hillary:
Hillary Goes to College
On Wednesday, at Hillary Clinton's first press conference as senator-elect, this page asked her if she favored any changes to the Electoral College system, now at the center of the nation's attention. She said it would be premature to say.
On Friday, however, she said the Electoral College should be abolished. Asked if she had changed her mind during the week, she said: "For years, I thought it was an anachronism."
posted on November 13, 2000 01:37:18 PM new
I'd like to comment on the following point (which was copy-and-pasted from above, and is not intended to be directed at the original poster).
If the electoral college is ended, candidates would have no reason whatever to visit the 19 states that now have 6 or less electoral votes and no reason to even familiarize themselves with local issues that pertain to those states.
Even with the electoral college, candidates have no reason to visit smaller states that they have no hope of winning (or losing).
I live in Idaho, and the situation here is that a bag of rocks would easily win any election, as long as it was registered as a Republican. No sane candidate for national office would dream of spending more than 15 minutes (in the airport, changing planes) in the state- Republicans, because the electoral votes here are a lock, Democrats, because there's not a chance in hell of winning the state.
posted on November 13, 2000 01:43:22 PM new
That's a good point you raise, because here in NY Gore took it for granted that he'd win the state (as any Democrat presidential candidate usually can) and had no reason to really campaign here much, and Bush took it for granted that he'd lose the state and had no reason to campaign here much (he gave up on NY months ago and was totally MIA here). The really intense campaigning needs to be done in states that are too close to call.
However, I'm fairly certain that Gore at least made one or more token visits to Idaho, same way Bush did to NY. Correct me if I'm wrong?
