From the "No one is paying attention to me" department..

[sq764]

How attention starved is this clown

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/29/ohio.kerry.ap/index.html

[OTM Al]

Lord. He'd better not run again. I almost skipped voting for President last time around for the second straight time as I couldn't stand either one of them once again. Is there anyone out there anymore that's worth voting for???? Even just a little bit?????

[GaryG]

I heard that Ralph and his right wing friends rigged the Ohio election.

[JPinMaryland]

Ohio did seem fishy but hell it's over now....

Thing is. For Bush to win in 2000 in an election that was statistically a dead heat was a bitter pill to swallow, but not an absurd result.

But what if Kerry had won Ohio with the 150,000 or so votes there it would have taken? Kerry would have won the election and lost the popular vote by 2%. That seems absurd from just a common sense perspective, electoral college be damned.

The more I think about it the less sense the electoral college makes. I remember guy on talk radio (this is like 30 years ago back in Pittsburgh) saying that this prevents one candidate from being a candidate that's popular in the cities. Or prevents one candidate from being popular only in the east or something like that.

His defense to the electoral college was that it would prevent someone from appealing to one demographic group. Two responses to this:

1) Candidates appeal to certain demographic groups anyhow, it's just that they taylor it based on the states. Capture the soccer moms in the midwest and win OH, etc. That sort of thing. So the same effect happens.

2) So freakin what? So some candidate taylors his appeal to the people who live in cities. If that's where most of the people live then shouldnt he win? Isnt that what one man/one vote is supposed to mean??

[Show Me the Wire]

JPinMaryland:

Electoral college is designed to ensure true representation nation wide. The founders, in their foresight, did not want a few populous states i.e. New York, CA. to dominate the nation (great foresight regarding CA).

That is why we are a republic the election is won by carrying the majority of states, not by winning the popular vote. Great system, the founding fathers had vision.

[Tom]

Every election, we keep hearing about voter fraud, etc. etc.
Just curious, has anyone offerred up any serious voter/election reform bills?
Seriously, the things I have heard about electronic voing don't give me a warm feeling.
How can we NOT have a national standard that applies to every state, every county, every polling place that accepts votes on federal offices?
One common standard is a no-brainer. Our most precious freedom - the ability to choose our own leaders - has less safeguards than the ATM at Piggly Wiggly!


This is not a party issue.

[BenDiesel26]

Wouldn't a simple solution to the electoral college be simply just to divide a state's electoral votes based on the percentages of the popular vote within that state?

[Show Me the Wire]

Wouldn't a simple solution to the electoral college be simply just to divide a state's electoral votes based on the percentages of the popular vote within that state?


Why not reduce the number of Senators from less populous states from two to one? Wouldn' t this more adequaetly reflect the populous also.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Kerry who?

[BenDiesel26]

Why not reduce the number of Senators from less populous states from two to one? Wouldn' t this more adequaetly reflect the populous also.

If a tree falls in the woods and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?

[Show Me the Wire]

If a tree falls in the woods and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?

According to physics the falling tree would cause the vibration of sound through the air, but it if a person is not present the person won't here the resulting sound vibrations, but the woodsy animal scared by the loud crashing sound is still scared.

[BenDiesel26]

Nice answer. Actually I just thought of the other one you asked, wouldn't that be called the House of Representatives. Bills have to pass through both.

[BenDiesel26]

And maybe I'm way off here but I thought that there actually were a couple of states that divided their electoral votes based on the popular vote. Either that or I'm just out of it right now.

[Tom]

I am in favor of abolishing the electoral college all together.
As it is now, millions of votes really do not count.

But I am mainly refering to the voting process. How can we allow papaer ballots, mechanical machines, electronic machines, punch cards, yadda yadda yadda and no set procedure for registrations, counting, recounting, verifying, protecting ballots, etc?

[Show Me the Wire]

BenDiesel26:

Yes, you are correct, that is were the populous majority is represented. The two senators are there to ensure every state no matter how large or small has an equal say on the policies of the nation.

Another safegaurd to prevent a few larger populated states from controlling the entire nation. The democratic republic is the best haman conceived form of representaion, takes into account the majority view while ensuring equal representation of every state of the Union.

[BenDiesel26]

I'm an idiot, I guess proportional vote was just a proposal. But apparently there have been many cases of faithless electors over the years who cast a vote against that of the state legislature.





Proportional vote

The primary proposal of this type is for states to implement a proportional vote system. Under such a system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected to represent only the plurality vote. As an example, consider the 2000 election, in which the George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) / Richard Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cheney) (Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)) and Albert Gore Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore_Jr.) / Joseph Lieberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lieberman) (Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29)) tickets were the primary contenders, with the Ralph Nader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader) / Winona LaDuke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winona_LaDuke) (Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Green_Party)) ticket taking a small but noteworthy minority. In California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), the approximate proportion of votes for these tickets was 41.65 percent Bush/Cheney, 53.45 percent Gore/Lieberman, and 3.82 percent Nader/LaDuke. Under the current system, all 54 electoral votes were for Gore/Lieberman. Under a simple proportional system, the votes might be distributed as 23 Bush/Cheney, 29 Gore/Lieberman, and 2 Nader/LaDuke.

As a practical matter, this system would be very difficult to implement. According to the Constitution, the state legislatures decide how electors are chosen. It is usually against the interest of an individual state to switch to a method of proportional allocation because it reduces that state's influence in the Electoral College. For example, in 2004, the state of Colorado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado) voted down an initiative on its 2004 ballot, Amendment 36 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_36), which would have instituted a system of proportional allocation of electors beginning immediately with the 2004 election. Let's suppose that in 2006, Amendment 36 were put back on the ballot and passed. Then Colorado would not be a swing state in 2008, no matter how closely contested it might be. Instead of candidates vying for all nine of Colorado's votes, they would be fighting for a single vote.

A perceived problem with dividing electoral votes proportionally is that it would be harder for a candidate to achieve a majority of the electoral vote, since a proportional system would enable a third party candidate to win electoral votes. If this system had been used in 1992 and 1996, and all electors had voted as pledged, there would have been no winner at all, and the House of Representatives would have chosen the president, whilst the Senate selected the Vice President. In 1996 Robert Dole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dole) would almost certainly have been the House winner, and Jack Kemp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kemp) the Senate, as well, despite receiving significantly fewer votes than Bill Clinton and Al Gore. In 2000, Al Gore would have received 269 electoral votes, George W. Bush 263, and Ralph Nader 6. If all electors voted as pledged, the Presidential race would have gone to the House, and Bush likely would have won, but the Vice Presidential decision in the Senate would have likely split 51–50 for Lieberman, with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

[Show Me the Wire]

I'm an idiot.......

You are far from being one.

[JustRalph]

I heard that Ralph and his right wing friends rigged the Ohio election.

If I had anything to do with it, I wouldn't have been standing in line almost two hours to vote.

There have been several lawsuits and even more investigations into the election in Ohio. All but one of the lawsuits has been thrown out. All the investigations found nothing irregular. The one common denominator was people coming to the polls late in the day and finding long lines that they refused to stand in.

[chickenhead]

I'm an idiot, I guess proportional vote was just a proposal. But apparently there have been many cases of faithless electors over the years who cast a vote against that of the state legislature.


I'm pretty sure at least one state works at least partially proportionally. I think it is Nebraska if memory serves.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey BenDiesel, what's the source of your post in #16?

[BenDiesel26]

wikipedia--I was only attempting to find out if any states actually separated votes

[kenwoodallpromos]

If it were up to me, I would consider White Democrats jailed for slashing Republican van tires in Ohio as evidence of voter fraud; I guess Kerry does not.

[JustRalph]

if there were no electoral college, then California and New York would decide every presidential election. No thank you !

[Pace Cap'n]

I drag this about once a year, it seems. Please read it and seriously consider if you really want to ditch the EC

Subject: Do the Math



Think about it.....

Hillary Clinton decided to run for the U.S. Senate in New York because she
loves the people of that state and wanted to represent them in Washington
D.C. In one of her first public statements after winning the election (with
nearly 60% of the vote), she promised to work for the abolition of the
Electoral College.

Now let's look at a political possibility:

In an election year in the 'not too distant future', when Hillary is
nominated as the Democrats' Presidential Candidate, she begins her campaign
by reminding the voters of New York that she kept her promise and personally
takes responsibility for the newly ratified constitution amendment abolishing
the Electoral College. She then does the vast majority of her campaigning in
New York; rarely venturing out to any other states.

The November General Election is held, and Senator Clinton LOSES 49 STATES by
an average of 60,000 votes per state...
BUT she WINS JUST ONE STATE... New York, with 73% of the 6,300,000 votes
cast there.
The Republican candidate receives 24% and all others
3%.

The result? She has received the majority of popular votes by a margin of
less than 200,000 votes nationwide... after LOSING ALL BUT ONE STATE.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the new President of The United States of America.

Want to get rid of the Electoral College?

[Tom]

As scary as that sounds, she would be elected by the majority of the PEOPLE. I would live with that.

As it stand right now, only the states with the big numbers of electoral votes get any attention anyway. Perhaps we have too many states? Maybe a min size requirement should be put on a state?


Do we real nead north and south Dakota? How about Dakota?
And Carolina?

And what's up with Virginia - why Not East Virginia, or how about merging with West Virginia?

[JustRalph]

As scary as that sounds, she would be elected by the majority of the PEOPLE. I would live with that.

come on Tom.........? I know you live in NY, but think about it.

It would only have to happen once. Then 25 or more states would instantly begin hearings on leaving the union.

[JPinMaryland]

When in history did NY ever vote 73% for anybody?

If you want to hypothesize that, why not hypothesize all the midwest states voting 80% GOP or something equally insensible.

Take a look at real voting demographics, even amongst people who call themselves GOP they probably vote GOP less than 70%. I havent looked at this recently but I know the strongest demographic groups used to be:

blacks 80% democrat
jewish: 75% dem.
labor 67%

The numbers have since fallen off, that's about 25 years ago.

This is the same twisted logic that had people saying that Perot cost Bush the election w/ Clinton..ON the basis that if Perot wasnt in the race his voters would vote for Bush!

It's absurd to think that if say Perot voters could not vote for Perot they would vote Bush say 80%-20%.

WHy? Why on earth would Perot voters vote Bush 80-20 when REPUBLICAN VOTERS THEMSELVES DONT VOTE GOP 80-20!!!

There were lots of otherwise intelligent people making arguements like this on the assumption that Perot voters were more republican then republicans themselves.

Absurd.

[JPinMaryland]

The result? She has received the majority of popular votes by a margin of
less than 200,000 votes nationwide... after LOSING ALL BUT ONE STATE.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the new President of The United States of America.

Want to get rid of the Electoral College?

Let me show you what is wrong with this....

If Clinton recieved the majority of votes, what the HELL IS WRONG WITH BEING MADE PRESIDENT??

Jeezus, you'd think there was something wrong with getting a majority of votes.

Here's another scenario. John Kerry picks up 150,000 votes in OH and wins the presidency despite losing the popular vote by 2%.

My scenario. Almost really happened.

Your scenario: impossible since no state votes 73% for anybody.

[JPinMaryland]

I'm pretty sure at least one state works at least partially proportionally. I think it is Nebraska if memory serves.

I think it is both Neb. and Maine. YOu can look at old electoral maps and see Maine with a different colored band going through it for the one elector of the different party. Going from memory.

[JPinMaryland]

"Another safegaurd to prevent a few larger populated states from controlling the entire nation.."


So let me get this straight, if a man or woman wins the election with a majorit of votes and a lot of them come from Cal/NY this is some major problem?

BUt if Kerry wins the election and loses the popular vote by 2% this is a major blow for a republican form of government? :lol:

[dav4463]

if there were no electoral college, then California and New York would decide every presidential election. No thank you !

"Inner cities" in California, New York, and Illinois(Chicago) would decide every election. I also say, "No thank you!"

[Tom]

come on Tom.........? I know you live in NY, but think about it.

It would only have to happen once. Then 25 or more states would instantly begin hearings on leaving the union.

I could give you 12-13 states off hand that would be no great loss.
Not all 50 states contribute to the country as a whole. In fact, without 6 or 7, we would really be a SUPER power. Note: Louisiana is one of them.

[betchatoo]

"Inner cities" in California, New York, and Illinois(Chicago) would decide every election. I also say, "No thank you!"

With the exception of 2004, the popular vote and the electoral vote have gone to the same candidate in every election since 1900. How can you say that if we let the popular vote decide, this would now change?

What is happening now with the electoral vote is that it is discounting the voices of many people. I know of Republicans in this state (Illinois) that didn't vote in the last election because they knew the state was going Democratic and there was no point.

If we really want a republic where every voice is heard and every vote counted either hold a popular vote or proportion the electoral votes according to the count in each state.

[Show Me the Wire]

W
If we really want a republic where every voice is heard and every vote counted either hold a popular vote or proportion the electoral votes according to the count in each state.

Not the intent of the fore fathers. The intent was to prevent a large colony New York (state) control the election.

Works well, so why try to fix something that is not broken?

[chickenhead]

What is happening now with the electoral vote is that it is discounting the voices of many people. I know of Republicans in this state (Illinois) that didn't vote in the last election because they knew the state was going Democratic and there was no point.


Ditto California. There is no doubt there would be a higher turnout under a proportional system. This and the lack of effort in a campaign are the biggest side effects of the electoral college.

I think it is fair to say that something is wrong when we in California never even hear form the Republicans. We are the worlds sixth largest economy...an enormously populace state, and we are essentially left out of the national campaigns.

[Lefty]

"Inner cities" in California, New York, and Illinois(Chicago) would decide every election. I also say, "No thank you!"
I wondered when the voice of sanity was going to enter this thread.

[Tom]

SMTW - I don't accept that it works. Look at our dimal voter turnouts. Percenage-wise, Iraq, under threat of terror attacks, out performed us.
Maybe most people have given up and know that because of what state they live in ther vote doesn't matter. I suggest that the fear of the foundingfathers is today's reality. People need an incentive to get out and vote. Making it count might do that!;)

[betchatoo]

Not the intent of the fore fathers. The intent was to prevent a large colony New York (state) control the election.

Works well, so why try to fix something that is not broken?

I don't agree it works well. And the fore fathers were men not omnipotent gods. They put in the amendment system so that changes could be made as necessary. They allowed slavery and prevented women from voting. Should we keep things that way now because that's what the founding fathers said? (And remember, your wife may read this)

[Show Me the Wire]

betchatoo:

I agree wit why we have the amendmnent system, like I said our fore fathers had some fore sight.

The issue of each state having an equal voice, based on population and the size of the nation is separate from the moral issues of slavery and women's sufferage.

I still think it works as intended and well, and I do not see a need for change.

Change is good if needed, but I do not believe in change for change's sake.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom:

I do not think the dismal turn-outs are linked to the electoral college. More a result of the decline of a viable two party system, apathy, self-absorbtion, and insipid democratic candidates.

[Lefty]

bet, of course you want the electoral college abolished. Most libs do. But the funniest thing I heard, just before the 2000 election was ALGORE saying the popular vote didn't matter; it was the electoral votes that counted. I was listening to the radio and up pops Gore saying this. It was funny in retrospect when all the libs came out saying the electoral college should be abolished. Read MY lips: "ain't gonna happen."

[dav4463]

If the electoral college was abolished, the democrats would win easily. They would spend all their time passing out booze and cigarettes to the homeless in exchange for votes. They would probably hand out needles to the addicts hanging out in the downtowns of our big cities in exchange for votes. Remember the democrats even counted the dead in Chicago as democratic votes!

[Tom]

Bush says he has a "foolproof" ID card to power his guest worker program - use that for voting as well. Should take out ALL the doubts.:rolleyes:

[JPinMaryland]

still waiting to hear about that election where 73% of the people in NY voted for one candidate.. :sleeping:

[GaryG]

I believe that to vote you should at least be able to read and write. Our founding fathers had it right to begin with.

[Tom]

I believe that to vote you should at least be able to read and write. Our founding fathers had it right to begin with.

That would eliminate the "dead" from voting, all right! :cool:

[betchatoo]

If the electoral college was abolished, the democrats would win easily. They would spend all their time passing out booze and cigarettes to the homeless in exchange for votes. They would probably hand out needles to the addicts hanging out in the downtowns of our big cities in exchange for votes. Remember the democrats even counted the dead in Chicago as democratic votes!

I can't believe you forgot to mention that we eat our young, burn churches and cheat at cards.

[GaryG]

I can't believe you forgot to mention that we eat our young, burn churches and cheat at cards.Yes.....that too!

[Lefty]

bet, the libs may not eat their young but they certainly abort them, and one lib, (Clinton)cheated at golf and lied about church burnings when he was young, sooo, pretty damn close.

[ljb]

I believe that to vote you should at least be able to read and write. Our founding fathers had it right to begin with.
Yepper, and then damn wimmin folk and slaves cain't be votin either. gol dang it all ! :lol:

[Lefty]

Yepper, and then damn wimmin folk and slaves cain't be votin either. gol dang it all ! :lol:
I blve that was George Wallace's view. A democrat...hmmmm...

[Show Me the Wire]

I blve that was George Wallace's view. A democrat...hmmmm...

Didn't want them folks being edumacated.

[betchatoo]

bet, the libs may not eat their young but they certainly abort them, and one lib, (Clinton)cheated at golf and lied about church burnings when he was young, sooo, pretty damn close.

I come from a area where a lot of liberals are also Catholic and don't believe in abortion. Not everyone believes in every aspect of their respective philosophy.

That's the trouble with all you conservatives. You generalize. :lol:

[GaryG]

Yepper, and then damn wimmin folk and slaves cain't be votin either. gol dang it all ! :lol:This is a surprising attitude from someone as liberal as yourself...well, you never know.

[Lefty]

I come from a area where a lot of liberals are also Catholic and don't believe in abortion. Not everyone believes in every aspect of their respective philosophy.

That's the trouble with all you conservatives. You generalize. :lol:
I can dig it, so let's just say most libs and know that you can't speak at a dem mconvention if ya wanna spk out against abortion.

[GaryG]

Abortion has been an issue in the current race for US Sen here. Both are trying to portray the other as either in favor of abortion or waffling on the issues. Anyone who openly favors abortion would be dead meat....and rightfully so!

[Lefty]

bet, I did GET that last line and it was funny. LOL.