Glandu 0
Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
QuoteEC is undemocratic
Explain how New York, Arizona, Texas and Illionois deciding the election will be MORE democratic, then, because that's who would dominate the election if the EC was abolished.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteThe electoral maps demonstrate the wisdom of the system - the winner needs the support of the country, not just 3 or 4 major metropolitan areas.
Excellent point. In the early days, it was the agricultural South that feared the more urbanized and industrial North having all the power (which eventually led to Civil War anyway). But nowadays, does anyone, especially in the "red" states, want every President chosen by the east and west coast pinkos ? Because that's what would happen with a popular vote.
No, you've both got it wrong. With the EC, the winner either wins all the red states, plus a couple battleground states, or all the blue states, plus a couple battleground states. So with the EC, we DO have (mainly) regional factions deciding the election. The Democrat can ignore most of the Deep South and Bible Belt, because Democratic votes there are rendered functionally meaningless. The Republican can ignore most of the Northeast quadrant and west coast, because Republican votes there are rendered functionally meaningless. As it now stands, a Democrat in Oklahoma or a Republican in Connecticut might as well not vote for President at all, for all the friggin' difference it makes.
However, if the EC is abolished, and there is direct election of the President (just like we elect our governors and senators), then EVERY VOTE COUNTS, and each candidate will truly have to work to win over voters all over the country. The votes of a person in Texas voting for the Dem or in New Jersey voting for the Repub will have real, and not just (the current) symbolic, meaning.
Theoretically, as a compromise, I suppose I might be willing to accept a system to ditch the current winner-take-all, and award each state's EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in that state. So, for example, if in Florida (27 electoral votes) the D gets 49% and the R gets 51% of the popular vote, then the D would get 12 and the R would get 14 EC votes. (The problem with that system, of course, is how to avoid disenfranchising those who voted for third-party candidates, especially in small states that only have 3 or 4 EC votes - award fractions of a single electoral vote?)
By the way, don't be so fast to presume that the popular vote always tends to favor Democrats, even in modern times. I'll remind you that Reagan won the popular vote in '80 and '84, Bush-1 won the popular vote in '88; the Repubs kicked the Dems' asses all over the country in the '92 Congressional elections, and Bush-2 won the popular vote in '04.
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteEC is undemocratic
Explain how New York, Arizona, Texas and Illionois deciding the election will be MORE democratic, then, because that's who would dominate the election if the EC was abolished.
A common fallacy based on ignorance of the mathematics of voting power.
A correct analysis gives the relative voting power (PR) of a voter in each state under the EC system as follows:
State Population EV PR State Population EV PR
CA 29760021 54 3.344 LA 4219973 9 1.308
NY 17990455 33 2.394 MS 2573216 7 1.302
TX 16986510 32 2.384 SC 3486703 8 1.278
FL 12937926 25 2.108 IA 2776755 7 1.253
PA 11881643 23 2.018 AZ 3665228 8 1.247
IL 11430602 22 1.965 KY 3685296 8 1.243
OH 10847115 21 1.923 OR 2842321 7 1.239
MI 9295297 18 1.775 NM 1515069 5 1.211
NC 6628637 14 1.629 AK 550043 3 1.205
NJ 7730188 15 1.617 VT 562758 3 1.192
VA 6187358 13 1.564 RI 1003464 4 1.190
GA 6478216 13 1.529 ID 1006749 4 1.188
IN 5544159 12 1.524 NE 1578385 5 1.186
WA 4866692 11 1.490 AR 2350725 6 1.167
TN 4877185 11 1.489 DC 606900 3 1.148
WI 4891769 11 1.486 KS 2477574 6 1.137
MA 6016425 12 1.463 UT 1722850 5 1.135
MO 5117073 11 1.453 HI 1108229 4 1.132
MN 4375099 10 1.428 NH 1109252 4 1.132
MD 4781468 10 1.366 ND 638800 3 1.118
OK 3145585 8 1.346 WV 1793477 5 1.113
AL 4040587 9 1.337 DE 666168 3 1.095
WY 453588 3 1.327 NV 1201833 4 1.087
CT 3287116 8 1.317 ME 1227928 4 1.076
CO 3294394 8 1.315 SD 696004 3 1.071
MT 799065 3 1.000
Under a democratic system, each voter has the same voting power.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
No, you've both got it wrong. With the EC, the winner either wins all the red states, plus a couple battleground states, or all the blue states, plus a couple battleground states. So with the EC, we DO have (mainly) regional factions deciding the election. The Democrat can ignore most of the Deep South and Bible Belt, because Democratic votes there are rendered functionally meaningless. The Republican can ignore most of the Northeast quadrant and west coast, because Republican votes there are rendered functionally meaningless.
That's now, true of the past decade. But it was only in the 80s that Reagan turned the South from a Democratic stronghold into a Republican one.
Policy changes based on a short time horizon rarely are for the better.
QuoteWhat's the percentage of people in the swing states who actually saw the two candidates. Not a lot. Most people make their" choice" based on the propaganda, manipulation and so-called debates on TV. This is a two-party system run by crooks and lobbies pulling the strings of the two candidates.
Unlike most democatic countries in Europe and elsewhere,Third party candidates are forbidden free speech in the States and no run off of course. About 118 millions Americans voted. How many didn't, between70 millions and 100 millions, not sure. What a farce. In the meantme, poor and middle-class are suffering more and more... EC is undemocratic
People not voting has nothing to do with the EC, and the results would have been the same. And people would still make their choice based on propaganda and TV. The change would be the venues for the appearances - OH would lose most, LA, SF, NY, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, etc would gain those appearances.
You're in a swing state - but you still have to choose to go to see a candidate. He's not coming to Deland. But each candidate spent enough time in FL or OH that if you wanted to see them, you could. Not sure how much you actually learn from hearing a speach in person, but there was much more opportunity for you than there is for someone in California, unless that person is willing to contribute 25,000 to have a low quality meal.
rehmwa 2
Quoteas a compromise, I suppose I might be willing to accept a system to ditch the current winner-take-all, and award each state's EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in that state
that's mighty big of you
how about we let each state decide for themselves how they want to allocated their EC votes?
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteas a compromise, I suppose I might be willing to accept a system to ditch the current winner-take-all, and award each state's EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in that state
that's mighty big of you
how about we let each state decide for themselves how they want to allocated their EC votes?
No. That's my job. And mind your tone.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuote
No, you've both got it wrong. With the EC, the winner either wins all the red states, plus a couple battleground states, or all the blue states, plus a couple battleground states. So with the EC, we DO have (mainly) regional factions deciding the election. The Democrat can ignore most of the Deep South and Bible Belt, because Democratic votes there are rendered functionally meaningless. The Republican can ignore most of the Northeast quadrant and west coast, because Republican votes there are rendered functionally meaningless.
That's now, true of the past decade. But it was only in the 80s that Reagan turned the South from a Democratic stronghold into a Republican one.
No, actually, that shift occurred in 1968 with Nixon's "Southern strategy", in which he took blue-collar social conservatives in the South, who previously were traditionally Democratic, but who hated the anti-Vietnam war hippies, and who resented the Northern Democratic liberals who forced civil rights upon them, and shifted them into an "anti-liberal-Democrat" coalition with the Republicans. (In fact, it can be argued that Goldwater began that coalition in 1964, but he got his ass kicked by LBJ, who was from Texas, and who carried-over goodwill from the JFK assassination just 1 year prior.) That coalition held in 1972. Carter only carried some Southern states in 1976 because he was a Southerner himself. Then came 1980, and thereafter.
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteQuoteas a compromise, I suppose I might be willing to accept a system to ditch the current winner-take-all, and award each state's EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in that state
that's mighty big of you
how about we let each state decide for themselves how they want to allocated their EC votes?
No. That's my job. And mind your tone.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuote
No, you've both got it wrong. With the EC, the winner either wins all the red states, plus a couple battleground states, or all the blue states, plus a couple battleground states. So with the EC, we DO have (mainly) regional factions deciding the election. The Democrat can ignore most of the Deep South and Bible Belt, because Democratic votes there are rendered functionally meaningless. The Republican can ignore most of the Northeast quadrant and west coast, because Republican votes there are rendered functionally meaningless.
That's now, true of the past decade. But it was only in the 80s that Reagan turned the South from a Democratic stronghold into a Republican one.
No, actually, that shift occurred in 1968 with Nixon's "Southern strategy", in which he took blue-collar social conservatives in the South, who previously were traditionally Democratic, but who hated the anti-Vietnam war hippies, and who resented the Northern Democratic liberals who forced civil rights upon them, and shifted them into an "anti-liberal-Democrat" coalition with the Republicans. .
Correct.
"We have lost the South for a generation," LBJ, July 2, 1964, after signing the Civil Rights Act, anticipating the southern white backlash.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
So what are Reagan Democrats, and their significance?
Is the South permanently Red?
(Until 1992, CA voted for the GOP ticket every 4 years for a long stretch - Bush Jr. cost his party that state for at least another decade, I'd venture)
Is the South permanently Red?
(Until 1992, CA voted for the GOP ticket every 4 years for a long stretch - Bush Jr. cost his party that state for at least another decade, I'd venture)
Andy9o8 0
QuoteSo what are Reagan Democrats, and their significance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat
JerryBaumchen 1,048
Thanks, Prof:
QuoteA common fallacy based on ignorance of the mathematics of voting power.
Is not ignorance a wonderful thing: PRICELESS
JerryBaumchen
QuoteQuotebeing good businessmen, would only plant the most profitable crops causing the prices of cauliflower and asparagus (my personal fav) to then skyrocket.
which would then open a market for farmers to plant cauliflower and asparagus - being good businessmen
Win. That is the true definition of a free market.
Someday Never Comes
Unlike most democatic countries in Europe and elsewhere,Third party candidates are forbidden free speech in the States and no run off of course. About 118 millions Americans voted. How many didn't, between70 millions and 100 millions, not sure. What a farce. In the meantme, poor and middle-class are suffering more and more... EC is undemocratic
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites