Is the US Electoral System really democratic?

[jegs2]

Except at that point we have California, Texas, and New York getting all of the attention and the hick vote truly becomes worthless.

...and that is the value of the Electoral system.

[Keevan_Colton]

Except at that point we have California, Texas, and New York getting all of the attention and the hick vote truly becomes worthless.

...and that is the value of the Electoral system.

Bob Hillbilly's vote is worth proportionally the same as Dan Bigcity, Janice Suburb and Tom Townie combined...

[Joe]

Oh, and by the way: the Right specifically always whines about this, because one of the reasons for the strong Right in this country is the fact that the collective dumbfuck rural vote is given worth out of proportion with what they warrant by population, and they are unwilling to give up their unfair advantage.

Of course, it's inconceivable - inconceivable! - that someone could possibly have a sincere difference with you on the necessity of the Electoral College, it's just a bunch of hicks wanting their votes to count more.

[Keevan_Colton]

Of course, it's inconceivable - inconceivable! - that someone could possibly have a sincere difference with you on the necessity of the Electoral College, it's just a bunch of hicks wanting their votes to count more.

Basically, yes.

Edit :

To expand upon the fucking lunacy of this shit, since it's important to represent the needs of all these rural people and give it a weighting equal to all those city dwelling folks as they are part of the great nation too...why not, instead of making how valuable your vote is depend on where you live, but instead have it's worth based on your earnings...that way those that contribute most to the nation in terms of taxes and capital will have the most say...or is that too far from one man one vote for you to wave it away?

Remember this shit dates to when slaves were counted as a fraction of a person.

[Col. Crackpot]

Oh, and by the way: the Right specifically always whines about this, because one of the reasons for the strong Right in this country is the fact that the collective dumbfuck rural vote is given worth out of proportion with what they warrant by population, and they are unwilling to give up their unfair advantage.

or maybe thats just because they are the majority of the population. newsflash smartass. only a third of the US population lives in cities.

[Keevan_Colton]

or maybe thats just because they are the majority of the population. newsflash smartass. only a third of the US population lives in cities.

Is that one for or against the current stupid ass system?

[Glocksman]

Except at that point we have California, Texas, and New York getting all of the attention and the hick vote truly becomes worthless.

...and that is the value of the Electoral system.

Bob Hillbilly's vote is worth proportionally the same as Dan Bigcity, Janice Suburb and Tom Townie combined...

A state's EC vote total is the sum of the number of House seats (which *is* population based) and the number of Senate seats (2 for each state).

The imbalance is largest in the least populous states (Wyoming, Alaska, etc).

Despite 'Bob Hillbilly's' vote theoritically being worth 'more', it's the stupid candidate indeed who ignores California, Texas, Florida, and New York in favor of Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Vermont, and New Hampshire.


What's truly undemocratic about the EC is that it's a 'winner take all' system in most states. A candidate could lose California by 1% and get none of the EC vote. The winning candidate in a state could win by .01% and still get all of the EC votes.

If the EC is important, keep it but fix it so each candidate gets a share of the delegates that reflects the state's election returns, not a 'winner take all' system.

[Keevan_Colton]

...and that is the value of the Electoral system.

Bob Hillbilly's vote is worth proportionally the same as Dan Bigcity, Janice Suburb and Tom Townie combined...

A state's EC vote total is the sum of the number of House seats (which *is* population based) and the number of Senate seats (2 for each state).

The imbalance is largest in the least populous states (Wyoming, Alaska, etc).

Despite 'Bob Hillbilly's' vote theoritically being worth 'more', it's the stupid candidate indeed who ignores California, Texas, Florida, and New York in favor of Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Vermont, and New Hampshire.


What's truly undemocratic about the EC is that it's a 'winner take all' system in most states. A candidate could lose California by 1% and get none of the EC vote. The winning candidate in a state could win by .01% and still get all of the EC votes.

If the EC is important, keep it but fix it so each candidate gets a share of the delegates that reflects the state's election returns, not a 'winner take all' system.

And then, you have a system where there's basically a straight vote...which negates the need for the EC in the first place.

[Keevan_Colton]

I'll try and explain why this is so fucking stupid using a small scale version...lets say, you have a town, and they're having an election for mayor...lets say there are 11 polling stations...


Now, in a sane world, each polling station totals up it's results and then all the results are added together to see which candidate has the most votes, and then every persons vote counts just as much as the person on the next street.


In an EC world, each polling station adds up the number of votes there, then declares that candidate so-and-so has won there...then the person with the most polling stations becomes mayor. Here, if a person is in a particular street, their vote can have more weight than the person in the next street.

[The Kernel]

Of course, it's inconceivable - inconceivable! - that someone could possibly have a sincere difference with you on the necessity of the Electoral College, it's just a bunch of hicks wanting their votes to count more.

Oh please, do tell what the necessity of the electoral college is. I'm dying to hear this one.

Seriously, how on earth can you justify such a system? Let's look at the pros and cons of the straight vote system.

Pros - Every persons vote counts the same, politicians will be forced to consider the needs of the greatest amounts of voters rather than a certain group that happens to be in a swing state.

Cons - People who live in low population areas won't get as much consideration as those in high population areas.

Considering that the only Con I can see is irrelevent to a Democracy (which counts every person as equal and the greater numbers of like-minded people will obviously get more consideration in a modern political climate) I don't see any possible justification for the electoral college besides "WE LIVE IN A LOW POPULATION STATE SO WE ARE ENTITLED TO HAVING A VOTE THAT COUNTS FOR MORE!!".

[Jalinth]

Of course, it's inconceivable - inconceivable! - that someone could possibly have a sincere difference with you on the necessity of the Electoral College, it's just a bunch of hicks wanting their votes to count more.

Oh please, do tell what the necessity of the electoral college is. I'm dying to hear this one.

Seriously, how on earth can you justify such a system? Let's look at the pros and cons of the straight vote system.

Pros - Every persons vote counts the same, politicians will be forced to consider the needs of the greatest amounts of voters rather than a certain group that happens to be in a swing state.

Cons - People who live in low population areas won't get as much consideration as those in high population areas.

Considering that the only Con I can see is irrelevent to a Democracy (which counts every person as equal and the greater numbers of like-minded people will obviously get more consideration in a modern political climate) I don't see any possible justification for the electoral college besides "WE LIVE IN A LOW POPULATION STATE SO WE ARE ENTITLED TO HAVING A VOTE THAT COUNTS FOR MORE!!".

The main problem is that you end up having the small states completely ignored. No one will bother with them - look at the last US election; even one of the small states switching sides would have allowed Gore to win. At least in the current system, the small states will get at least visited and given a token nod by the presidential candidates. Do you wnat to have an election where the candidates would essentially go from the East Coast to the West Coast to the South and ignore everything in between? Also, the US president is supposed to present the whole US - hard to do if you basically ignore 30% of the population.

The Parliamentary system as shown in Canada isn't all that great either. No direct election of the PM (who has far greater domestic power relatively than the US President). Parties winning seats with 40% of the vote or less. Most of the parties have MPs who are severely cowed (you aren't going to get Cabinet revolts ala Margaret Thatcher - piss them off, and you get quickly dumped) and are pretty impotent. The Governor General is a figure head and would be hard pressed to deal with a constitutional crisis. She'd probably have to fall back on the Queen for help.

[Patrick Degan]

Actually, this debate is somewhat moot. In the last election, the electoral votes of 19 states counted more than the remaining 31. Low-population states had about as much influence upon the final outcome as they would have had under a direct popular vote —virtually insignificant. Whether under the Electoral College or a direct suffrage, the inevitable equation of population density will just about always dictate the outcome of the presidential race.

[SirNitram]

Also, the US president is supposed to present the whole US - hard to do if you basically ignore 30% of the population.

Exactly. The President should be President elected by the whole US... Not those states which are 'swing states' or whatever. If one can ignore 30% of the population and still win the national elections on a straight vote, at very least their voices weren't knocked off because their EC votes went to the local winner instead of being, at the very least, split.

[RogueIce]

IIRC, don't they only need 51% of the vote to get all the EC votes for that state? If that's the case, they can essentially say "fuck you" to the other 49% couldn't they? And they'd still get that state's EC votes. So, the minority vote in a state is, essentially, ignored under the EC system, isn't it?

[Keevan_Colton]

Also, the US president is supposed to present the whole US - hard to do if you basically ignore 30% of the population.

Exactly. The President should be President elected by the whole US... Not those states which are 'swing states' or whatever. If one can ignore 30% of the population and still win the national elections on a straight vote, at very least their voices weren't knocked off because their EC votes went to the local winner instead of being, at the very least, split.

Not to mention say around...2 million more people choosing a candidate, yet that candidate still loosing....

[Keevan_Colton]

IIRC, don't they only need 51% of the vote to get all the EC votes for that state? If that's the case, they can essentially say "fuck you" to the other 49% couldn't they? And they'd still get that state's EC votes. So, the minority vote in a state is, essentially, ignored under the EC system, isn't it?

Exactly.

[SirNitram]

IIRC, don't they only need 51% of the vote to get all the EC votes for that state? If that's the case, they can essentially say "fuck you" to the other 49% couldn't they? And they'd still get that state's EC votes. So, the minority vote in a state is, essentially, ignored under the EC system, isn't it?

Indeed they are. Bush won West Virginia last time by a mere six percent.. yet one hundred percent of the EC votes from WV went to him. Bush and Gore are damn near dead even in Florida.. Yet instead of splitting the votes in half, we get a damn farce which goes all the way to supreme court, because we can't let the half which didn't vote for the 'winner' have a voice.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh, and by the way: the Right specifically always whines about this, because one of the reasons for the strong Right in this country is the fact that the collective dumbfuck rural vote is given worth out of proportion with what they warrant by population, and they are unwilling to give up their unfair advantage.

Of course, it's inconceivable - inconceivable! - that someone could possibly have a sincere difference with you on the necessity of the Electoral College, it's just a bunch of hicks wanting their votes to count more.

Are you going to bitch, or offer that "sincere difference?" I said this because I cannot see any modern, real reason for it, and none of its proponents to memory before have offered anything beyond the same hive arguments and appeals to tradition.

[Illuminatus Primus]

All reforms to the Electoral College offered and needed to make it fair simply make it indestinguishable from direct popular election.

Therefore, its useless.

[RogueIce]

IIRC, don't they only need 51% of the vote to get all the EC votes for that state? If that's the case, they can essentially say "fuck you" to the other 49% couldn't they? And they'd still get that state's EC votes. So, the minority vote in a state is, essentially, ignored under the EC system, isn't it?

Indeed they are. Bush won West Virginia last time by a mere six percent.. yet one hundred percent of the EC votes from WV went to him. Bush and Gore are damn near dead even in Florida.. Yet instead of splitting the votes in half, we get a damn farce which goes all the way to supreme court, because we can't let the half which didn't vote for the 'winner' have a voice.

This is worse then, isn't it? Not only can they probably get away with ignoring several of the small states if they pander to the big ones, they don't even need an overwhelming majority in the big states to still come out on top. Seems to me like more people would be ignored in this system.

[Keevan_Colton]

Yes, you could loose by 100% in some states so long as you scrape 51% in some others....that means you can ignore almost 50% of the population...and if there are people voting independant, you can actually ignore more than 50%....

[SirNitram]

IIRC, don't they only need 51% of the vote to get all the EC votes for that state? If that's the case, they can essentially say "fuck you" to the other 49% couldn't they? And they'd still get that state's EC votes. So, the minority vote in a state is, essentially, ignored under the EC system, isn't it?

Indeed they are. Bush won West Virginia last time by a mere six percent.. yet one hundred percent of the EC votes from WV went to him. Bush and Gore are damn near dead even in Florida.. Yet instead of splitting the votes in half, we get a damn farce which goes all the way to supreme court, because we can't let the half which didn't vote for the 'winner' have a voice.

This is worse then, isn't it? Not only can they probably get away with ignoring several of the small states if they pander to the big ones, they don't even need an overwhelming majority in the big states to still come out on top. Seems to me like more people would be ignored in this system.

Precisely. This is why there are so many people against the EC: It's an archaic remnant of an era that has passed. It's obsolete and unjust.

[Keevan_Colton]

Actually, thinking about it you can carry the election with around 30% if it's the right 30% under the EC system...what use is a system that can allow a candidate to ignore 60% of the population?

[Joe]

Oh please, do tell what the necessity of the electoral college is. I'm dying to hear this one.

Do a forum search, I've participated actively and extensively in no less than three electoral college threads and I'm not going to spend the afternoon in another one. I've said my piece many times and you aren't going to change my mind, so I'm not going to waste your time.

[Howedar]

Without an electoral college, on paper a Californian's vote is worth exactly as much as mine. However, this is the problem: while his vote is worth as much as mine, no pres. candidate will give a flying fuck about the needs of the population outside of the major states because they're fairly inconsequential. So I will be able to vote for whomever I choose with as much sway as Kernel, but I really will have no candidates to choose from who in any way represent or address my needs.