New York Times calls for the end of Electoral College

[Aeolus]

Question to Degan...

How is there a fault in having a simple popular vote, where every vote is counted with equal weight?

Because the President is supposed to represent the whole Union and not a half dozen big citys. The smaller states only joined the Union after the great compromise was put forward. Undoing that (if it were possible and its not) would increase sectionalism, And its not as if it would assure the president of being elected by the majority..more likely you would get 3 or 4 major canidates and the winner taking less than 50% It would also undo the two party system which inlarge part exists to elect a president...And the two party system helps to keep all the crazy fringe groups out of power

Okay, I can understand that, except for the part about a bipartisan gov't.

Now, what I don't understand is how giving each state equal weight would somehow be better.

I dont think it would thats why I like the idea of keeping the EC as is. It's a bit unfair to both sides, A popular vote is fair to the big states but unfair to the little ones...and Deegans plan is fair to the little states but unfair to the big ones....If the states want they have the power to go to a proportional EC and if they dont want they dont have to.

[Patrick Degan]

Not just the majority but the vast majority of the American people live in urban or suburban areas. And the disparity is increasing, not decreasing, by the decade. America has not been majority rural at any time since the first World War.

In 1990, the population of the United States was 90% urban, 10% rural, and that percentage has balanced further in favor of the urban population since 1990. 128 million Americans - close to half the population - live in the 24 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the US.

Yet you, Patrick, continue to insist that this 90% of the American population should have no more voice than the remaining 10%.

I INSIST NO SUCH FUCKING THING!

In your perusal of the statistics, did you even bother to make a breakdown between those living in the largest metropolitan areas and those residing in the smaller cities and towns? Regional distribution? Socioeconomic factors? It isn't enough simply to spew numbers without meaningful context as to where those numbers plug-in and how the political interests in any given community are shaped in that context.

That is a blatant lie about my argument. Quote me where I say "hicks should be counted twice" or shut the fuck up.

Apparently, you dont realize that counting some people more than others because of geography is effectively counting the hick vote twice. Althought you might prefer "minority" instead since that goes well with the preventing the tyranny of the majority shite you keep spewing.

Produce the quote, fucker. Either present the evidence where I say "the hick vote should count twice" with words I have actually written or you are a liar or an imbecile. Plain and simple.

Your crap about the tyranny of the majority and the fact the population is non-hemogenus, is bullshit too. Individuals are all different, with different interests and concerns. Should my neighbours vote count twice because they care more about the price of daycare?

Sorry, but simply declaring the argument to be bullshit all the time doesn't validate the formulation that some votes count twice over others.

Question to Degan...

How is there a fault in having a simple popular vote, where every vote is counted with equal weight?

The problem is that while each individual vote may have equal weight, voting blocs do not, and this is what skews elections for years and in some cases generations toward one-party dominance. This would be corrosive to democratic government on the national level in this country, not to mention potentially disasterous in terms of lawmaking. Peruse the history of Mexico and the decades-long dominance of the PRI through the 20th century and in all branches of their government, which became a sink of corruption unknown in this country even by the standards of the worst examples of machine politics in our history.

[Keevan_Colton]

One vote per person is okay, so long as lots of people dont vote the same way.

Come on Deegan I expect better from you! All this absolute shite about it destroying the government is total shite, the popular vote is usually within a million or two for one or other candidate. So, it doesnt take a big shift to change who wins and a country being dragged down the shitter by one party would be a fine shove to get people voting the other way.

Your other shit about how it destroyes representation for the smaller states...I seem to recall there being these little things called "The Senate" and "Congress" that were meant to check the power of the president...the president is meant to represent all the people of the union as you've said, why should someone be less represented than the one a mile down the road across the state line?

You're using bullshit logic to claim that everyone in larger states will vote one way while those in samller states will want something different...why cant those in different cities, in different parts of cities...in different states...all have different concerns and vote based on their personal issues and opinions, rather than as some kind of mechanical bloc...which your shite about the tyranny of the larger metropolitan areas over the small states requires.

And, you didnt say hick votes should count double, it does however remain the logical centre of your shitty excuse for a solution. America was also NOT founded on the tyranny of the minority.

[haas mark]

Question to Degan...

How is there a fault in having a simple popular vote, where every vote is counted with equal weight?

The problem is that while each individual vote may have equal weight, voting blocs do not, and this is what skews elections for years and in some cases generations toward one-party dominance. This would be corrosive to democratic government on the national level in this country, not to mention potentially disasterous in terms of lawmaking.

What, the vote of the majority of people would be undemocratic?

Peruse the history of Mexico and the decades-long dominance of the PRI through the 20th century and in all branches of their government, which became a sink of corruption unknown in this country even by the standards of the worst examples of machine politics in our history.

If I understood what any of that meant, or I had the time, I would.

You're trying to say that because people don't vote in blocs, they are being undemocratic? The point of a democratic vote is to take the will of the majority, not the will of the majority of blocs. Each single vote would be equal, whatever they voted, and despite the fact that many people may vote the same or different, the numbers in the end show who wants it more. Why is that a problem?

[haas mark]

By the way.. Going on what Keevan is saying, Degan, prrof of the fact that people in large cities will not always vote the same way - compare Atlanta to San Francisco, for example. Do you really think that anytime within the next ten years, there will be a majority vote in Atlanta, Georgia actually supporting same-sex marriage? It seems very doubtful to me.

Or perhaps we can look at the small town of Bernalillo, New Mexico compared to, say, some place in Alabama. Same thing.

Small towns won't always vote the same way, and neither will big cities.

Or how about this? New Mexico has a very poor economy. My state is more likely to vote on tax cuts than, say, New York, because the standard of living here is so much lower, but also still very expensive. Hell, there are people working three minimum wage jobs out here (or at least trying to get those jobs) because they can't make ends meet because minimum wage still rests at $5.15 an hour. I also know that there aren't always those problems in smaller-populated states, like Delaware or Maryland.

Do you even begin to see how flawed your argument is?

[Joe]

Do you really think that anytime within the next ten years, there will be a majority vote in Atlanta, Georgia actually supporting same-sex marriage? It seems very doubtful to me.

Actually, within the city itself, such a thing could conceivably happen - the population of Atlanta is very liberal and has consistently elected very liberal mayors. If you added in some of the suburbs and metro Atlanta, however, I suspect that would make it impossible.

[Patrick Degan]

One vote per person is okay, so long as lots of people dont vote the same way.

Nice bullshit Strawman.

Come on Deegan I expect better from you! All this absolute shite about it destroying the government is total shite, the popular vote is usually within a million or two for one or other candidate. So, it doesnt take a big shift to change who wins and a country being dragged down the shitter by one party would be a fine shove to get people voting the other way.

Except in any scheme of divided power, such as exists in the United States, the dominance of one party ususally does not encompass all branches of government nor does it endure for generations. Simply saying "its shite" all the time doesn't make a substantive argument about anything.

Your other shit

Your trademark substitute for an intellectual argument yet again, I see...

about how it destroyes representation for the smaller states...I seem to recall there being these little things called "The Senate" and "Congress" that were meant to check the power of the president...the president is meant to represent all the people of the union as you've said, why should someone be less represented than the one a mile down the road across the state line?

I'd dearly love how you derive this formulation, especially as you never support it with anything other than repeated assertion.

You're using bullshit logic

Pot. Kettle. Black.

to claim that everyone in larger states will vote one way while those in smaller states will want something different...why cant those in different cities, in different parts of cities...in different states...all have different concerns and vote based on their personal issues and opinions, rather than as some kind of mechanical bloc...which your shite about the tyranny of the larger metropolitan areas over the small states requires.

I guess the demonstrably consistent pattern of urban voters supporting government services supported by taxation and the equally consistent pattern of suburban and small-town voters in opposition is no clue that such is indeed the operative case in the political landscape of this country. Oh, and of course it's nothing but "utter shite". Thank you for yet another repeat of the same non-argument.

And, you didnt say hick votes should count double, it does however remain the logical centre of your shitty excuse for a solution. America was also NOT founded on the tyranny of the minority.

Only in your dreary imagination is any such caricature of my position the logical centre of my argument. Tell you what, why don't you just cut-and-paste "it's shite" as your universal response for the remainder of this discussion since you seem incapable of actually applying logic to any of the points raised? It'll more or less be about the same thing as your alleged rebuttals to date.

[Keevan_Colton]

And because people believe different things does not mean thier votes should be of differing value.

Is there a missing line in that document?

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, unless they happen to live in different areas..."

Come on, your entire justification for all these things lie in
Different states have different cultures. - Maybe 200 years ago when they really were different nations, but they are similar enough now...
Tyranny of the majority is bad. - except, a tyranny of the minority is even worse. Tyranny of any sort is bad, that's a big duh. But what is tyrannical about the winner being the person with the most support among the people. Why is it that it's not tyrannical when this is done to select congressmen but it is here?

I keep calling this stuff shite precisely because it IS shite. You want an unequal value to peoples opinions for the sake of bipartisanship and a 200 year old compromise that is so horribly out of date...

[Patrick Degan]

And because people believe different things does not mean thier votes should be of differing value.

Is there a missing line in that document?

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, unless they happen to live in different areas..."

You just never tire of this little Strawman of yours, do you?

Come on, your entire justification for all these things lie in
Different states have different cultures. - Maybe 200 years ago when they really were different nations, but they are similar enough now...

Spoken like somebody who really doesn't know the country he lives in beyond his own little block in the city or his own farm. If that truly was the case in American politics, the country wouldn't be as polarised as it is now.

Tyranny of the majority is bad. - except, a tyranny of the minority is even worse. Tyranny of any sort is bad, that's a big duh.

Black/White Fallacy. To obviate against Tyranny of the Majority is not to institute a concurrent Tyranny of the Minority.

But what is tyrannical about the winner being the person with the most support among the people. Why is it that it's not tyrannical when this is done to select congressmen but it is here?

Golden Mean Fallacy. What works for a congressional district, a city, or a state, does not necessarily work for a nation of fifty states within a common political union but one which simply does not exist as a single, homogenous nation-state. This is one of the primary reasons why the Electoral College exists in the first place.

I keep calling this stuff shite precisely because it IS shite. You want an unequal value to peoples opinions for the sake of bipartisanship and a 200 year old compromise that is so horribly out of date...

Actually, it seems that you simply call it "shite" to mask your evident ignorance of both American political history and constitutional theory.

[The Kernel]

Degan, you have absolutely failed to address Keevan's main argument which is that there is no reason whatsoever for the EC to exist besides historical presendence. You continually claiming that its a stawman does not change the fact that there is no reasonable argument for why one person's vote should count over another persons for the simple reason of geography.

[Patrick Degan]

Degan, you have absolutely failed to address Keevan's main argument which is that there is no reason whatsoever for the EC to exist besides historical presendence. You continually claiming that its a stawman does not change the fact that there is no reasonable argument for why one person's vote should count over another persons for the simple reason of geography.

On the contrary, as I even bothered to present an alternative to the EC, that assertion of yours doesn't fly. However, even if the EC is archaic, the balance-of-interests concerns which form its foundation as well as that of the existence of the Senate in combination with the House are still valid. And I am not arguing that one person's vote should count over another for the simple reason of geography, but arguing that there must be a mechanism to prevent any particular region of the country from being swamped in any given election by sheer weight of numbers and its voters arbitrarily nullified —which is why we have equal as well as proportional representation in the first place. The former is yet another strawman in what is becoming an increasingly ridiculous discussion.

[The Kernel]

On the contrary, as I even bothered to present an alternative to the EC, that assertion of yours doesn't fly.

You call that a solution? As has already been pointed out, your "solution" does nothing to address the problem and indeed, only makes it ten times worse. If that's your idea of a solution, then I think that says a lot about the logic of your entire argument.

However, even if the EC is archaic, the balance-of-interests concerns which form its foundation as well as that of the existence of the Senate in combination with the House are still valid. And I am not arguing that one person's vote should count over another for the simple reason of geography, but arguing that there must be a mechanism to prevent any particular region of the country from being swamped in any given election by sheer weight of numbers and its voters arbitrarily nullified —which is why we have equal as well as proportional representation in the first place. The former is yet another strawman in what is becoming an increasingly ridiculous discussion.

So instead of it being potentially guided by the will of the population (which kind of makes sense in a Democracy ) you suggest that it should be guided in certainty by a minority for no other reason then geography.

Sorry, but while you claim to not be arguing that you argument is based simply on trying to elevate one persons vote over another because of geography, that is precicely what your argument boils down to. Wrapping it in a mountain of sophistry and double-talk will not change this one iota.

[Andrew J.]

I knew said I wouldn't get involved in this thread ago, but what the hell...

Degan has gone on about certain regions being swamped by other regions and not having a voice in elections. The fact of the matter is, though, that the president doesn't have the power to effect change on such a small level in the first place! States and counties have their own governments to look out for them. Maybe if we lived in a system where the federal government micromanaged everything he might have a point, but the truth is that the needs of each state are met by their own governments and congressional representatives. Campaign promises aside, the President does not have the power to by himself give aid to(or, as Degan is worried about, screw over) any particular state or geographic area except in emergency conditions (the Executive Branch has the power to declare disaster zones, IIRC).

[Edi]

And its not as if it would assure the president of being elected by the majority..more likely you would get 3 or 4 major canidates and the winner taking less than 50%

Have you ever heard of two-round presidential elections? The two who got the most votes in the first round go to the second round a couple of weeks later and the one who gets over 50% in the second round becomes president. This is the way things work out in several existing democracies, such as France, Finland, Estonia and others.

It would also undo the two party system

This would be bad thing, why exactly? The two-party system is the single biggest problem of the American political scene.

which inlarge part exists to elect a president...

Bullshit. There is no provision in your constitution that there only be two parties or that their function is to elect the president. The two-party system has been shaped by history, but there is nothing in the constitution itself to prevent there being more parties. Fact is, however, that after the battle lines were drawn, both parties have done their damnedest to ensure that no third party could ever succeed, by rigging the system for a balance of two.

And the two party system helps to keep all the crazy fringe groups out of power

There is an easy way of preventing the lunatic fringe from gaining power, and that is setting a 5% electoral threshold for the Congress, so that you won't have dozens of parties in there ala Israel, but you could have a few (say, three or four). The two party syetm as it currently stands prevents even major movements from entering the scene unless they can muscle out one of the two existing parties, which just makes it a self-perpetuating two-party circle-wank where nothing ever changes.

Edi

[Patrick Degan]

On the contrary, as I even bothered to present an alternative to the EC, that assertion of yours doesn't fly.

You call that a solution? As has already been pointed out, your "solution" does nothing to address the problem and indeed, only makes it ten times worse. If that's your idea of a solution, then I think that says a lot about the logic of your entire argument.

Simply saying over and over and over and over again that it makes the problem "ten times worse" does not prove the proposition in any way, shape, or form. You, like Colton, focus upon the wrong problem with the EC and keep pretending that simply going to a straight popular vote on a nationwide scale will ensure that all votes will have equal weight.

However, even if the EC is archaic, the balance-of-interests concerns which form its foundation as well as that of the existence of the Senate in combination with the House are still valid. And I am not arguing that one person's vote should count over another for the simple reason of geography, but arguing that there must be a mechanism to prevent any particular region of the country from being swamped in any given election by sheer weight of numbers and its voters arbitrarily nullified —which is why we have equal as well as proportional representation in the first place. The former is yet another strawman in what is becoming an increasingly ridiculous discussion.

So instead of it being potentially guided by the will of the population (which kind of makes sense in a Democracy ) you suggest that it should be guided in certainty by a minority for no other reason then geography.

Man of Straw. You'll have to do better than this ageing horseshit for a rebuttal —especially as my arguments do not advocate what seems to be your ludicrous vision of "geographic tyranny".

Sorry, but while you claim to not be arguing that you argument is based simply on trying to elevate one persons vote over another because of geography, that is precicely what your argument boils down to.

I'm not responsible for your obvious deficency in reading-comprehension. Particularly as the present system represents your alleged tyranny of geography (a conception which ignores American electoral history, BTW) far more than what I've speculated on in this thread.

Wrapping it in a mountain of sophistry and double-talk will not change this one iota.

Pot. Kettle. Black. As you don't even seem to be attempting to come up with either an accurate or honest reading of my arguments, you are the last person to accuse anybody else of wrapping a position in sophistry and doubletalk.

[Keevan_Colton]

Simply saying over and over and over and over again that it makes the problem "ten times worse" does not prove the proposition in any way, shape, or form. You, like Colton, focus upon the wrong problem with the EC and keep pretending that simply going to a straight popular vote on a nationwide scale will ensure that all votes will have equal weight.

Paddy my lad, we showed numbers back there that it is worse.
And, by definition, where every vote is added together in a straight popular vote...every vote has the same weight.

Man of Straw. You'll have to do better than this ageing horseshit for a rebuttal ?especially as my arguments do not advocate what seems to be your ludicrous vision of "geographic tyranny".

Utter shite. You are the one refusing to defend your own idea and simply calling everything a strawman. Your system as has been shown with numbers (and as is the case with the current system) means a person in state A's vote is worth less than a person in state B's vote. That means based on geography (where they live in case this is getting too complicated for you) a persons vote is more or less important, this means a smaller numbe of people (a minority, try to keep up here) controls things against the will of the majority (a sort of tyranny if you will, managing to follow this yet?)

I'm not responsible for your obvious deficency in reading-comprehension. Particularly as the present system represents your alleged tyranny of geography (a conception which ignores American electoral history, BTW) far more than what I've speculated on in this thread.

Ah, we're back to the appeal to tradition shite. Good for you.

Pot. Kettle. Black. As you don't even seem to be attempting to come up with either an accurate or honest reading of my arguments, you are the last person to accuse anybody else of wrapping a position in sophistry and doubletalk.

Bullshit, you've done all the wrapping yourself and you seem incapable of admitting it. Who the hell are you and what did you do with Patrick Deegan?

[Patrick Degan]

Simply saying over and over and over and over again that it makes the problem "ten times worse" does not prove the proposition in any way, shape, or form. You, like Colton, focus upon the wrong problem with the EC and keep pretending that simply going to a straight popular vote on a nationwide scale will ensure that all votes will have equal weight.

Paddy my lad, we showed numbers back there that it is worse.
And, by definition, where every vote is added together in a straight popular vote...every vote has the same weight.

You showed an incomplete picture at best, employing numbers in a couple of cases plucked wholly out of thin air and without context to a far larger picture. And you continue to ignore how bloc-voting essentially erases the supposed equal weight to every vote. Such as was the case in every example of machine-politics in American history and the 70-year one-party dominance of the PRI in Mexican history. The only way to really ensure that every single vote has equal weight would be for this country to adopt the parliamentary system with proportional allocation of representatives based on the percentages of the vote in the general election. And I can tell you right now that crack will be sold in drugstores before this country ever adopts a system like that.

Man of Straw. You'll have to do better than this ageing horseshit for a rebuttal ?especially as my arguments do not advocate what seems to be your ludicrous vision of "geographic tyranny".

Utter shite.

Your trademark rebuttal, yet again...

You are the one refusing to defend your own idea and simply calling everything a strawman.

Bull. Fucking. SHIT. The only way you can make that assertion is by blatantly ignoring every argument presented and dishonestly portraying my position as something it is not.

Your system as has been shown with numbers

By all means continue to indulge your fantasies.

(and as is the case with the current system) means a person in state A's vote is worth less than a person in state B's vote. That means based on geography (where they live in case this is getting too complicated for you) a persons vote is more or less important, this means a smaller numbe of people (a minority, try to keep up here) controls things against the will of the majority (a sort of tyranny if you will, managing to follow this yet?)

Trying to base an argument on assertion-as-fact doesn't yield its proof, no matter how much you dearly believe it does. That you are too fucking dense to understand the theory underlining balance-of-interests in the constitution, which is why American electoral politics is more than a mere matter of bald numbers, has become all too painfully evident. So take your smug patronising and shove it up your ass.

I'm not responsible for your obvious deficency in reading-comprehension. Particularly as the present system represents your alleged tyranny of geography (a conception which ignores American electoral history, BTW) far more than what I've speculated on in this thread.

Ah, we're back to the appeal to tradition shite. Good for you.

Um, wrong stupid —this is not an Appeal to Tradition but citation of precedent, which is valid as support for any argument of legal and constitutional issues.

Pot. Kettle. Black. As you don't even seem to be attempting to come up with either an accurate or honest reading of my arguments, you are the last person to accuse anybody else of wrapping a position in sophistry and doubletalk.

Bullshit, you've done all the wrapping yourself and you seem incapable of admitting it. Who the hell are you and what did you do with Patrick Deegan?

Your concession is accepted.

[Keevan_Colton]

You're the one conceeding here.

You "precident" is an appeal to tradition. Call it what you like, that's what it is.

You have ignored numbers in favour of some unsubstantiated idea of differences.

You cite voting blocs as a problem, yet want a system where areas are made into voting blocs. If that isnt a perfect example of your retarded notions here I dont know what is.

You've called everything a strawman and stuck your fingers in your ears.

In fact, you've debated like Comical Axi.

[Slartibartfast]

There are three democracies in the world that elect their President directly (and Parliamentary democracy is not a valid analogy, so don't bring it up) - Finland, France, and Russia.

Funny! I can't believe I hadn't figured it up until now, but it turns out that I must be living in either Finland, France and Russia! I must spread these news around my fellow citizens.

[Joe]

Fantastic, now why don't you try actually correcting my mistake rather than just copping a shit attitude and saying absolutely nothing at all, cockgobbler.

[Illuminatus Primus]

How can you cite "precedent in law" as a point in your favor when the debate has been about how the voting should be reformed, not on what is currently legal.

[Slartibartfast]

Fantastic, now why don't you try actually correcting my mistake rather than just copping a shit attitude and saying absolutely nothing at all, cockgobbler.

Ok genius, here's me correcting your mistake:

YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG! WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

There are definitely more than 3 democracies out there that elect their president thru a straight popular vote, shitmunch.

[Bugsby]

OK, guys. Let's try this.

We keep the college. The college is good. Why? It makes politicians pay attention to issues that are important to smaller states. A candidate could campaign primarily in NY and LA and win on a platform that addresses only urban concerns, not rural ones. Giving at least 3 electoral votes to each state ensures that the voice of those states is heard.

The modification to make is to eliminate the winner-take-all system. Instead of having California always take 54, you need to make it so that it gets a proportional amount of the votes. If 30% vote Dem and 68% vote Rep and 2% vote Third Party, then Dems get 30% of the electoral votes, Reps get 68% of the Electoral votes, and Third Party (of some sort) gets 2%. I have always thought this would be fairest. The only thing left to decide is to do direct %votes = % electoral votes, or to break it up into districts and do one district = one electoral vote.

Anyone have any thoughts?

[frigidmagi]

I think that could work, but how you going to get the big states to accept a dilution in their power?

[Bugsby]

I think that could work, but how you going to get the big states to accept a dilution in their power?

It's not really a dilution. It keeps the same amount of electoral votes for the big states. It might actually be more popular in the house. Now Republicans in Orange County would have their votes count for once! But then again, I haven't floated this idea to congress (Yet! ), so I don't know how they would repond. But I'm optimistic.