F... US voting bureaucracy

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Isn't a vote, that matters, a voice? I just don't understand your argument. In my scenario, every voting person in the United States has an equal say of who the next president is, as it is now many people don't have a vote. For instance, I typically lean more liberal in Virginia. My vote is more or less useless. Fairfax county is a different story, but Virginia is a majority Republican. I feel like my voice isn't heard because of this problem. Yes, programs will be directed more towards urban areas, but the point of this is to work to do what the majority of the country wants, not just a cell of the country.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I really can't fathom the argument you're making. Every person has their vote counted, and the majority of America speaks. Let's also remember, I know people think Democrats get the minority vote -- but Hispanics are often very conservative. I've said what I want to say, people know my stance. I'm actually a bit surprised there isn't more support on the issue, but that's what I like about civil political discussions. At least try to see what others think.

Maybe I am not explaining it well enough.

If a candidate only needs 51% of a popular vote to win then there is an extreme motivation for them to appropriate their efforts and resources towards only the 51%. IE 51% of the populous gets 100% of the benefits. Especially in the context of our populous it is very easy to find 51% in about 15-20 different cities. So in this example then the entire rest of the country doesn't get the resources that the bigger cities get... tax cuts, services, etc..

Again why would politicians even worry about small and medium size cities when it is easier and more effective to focus their attention towards only the big cities? This effectively removes the voice of the rest of the country. The 51% is being bribed to vote for one guy. It is an admittedly extreme simplistic example but the mechanics of the "market" hold true. By removing some of the value from the votes from big cities we are forcing politicians to take seriously the entire country and not just steer thier efforts and resources to one part of the country.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I don't understand why you're equating land mass to population. If a MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE (aka the welfare crowd as you ignorantly put) want a candidate, why should the less than 2 million people in north dakota have such a big impact?

Take a look at the POPULATION WON on the 2004 map. The candidate that absolutely cleaned house on area won ALSO won the popular vote, proving the system works.

I think you're just bitter that the majority of the nation elected someone you don't like.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Isn't a vote, that matters, a voice? I just don't understand your argument. In my scenario, every voting person in the United States has an equal say of who the next president is, as it is now many people don't have a vote. For instance, I typically lean more liberal in Virginia. My vote is more or less useless. Fairfax county is a different story, but Virginia is a majority Republican. I feel like my voice isn't heard because of this problem. Yes, programs will be directed more towards urban areas, but the point of this is to work to do what the majority of the country wants, not just a cell of the country.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I really can't fathom the argument you're making. Every person has their vote counted, and the majority of America speaks. Let's also remember, I know people think Democrats get the minority vote -- but Hispanics are often very conservative. I've said what I want to say, people know my stance. I'm actually a bit surprised there isn't more support on the issue, but that's what I like about civil political discussions. At least try to see what others think.

If everyone was spread about the nation equally instead of concentrated in a few select cities, a popular election would work. However, a President needs to be able to address the very different issues of ALL areas of the nation, not just the population centers.


The system has not failed us in 200+ years despite what pundits and media people who didn't get their way cry about. No need to change it.

Look at what happens when you tinker with the electoral system: right now the Democrat party is creating a mess by changing rules and trying to change them back when they don't get their desired results. (Michigan and Florida Democrat primaries)

The American Spectator

SFGate: Politics Blog : Pelosi: Don't overrule the voters

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Buster

Take a look at the POPULATION WON on the 2004 map. The candidate that absolutely cleaned house on area won ALSO won the popular vote, proving the system works.

I think you're just bitter that the majority of the nation elected someone you don't like.

Buster although I understand what you are saying, I don't think the argument was brought up in a bias way. I also think you are quick to try to disprove anything that doesn't jive with your political alignment. At least in my opinion you always seem to be aching for an argument and/or yelling match.

Your point is valid in this case, but it could completely be possible that that a candidate wins on area, and not population. I think the point here is we are not all equal based on the electoral system but rather the goal is to balance area. I think that is a huge distinction to that what we are taught in grade school.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Buster

The system has not failed us in 200+ years despite what pundits and media people who didn't get their way cry about. No need to change it.

Look at what happens when you tinker with the electoral system: right now the Democrat party is creating a mess by changing rules and trying to change them back when they don't get their desired results. (Michigan and Florida Democrat primaries)

The American Spectator

SFGate: Politics Blog : Pelosi: Don't overrule the voters

You continue to prove my point.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by hooskins

You continue to prove my point.

If it makes you feel better...you can think that.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Buster

If everyone was spread about the nation equally instead of concentrated in a few select cities, a popular election would work. However, a President needs to be able to address the very different issues of ALL areas of the nation, not just the population centers.


The system has not failed us in 200+ years despite what pundits and media people who didn't get their way cry about. No need to change it.

Look at what happens when you tinker with the electoral system: right now the Democrat party is creating a mess by changing rules and trying to change them back when they don't get their desired results. (Michigan and Florida Democrat primaries)

The American Spectator

SFGate: Politics Blog : Pelosi: Don't overrule the voters

Sorry Buster, but I have to agree with hooskins. What exactly does a debate about the electoral college have to do with the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries? It does seem like you're reaching so you can bash the Dems.

As for Hoos not liking Bush, I think he's joined by roughly 70% of the American public.

[Daseal]

Yes, it's not a big surprise that I don't like Bush, but if you look at my original post -- it had nothing to do with the presidential election. It was about the fact that I hate how super-delegates may end up swaying an election against the popular vote.

Buster -- you try to bully people for no reason. Until you joined in it was a calm and rational discussion. I honestly don't feel personal politics were brought into it at all until you come spewing your propaganda.

A popular vote gives everyone a voice regardless of where you are. What's wrong with my vote being equal with yours.

On a side note: I went to campus today and saw three North Dakota license plates both on the way to school and in school.

As I've said -- the only time campaigning really matters anymore are primaries -- and the candidates still have to campaign in each state because of that. The presidential election we'll see more national media campaigns, and less traveling. Everyone's vote counts and everyones vote is important. It won't require presidential candidates to (for instance) try to get a running mate just from a typically red/blue state just so they can pull those electoral votes.