I swear everyone you talk to has a "comprehension problem"
Hello? He quoted the sentence where I explained it and then claimed that I said Bush had an electoral college mandate. I didn't say that. I claimed that it gave someone with 55% of the vote a mandate because they likely would receive 95%+ of the electoral college votes.
Lots of people do have comprehension problems around here.
For example there are some folks that don't understand the meaning of support, understand and terrorist.
The thing this guy is leaving out is that due to milktoast candidates voter turnout last time wasn't stellar. I believe things will be different this time.
So winning an election without winning the vote improves the winner's mandate?
You guys can argue all you want about how the 2000 election was perfectly fine. But like it or not, the perception that Bush won the election in the judiciary, and the perception that Gore "should have won," both based on the popular vote and even the intent of the Florida voters, will automatically energize the Democratic base. There are a whole lot of people really, really looking forward to voting against Bush.
The thing this guy is leaving out is that due to milktoast candidates voter turnout last time wasn't stellar. I believe things will be different this time.
Voter turnout has sucked for the past 30 years. But, like you, I have hopes that things will be different next time. If anything good came out of the Florida debacle, it's surely that individual votes *do* count (assuming they are counted).
Looking at the maps you posted it is no wonder Democrats accuse Republicans of desiring global warming. Raise the water line about 40 feet and the entire Democratic party is gone!
Last I checked, it was one vote per citizen, not one vote per square mile.
It's supposed to tell us, I think, that there are large spaces in the US with very few people in them, and that many of these people tend to vote Republican. I think it's also supposed to tell us that if you add up all of those people, there are slightly more people who live in relatively urban areas who tend to vote democrat.
when the US was first created the founding fathers (of the smaller states) were paranoid that their small size would mean that they'd have no say in future policies of the country.
along those lines you had the senate/congress compromise.
* Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
this just helps balance out the large, urban states with the smaller, rural ones. as you can see, if it weren't for those two senate electoral votes for the smaller states, GWB would have lost by a landslide.
While federal systems usually have some sort of political overrepresentation of smaller states (which is usually done by having a second chamber in which each member state gets the same or a relatively similar number of representatives), I don't see the advantage of giving smaller states a larger say in the election of the president (or in any federal election, for that matter).
You may prefer Bush to Gore and in that case you're certainly glad that the way the system works helped Bush, but if you look at the question at an abstract level, why the heck should citizens of less populous states have overproportional voting power???
why the heck should citizens of less populous states have overproportional voting power???
for the same reason we have a Senate (hugely disproportionate) and a Congress. the small states need to have some say in how the country is run, and who is elected to run it. as it stands now, with only 9 of the 50 states you can have 243 of the 270 electoral votes needed to become president. small states can get overwhelmed by the larger ones unless they are given a disproportionate voting bloc.
a perfect example is what happened to Nevada recently. the country as a whole voted that Nevada would become the US'es nuclear waste dumping grounds. this happened against the protests from Nevada, but they didn't have enough voting power to stop it. this was an unusual case though, because normally the smaller states have enough power in the Senate to keep from getting bullied by the larger states.
the electoral college is set up as a compomise between large and small states.
that's the way the country was set up from the beginning, i see no reason to change it now.
It's great for the compromise provided by the Senate and House. But I'm not sure it works on the same principle when it comes to popular national votes. Remember, the electoral college was set up when the president was not popularly elected - the electors from the electoral college did the actual deciding, unlike now.
Are you sure that smaller states get more attention because of the electoral college? I think the reverse is true. The electoral college encourages candidates to go to the big states where the electoral votes are, and to ignore the small states because they're not worth it.
t's great for the compromise provided by the Senate and House. But I'm not sure it works on the same principle when it comes to popular national votes. Remember, the electoral college was set up when the president was not popularly elected - the electors from the electoral college did the actual deciding, unlike now.
Are you sure that smaller states get more attention because of the electoral college? I think the reverse is true. The electoral college encourages candidates to go to the big states where the electoral votes are, and to ignore the small states because they're not worth it.
technically (from what i understand of it) the electoral votes don't have to follow an all or nothing voting group, they just have in the past and still do to this day.
as for ignoring the small states, by giving states a minimum of 2 electoral votes, it is automatically worth more when there's only 538 total votes to get passed around. if you were to take 100 votes out of the system, so you have 438 votes now, (and you'd need 220 to win instead of 270) those 9 states would have 225 electoral votes between them, and you'd be in.
as it is now, a state with 3 electoral votes represents .557% of the total vote. if they only had 1 vote (of 438) they'd represent .228% of the vote.
it makes them worth a lot more, without it being an overwhelming difference.
I understand. At least on paper, if you divide electoral college votes into actual population, the smaller state gets a bit of an advantage. But in practice, that doesn't seem to be the way it works, because each candidate has limited time and money, and so has to choose whose vote to care about.
Hypothetical:
Jimmy Montanan lives in a city of 50,000 in a state with 3 electoral votes.
Johnny Californian lives in a city of 50,000 in a state with 54 electoral votes.
According to your analysis, the Montanan's vote is worth more. But look at it this way: Who is going to get more attention? Candidates will constantly be paying attention to the Californian's issues, probably passing through their area several times. The Montanan will be ignored. Their issues won't be addressed, and the candidates will rarely if ever show up.
I think a perfectly Constitutional way of improving the situation would be for states to pass laws allowing proportional voting by the electors, like I think Maine and maybe another state. Then it could benefit a candidate to take a piece of a state. And I think it would be much less likely that someone could win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
I understand. At least on paper, if you divide electoral college votes into actual population, the smaller state gets a bit of an advantage. But in practice, that doesn't seem to be the way it works, because each candidate has limited time and money, and so has to choose whose vote to care about.
Hypothetical:
Jimmy Montanan lives in a city of 50,000 in a state with 3 electoral votes.
Johnny Californian lives in a city of 50,000 in a state with 54 electoral votes.
According to your analysis, the Montanan's vote is worth more. But look at it this way: Who is going to get more attention? Candidates will constantly be paying attention to the Californian's issues, probably passing through their area several times. The Montanan will be ignored. Their issues won't be addressed, and the candidates will rarely if ever show up.
I think a perfectly Constitutional way of improving the situation would be for states to pass laws allowing proportional voting by the electors, like I think Maine and maybe another state. Then it could benefit a candidate to take a piece of a state. And I think it would be much less likely that someone could win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
I believe you are right and the way the small states countered this was to hold their primaries earlier or to hold them in conjunction with several other states (Super Tuesday for the south, etc.)
This empowers them because when you don't have much money, you can still campaign effectively in these small states win an election or two there and then claim you have the big "mo" momentum for fund raising as you head toward the bigger states.
The negative aspect of this has been a race to the back as it were because states like California have moved their primaries from June to February. If anything this hurts small candidates and forces the parties to consolidate their money and message even sooner.
So it historically did have a benefit. Smaller candidates with more diverse messages could compete with little money in smaller states. Perhaps they didn't win the nomination but in consolidating their votes were offered things like a chance to address the convention with their views.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Cut out the personal swipes already!
Hello? He quoted the sentence where I explained it and then claimed that I said Bush had an electoral college mandate. I didn't say that. I claimed that it gave someone with 55% of the vote a mandate because they likely would receive 95%+ of the electoral college votes.
Lots of people do have comprehension problems around here.
For example there are some folks that don't understand the meaning of support, understand and terrorist.
Nick
gotta dig the sig.....
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Originally posted by BRussell
So winning an election without winning the vote improves the winner's mandate?
You guys can argue all you want about how the 2000 election was perfectly fine. But like it or not, the perception that Bush won the election in the judiciary, and the perception that Gore "should have won," both based on the popular vote and even the intent of the Florida voters, will automatically energize the Democratic base. There are a whole lot of people really, really looking forward to voting against Bush.
Ditto here!
Originally posted by jimmac
The thing this guy is leaving out is that due to milktoast candidates voter turnout last time wasn't stellar. I believe things will be different this time.
Voter turnout has sucked for the past 30 years. But, like you, I have hopes that things will be different next time. If anything good came out of the Florida debacle, it's surely that individual votes *do* count (assuming they are counted).
Originally posted by trumptman
Comprehension problem?
Perhaps. Please, from now on, use bullet points and simpler sentence structures. And a big, purple font would be nice, too.
Nick
they aren't supposed to know about that part......
Originally posted by alcimedes
Wow! Gore won my in my home county! Winona County, Minnesota.
There is something strange about the population numbers of those counties though.
Last I checked, it was one vote per citizen, not one vote per square mile.
Originally posted by amyklai
^^So what are these maps supposed to tell us?
Last I checked, it was one vote per citizen, not one vote per square mile.
It's supposed to tell us, I think, that there are large spaces in the US with very few people in them, and that many of these people tend to vote Republican. I think it's also supposed to tell us that if you add up all of those people, there are slightly more people who live in relatively urban areas who tend to vote democrat.
I think.
along those lines you had the senate/congress compromise.
* Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
this just helps balance out the large, urban states with the smaller, rural ones. as you can see, if it weren't for those two senate electoral votes for the smaller states, GWB would have lost by a landslide.
popular vote isn't always the best way to go.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
Originally posted by alcimedes
popular vote isn't always the best way to go.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
Why??
While federal systems usually have some sort of political overrepresentation of smaller states (which is usually done by having a second chamber in which each member state gets the same or a relatively similar number of representatives), I don't see the advantage of giving smaller states a larger say in the election of the president (or in any federal election, for that matter).
You may prefer Bush to Gore and in that case you're certainly glad that the way the system works helped Bush, but if you look at the question at an abstract level, why the heck should citizens of less populous states have overproportional voting power???
why the heck should citizens of less populous states have overproportional voting power???
for the same reason we have a Senate (hugely disproportionate) and a Congress. the small states need to have some say in how the country is run, and who is elected to run it. as it stands now, with only 9 of the 50 states you can have 243 of the 270 electoral votes needed to become president. small states can get overwhelmed by the larger ones unless they are given a disproportionate voting bloc.
a perfect example is what happened to Nevada recently. the country as a whole voted that Nevada would become the US'es nuclear waste dumping grounds. this happened against the protests from Nevada, but they didn't have enough voting power to stop it. this was an unusual case though, because normally the smaller states have enough power in the Senate to keep from getting bullied by the larger states.
the electoral college is set up as a compomise between large and small states.
that's the way the country was set up from the beginning, i see no reason to change it now.
Are you sure that smaller states get more attention because of the electoral college? I think the reverse is true. The electoral college encourages candidates to go to the big states where the electoral votes are, and to ignore the small states because they're not worth it.
t's great for the compromise provided by the Senate and House. But I'm not sure it works on the same principle when it comes to popular national votes. Remember, the electoral college was set up when the president was not popularly elected - the electors from the electoral college did the actual deciding, unlike now.
Are you sure that smaller states get more attention because of the electoral college? I think the reverse is true. The electoral college encourages candidates to go to the big states where the electoral votes are, and to ignore the small states because they're not worth it.
technically (from what i understand of it) the electoral votes don't have to follow an all or nothing voting group, they just have in the past and still do to this day.
as for ignoring the small states, by giving states a minimum of 2 electoral votes, it is automatically worth more when there's only 538 total votes to get passed around. if you were to take 100 votes out of the system, so you have 438 votes now, (and you'd need 220 to win instead of 270) those 9 states would have 225 electoral votes between them, and you'd be in.
as it is now, a state with 3 electoral votes represents .557% of the total vote. if they only had 1 vote (of 438) they'd represent .228% of the vote.
it makes them worth a lot more, without it being an overwhelming difference.
Hypothetical:
Jimmy Montanan lives in a city of 50,000 in a state with 3 electoral votes.
Johnny Californian lives in a city of 50,000 in a state with 54 electoral votes.
According to your analysis, the Montanan's vote is worth more. But look at it this way: Who is going to get more attention? Candidates will constantly be paying attention to the Californian's issues, probably passing through their area several times. The Montanan will be ignored. Their issues won't be addressed, and the candidates will rarely if ever show up.
I think a perfectly Constitutional way of improving the situation would be for states to pass laws allowing proportional voting by the electors, like I think Maine and maybe another state. Then it could benefit a candidate to take a piece of a state. And I think it would be much less likely that someone could win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
Originally posted by BRussell
I understand. At least on paper, if you divide electoral college votes into actual population, the smaller state gets a bit of an advantage. But in practice, that doesn't seem to be the way it works, because each candidate has limited time and money, and so has to choose whose vote to care about.
Hypothetical:
Jimmy Montanan lives in a city of 50,000 in a state with 3 electoral votes.
Johnny Californian lives in a city of 50,000 in a state with 54 electoral votes.
According to your analysis, the Montanan's vote is worth more. But look at it this way: Who is going to get more attention? Candidates will constantly be paying attention to the Californian's issues, probably passing through their area several times. The Montanan will be ignored. Their issues won't be addressed, and the candidates will rarely if ever show up.
I think a perfectly Constitutional way of improving the situation would be for states to pass laws allowing proportional voting by the electors, like I think Maine and maybe another state. Then it could benefit a candidate to take a piece of a state. And I think it would be much less likely that someone could win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
I believe you are right and the way the small states countered this was to hold their primaries earlier or to hold them in conjunction with several other states (Super Tuesday for the south, etc.)
This empowers them because when you don't have much money, you can still campaign effectively in these small states win an election or two there and then claim you have the big "mo" momentum for fund raising as you head toward the bigger states.
The negative aspect of this has been a race to the back as it were because states like California have moved their primaries from June to February. If anything this hurts small candidates and forces the parties to consolidate their money and message even sooner.
So it historically did have a benefit. Smaller candidates with more diverse messages could compete with little money in smaller states. Perhaps they didn't win the nomination but in consolidating their votes were offered things like a chance to address the convention with their views.
Nick
Originally posted by alcimedes
this is the other reason why there's an electoral college.
So you're saying votes out in the middle of nowhere should count more than those in high density population centers? Uh huh.
Originally posted by jimmac
So you're saying votes out in the middle of nowhere should count more than those in high density population centers? Uh huh.
Evidently they already do.