Electoral College Problems
Moderator: Moderators
- FurryForlife
- Hugger Extraordinaire
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:35 am
- Location: Outside Collinsville, IL
- Fav. Twokinds Character: Natani
Electoral College Problems
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgL ... ture=feedu
In this video this man brings up a very valid point. I would like to hear everyone's opinion on that.
In this video this man brings up a very valid point. I would like to hear everyone's opinion on that.
Story: To be Inspired.
My Sofurry account (I believe unless you log in, or change it, the site is in SFW mode)
My Sofurry account (I believe unless you log in, or change it, the site is in SFW mode)
Re: Electoral College Problems
The electoral college exists for a very simple reason: so everyone gets something resembling a say. Notice how whole states get skipped during the mad dash to campaign? Now imagine if we didn't have the electoral equilizer?
Only folks that live in severe urban centers really like the idea of getting rid of the electoral college...or people who haven't figured out yet how marginilized their area would become if we DID get rid of it.
and remember why we had the war for independance: what we wanted wasn't mattering to the decision makers overseas.
Only folks that live in severe urban centers really like the idea of getting rid of the electoral college...or people who haven't figured out yet how marginilized their area would become if we DID get rid of it.
and remember why we had the war for independance: what we wanted wasn't mattering to the decision makers overseas.
- Insomniac
- The Experienced Virgin
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:09 pm
- Location: circling the drain
- Fav. Twokinds Character: Natani
Re: Electoral College Problems
I agree with this. It is completely indefensible that someone with only 22% of the votes across the country's citizens can win the presidency. Simply indefensible, and yet it still goes on. maybe it was a good thing back when it was hard to count all the votes, but y'know what? All the votes are counted individually, so why go to the extra hassle and make it less fair?FurryForlife wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgL ... ture=feedu
In this video this man brings up a very valid point. I would like to hear everyone's opinion on that.
That's exactly the point, though. If a candidate campaigns right, he could make it so that only 22% of the people get a say.Wynni wrote:The electoral college exists for a very simple reason: so everyone gets something resembling a say. Notice how whole states get skipped during the mad dash to campaign? Now imagine if we didn't have the electoral equilizer?
Only folks that live in severe urban centers really like the idea of getting rid of the electoral college...or people who haven't figured out yet how marginilized their area would become if we DID get rid of it.
and remember why we had the war for independance: what we wanted wasn't mattering to the decision makers overseas.
From the Sergals and Sergal Lovers channel of F-List's chat system (Beyond NSFW, by the way): Honey, you ain't the only abnormal sergal in here. We got three pink northerns, a fairy, and a dork with a talking sword.
Re: Electoral College Problems
I always thought the electoral college was ridiculous. I'm a much bigger fan of preferential voting; it seems to make a hell of a lot more sense (and could potentially upset the two-party status quo).
- Kilroywuzheere
- All that and a side of fries
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:50 pm
- Location: Lenexa, Kansas
Re: Electoral College Problems
I'd like to point out that his argument is flawed in a big way.
The electoral college is not a winner take all system. Maine and Nebraska both split their votes based on the popular vote. Granted, more states need to embrace this system, but the point is that a little reform will fix this for the most part. That kind of reform will be a hell of a lot easier than removing the system outright.
The electoral college is not a winner take all system. Maine and Nebraska both split their votes based on the popular vote. Granted, more states need to embrace this system, but the point is that a little reform will fix this for the most part. That kind of reform will be a hell of a lot easier than removing the system outright.
Re: Electoral College Problems
Normally I wouldn't give a toss what you folks do over in the land of bacon and bears. But, one thing that struck me is that you don't give your territories votes, even when their population is much greater than other places that are states. (lol, alaska)
Now that's just silly. *blows raspberry to emphasise silly*
Now that's just silly. *blows raspberry to emphasise silly*
- FurryForlife
- Hugger Extraordinaire
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:35 am
- Location: Outside Collinsville, IL
- Fav. Twokinds Character: Natani
Re: Electoral College Problems
He pointed that out.Kilroywuzheere wrote:I'd like to point out that his argument is flawed in a big way.
The electoral college is not a winner take all system. Maine and Nebraska both split their votes based on the popular vote.
Now I understand the need for the EC back in the 18th century, but now I don't really see the need for it. We do HAVE the tech to process every single vote. Make it to where everyone's vote counts as one. It has the potential to remove the two party status-quo and bring in someone who will actually do what needs to get done FOR THE COUNTRY, and not for their political.
Story: To be Inspired.
My Sofurry account (I believe unless you log in, or change it, the site is in SFW mode)
My Sofurry account (I believe unless you log in, or change it, the site is in SFW mode)
- Phantom
- Templar GrandMaster
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 12:14 pm
- Location: In the land of Mountains, lacs and hills. Where the rails meet, binding the knot.
Re: Electoral College Problems
meh no political system is perfect. If you look at the Swiss direct democracy, its the same thing. The smaller cantons are given more power as well, to protect them from expensive projects proposed by bigger cantons that can afford it. (Here is a link for a vid explaining it all, have a look)
But a problem as its pointed out in the video, we have the power to vote, but only a few actually vote, and, sometimes we vote for stupid things, like "are you willing to pay more tax's for government projects?" And people say yes..... And in Switzerland, majourities are often like 53/54% >.<
Ok, i talk about Switzerland, but hey i know this political system, and like your issue, we also give a bit more power to smaller states, because we believe that they should not be left out, and if for example, they voted on improving and building highways, but the smaller cantons (States) could not afford it, well it would create lots of problems =(
But a problem as its pointed out in the video, we have the power to vote, but only a few actually vote, and, sometimes we vote for stupid things, like "are you willing to pay more tax's for government projects?" And people say yes..... And in Switzerland, majourities are often like 53/54% >.<
Ok, i talk about Switzerland, but hey i know this political system, and like your issue, we also give a bit more power to smaller states, because we believe that they should not be left out, and if for example, they voted on improving and building highways, but the smaller cantons (States) could not afford it, well it would create lots of problems =(
Re: Electoral College Problems
Alaska is not a territory, it's a State, and it has the same percentage of votes as every other state, based on population.
As Phantom pointed out, smaller states (Like Rhode Island for example), or states with smaller populations (like Alaska), would be totally thrown under the bus in favor of larger states. To some extent we already are, and you want to take the last little bit of protection left in the presidential selection to keep us from becoming everyone elses dishrag? Why?
If you don't believe whole populations and states are being marginalized under the current system,take a look at the election map between Bush and Gore.
See all those states in Red? Those were the states that voted for Bush, while the Blue represents Gore voters. The 27 florida votes were all that stood between those few population centers deciding who would be president.
Putting even more direct voting power into those crazed ant hills does not sit well with me.
As Phantom pointed out, smaller states (Like Rhode Island for example), or states with smaller populations (like Alaska), would be totally thrown under the bus in favor of larger states. To some extent we already are, and you want to take the last little bit of protection left in the presidential selection to keep us from becoming everyone elses dishrag? Why?
If you don't believe whole populations and states are being marginalized under the current system,take a look at the election map between Bush and Gore.
See all those states in Red? Those were the states that voted for Bush, while the Blue represents Gore voters. The 27 florida votes were all that stood between those few population centers deciding who would be president.
Putting even more direct voting power into those crazed ant hills does not sit well with me.
- Insomniac
- The Experienced Virgin
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:09 pm
- Location: circling the drain
- Fav. Twokinds Character: Natani
Re: Electoral College Problems
The issue I take with the electoral college is that it makes it possible for someone to lose the popular vote, as Bush did to gore, but to win the presidency based on votes not of the people, but of the states. I believe the electoral college system should be done away with and that each individual vote should count, actually count. The votes of the people are what matters, not the votes of just over half the people in each state. As the video in the OP said, this isn't democracy, it's indefensible.Wynni wrote: Alaska is not a territory, it's a State, and it has the same percentage of votes as every other state, based on population.
As Phantom pointed out, smaller states (Like Rhode Island for example), or states with smaller populations (like Alaska), would be totally thrown under the bus in favor of larger states. To some extent we already are, and you want to take the last little bit of protection left in the presidential selection to keep us from becoming everyone elses dishrag? Why?
If you don't believe whole populations and states are being marginalized under the current system,take a look at the election map between Bush and Gore.
See all those states in Red? Those were the states that voted for Bush, while the Blue represents Gore voters. The 27 florida votes were all that stood between those few population centers deciding who would be president.
Putting even more direct voting power into those crazed ant hills does not sit well with me.
From the Sergals and Sergal Lovers channel of F-List's chat system (Beyond NSFW, by the way): Honey, you ain't the only abnormal sergal in here. We got three pink northerns, a fairy, and a dork with a talking sword.
Re: Electoral College Problems
So, Somni, when a bigger town decides your pretty city hall would make a great dumpsite, you'll be okay with that, because they have more votes than your town?
This is the kind of crap that will go down, and has gone down, without things like the electoral college in place.
and you can bet, without the electoral college, every vote won't count, because they'll never bother visiting the smaller population states again on a campaign trail.
We will cease to matter in governing our country, ever.
This is the kind of crap that will go down, and has gone down, without things like the electoral college in place.
and you can bet, without the electoral college, every vote won't count, because they'll never bother visiting the smaller population states again on a campaign trail.
We will cease to matter in governing our country, ever.
- FurryForlife
- Hugger Extraordinaire
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:35 am
- Location: Outside Collinsville, IL
- Fav. Twokinds Character: Natani
Re: Electoral College Problems
I'm not sure if it was the video or its sister video that explained that even the top 50 cities by population equals less than 10% of total population.
And Wynni... WHY does it matter if presidential candidate visits your state? Most states ALREADY don't get a official visit from the the candidates. Its like watching sports: You get a MUCH better view watching it on TV, or on internet.
And Wynni... WHY does it matter if presidential candidate visits your state? Most states ALREADY don't get a official visit from the the candidates. Its like watching sports: You get a MUCH better view watching it on TV, or on internet.
Story: To be Inspired.
My Sofurry account (I believe unless you log in, or change it, the site is in SFW mode)
My Sofurry account (I believe unless you log in, or change it, the site is in SFW mode)
- Insomniac
- The Experienced Virgin
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:09 pm
- Location: circling the drain
- Fav. Twokinds Character: Natani
Re: Electoral College Problems
Firstly, the argument you make is absurd. A neighboring town wouldn't be able to turn yours into a dump site, because your town's mayor wouldn't allow it, and he/she'd be able to go to the governor for support. As for your argument that they'll never bother visiting the smaller population states,Wynni wrote:So, Somni, when a bigger town decides your pretty city hall would make a great dumpsite, you'll be okay with that, because they have more votes than your town?
This is the kind of crap that will go down, and has gone down, without things like the electoral college in place.
and you can bet, without the electoral college, every vote won't count, because they'll never bother visiting the smaller population states again on a campaign trail.
We will cease to matter in governing our country, ever.
OPandFFL wrote:I'm not sure if it was the video or its sister video that explained that even the top 50 cities by population equals less than 10% of total population.
From the Sergals and Sergal Lovers channel of F-List's chat system (Beyond NSFW, by the way): Honey, you ain't the only abnormal sergal in here. We got three pink northerns, a fairy, and a dork with a talking sword.
- avwolf
- Templar Inner Circle
- Posts: 7006
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:33 pm
- Location: Nebraska, USA
- Contact:
Re: Electoral College Problems
I dunno, it sure was nice to see candidates care about Nebraska enough to come and talk in our state in the last election. I kinda like how it's not all just California, New York, and Texas sometimes. I've always personally been a fan of the Electoral College, but I think more states should do what we do, and divide the votes up. In any event, I appreciate that the Electoral College requires the candidates to at least make a half-hearted attempt at wooing rural, non-coastal areas. The fact that Nebraska has a fifth the votes of New York instead of a tenth the votes means that candidates have to pay at least that much more attention to our needs, which are vastly different than those of a New Yorker. If anything, the Electoral College is more important now, because of the population disparity, than it was when it was put into place. It's not that it's so difficult to conduct a popular election, it's that the Electoral College, like the Senate, protects smaller states from being trampled by larger states with different interests, issues, and desires. Electoral votes are still determined by population, but they're controlled to prevent too much domination of the voting by any particular area.
Let's not forget, while it's incredibly uncommon, the electors can cast their electoral vote differently than the popular vote in their district would indicate. As noted time and time again, America isn't really a democracy. That's not how we do things. We're a republic, a representative democracy, where we select people to represent our best interests for us.
--Since--
A politician's job is to get elected, they pander to those who can elect them. A move to a populist voting structure would encourage pandering to the largest population centers. Even when you're talking top 50 cities, that's still different from the bottom 50 cities. It's not that the top 50 cities are 10% of the population, it's that the population is, in general, highly urbanized. When you're from small town (very small town) America, you know that your needs are incredibly different from those from concentrated population areas. I've been in cities with more population than my entire state. Tell me again how that difference doesn't dwarf the value of my interests and my vote.
-- Checking my own math --
New York only has about nine times the population of Nebraska and six times the electoral votes so I've updated those figures.
-- I also --
Want to follow up on Sebbie's note of "preferential voting." Can you give me a quick summary, Seb? I'm...feeling to lazy to look it up, to tell the truth. I think direct voting would tend to ruin third-party chances even worse than they currently are, due to human nature when casting votes. (See my laziness right there? Yeah, that's why. We can't be bothered to properly research candidates, and we just vote for the names we recognize instead. I know that I'm hard pressed personally to manage to research more than the most important candidates on a ballot, and I can miss some of them even, and I doubt my experience is dissimilar to most Americans.)
-- Maybe --
It doesn't matter anymore, since the electoral college is pretty well aligned along state-wise population anyhow. Nebraskans are about 100th the total votes either way, give or take. Though I think the electoral college is more resisiliant against vote fraud than direct election is, maybe our security on our new technology is good enough to make that not an issue? (The news loves stories about insecure voting machines, but that could easily be overblown.)
Let's not forget, while it's incredibly uncommon, the electors can cast their electoral vote differently than the popular vote in their district would indicate. As noted time and time again, America isn't really a democracy. That's not how we do things. We're a republic, a representative democracy, where we select people to represent our best interests for us.
--Since--
A politician's job is to get elected, they pander to those who can elect them. A move to a populist voting structure would encourage pandering to the largest population centers. Even when you're talking top 50 cities, that's still different from the bottom 50 cities. It's not that the top 50 cities are 10% of the population, it's that the population is, in general, highly urbanized. When you're from small town (very small town) America, you know that your needs are incredibly different from those from concentrated population areas. I've been in cities with more population than my entire state. Tell me again how that difference doesn't dwarf the value of my interests and my vote.
-- Checking my own math --
New York only has about nine times the population of Nebraska and six times the electoral votes so I've updated those figures.
-- I also --
Want to follow up on Sebbie's note of "preferential voting." Can you give me a quick summary, Seb? I'm...feeling to lazy to look it up, to tell the truth. I think direct voting would tend to ruin third-party chances even worse than they currently are, due to human nature when casting votes. (See my laziness right there? Yeah, that's why. We can't be bothered to properly research candidates, and we just vote for the names we recognize instead. I know that I'm hard pressed personally to manage to research more than the most important candidates on a ballot, and I can miss some of them even, and I doubt my experience is dissimilar to most Americans.)
-- Maybe --
It doesn't matter anymore, since the electoral college is pretty well aligned along state-wise population anyhow. Nebraskans are about 100th the total votes either way, give or take. Though I think the electoral college is more resisiliant against vote fraud than direct election is, maybe our security on our new technology is good enough to make that not an issue? (The news loves stories about insecure voting machines, but that could easily be overblown.)
Re: Electoral College Problems
Wynni, are you somehow implying that the number of votes per unit area of land should be uniform everywhere? The whole point of democracy is that it is the people who vote, not the states. States are artificial entities, and saying that all states should get equal representation is silly. All people should get equal representation, and the current system defeats that purpose.Wynni wrote:As Phantom pointed out, smaller states (Like Rhode Island for example), or states with smaller populations (like Alaska), would be totally thrown under the bus in favor of larger states. To some extent we already are, and you want to take the last little bit of protection left in the presidential selection to keep us from becoming everyone elses dishrag? Why?
If you don't believe whole populations and states are being marginalized under the current system,take a look at the election map between Bush and Gore.
See all those states in Red? Those were the states that voted for Bush, while the Blue represents Gore voters. The 27 florida votes were all that stood between those few population centers deciding who would be president.
Oh, yes, those crazed anthills, what with their financially supporting the red states, lower teen pregnancy rates, better education, and other all-around awesomeness. Clearly they have no idea what they're doing.Wynni wrote:Putting even more direct voting power into those crazed ant hills does not sit well with me.
Anyway, Wynni, does it sit well with you that in the 2000 presidential election, more people voted for Gore, but Bush won? Does that seem like the way democracy should work to you?
Ninjad by av! I guess my point is this: the point of democracy is to make as many people happy as possible (not an ideal form of government, because it doesn't make everyone happy, but oh well). If the large majority of a population is urban, then wouldn't it make more people happy to cater to urban needs, rather that rural ones? Yes, it means that rural populations can get screwed (although one would hope that ideally, rural populations would be allowed to govern themselves and be left more or less alone by urban ones), but it seems truer to the spirit of democracy.