Is it time to do away with the electoral college?

[yorost]

Well, our government is designed to be state first, roughly speaking, it just doesn't effectively work that way.  That's why the federal government isn't always passing laws but finding ways to force states to pass laws or do things.  The federal government is often just trying to coordinate states, and believe me states aren't always receptive.

[theseoafs]

But how in the world is that fair? We're dealing with a federal position, it should be representative of the people, not representative more-so of the people who live in less populous states and less-so of people who live in more populous states.

Yeah, I was being facetious.  I agree with you.

[Nick]

It occurs to me if you need the electoral college to even out the representation of smaller states then you haven't separated out your state vs federal responsibilities and oversight.  I mean ideally shouldn't the federal government and the executive office exist to apply and represent issues that are independent of geography? A citizen's need of national defence or minimum standards of lead in drinking water are the same whether you live in stanford, boston albequerque or buttfuck nowhere. If its an issue when geography is a factor then devolve it to the state or local government level.

Exactly. And we all need to decide where the line between state and federal rules/standards should apply, but I again think that we should all be equal in that decision.

[rumborak]

Problem is that in the US state vs. federal has become yet another playing ball for politics. Each side will use whatever is the most convenient at a time. (e.g. Republicans have no problem imposing federal laws on ethical issues, as little as Democrats)

[Super Dude]

Well, our government is designed to be state first, roughly speaking, it just doesn't effectively work that way.  That's why the federal government isn't always passing laws but finding ways to force states to pass laws or do things.  The federal government is often just trying to coordinate states, and believe me states aren't always receptive.

I dunno about that. For the first fifty some years of U.S. independence, the federal-state-local "cake" was designed to be pretty even-handed about all levels, like the governmental branches themselves.

[Scheavo]

Well, our government is designed to be state first, roughly speaking, it just doesn't effectively work that way.  That's why the federal government isn't always passing laws but finding ways to force states to pass laws or do things.  The federal government is often just trying to coordinate states, and believe me states aren't always receptive.

I really fail to see how talking about how the government was designed is a forceful argument when considering how the government should be designed.

[Tick]

All I will say is I live in Connecticut so if I vote Republican all I did was waste some gas money I could have put towards a loaf of bread.

[Chino]

All I will say is I live in Connecticut so if I vote Republican all I did was waste some gas money I could have put towards a loaf of bread.

This is one of my main arguments. I think a lot of people simply don't bother voting because their vote will truly mean nothing in their state. But if the election were decided on popular vote, everyone would have the incentive to get out.

[kirksnosehair]

All I will say is I live in Connecticut so if I vote Republican all I did was waste some gas money I could have put towards a loaf of bread.

This is one of my main arguments. I think a lot of people simply don't bother voting because their vote will truly mean nothing in their state. But if the election were decided on popular vote, everyone would have the incentive to get out.

This argument is irrational when you consider that practically every election includes candidates for local, regional, state and national offices.   As far as I'm concerned, if you don't bother voting -and I'm saying in general, not specifying anyone here- anyway, if you don't vote, then STFU and stop whining about who's in office.

[rumborak]

kirk, you're conflating local issues with federal issues. People might have no interest in local issues but high interest in federal issues. The EC will discourage those votes.

In the end, an interesting question would be to ask "if the EC was introduced today, would people agree?", and I believe the resounding answer is "hell no". Everybody would scream at the lack of direct democracy. It's simply that it's old that people defend it.

[yorost]

kirk, you're conflating local issues with federal issues. People might have no interest in local issues but high interest in federal issues. The EC will discourage those votes.

In the end, an interesting question would be to ask "if the EC was introduced today, would people agree?", and I believe the resounding answer is "hell no". Everybody would scream at the lack of direct democracy. It's simply that it's old that people defend it.

I dislike popular vote until it starts getting more localized.  I would not advocate the EC as it stands today, but I would advocate using some system carrying it's ideas.  Of course, if we were in that position I would be looking for much larger changes, but whatever.  What people fight for now is trying to take where we are and fix things in the bestmanner we see possible.  Massive changes just aren't likely.

Also, on the EC discouraging people because they have high interest in federal policies only; every ballot, in the states at least, which has a presidential election also has at least one other federal office up for election.  I get your point, but any discouragement is muted because of that.

[hefdaddy42]

People might have no interest in local issues but high interest in federal issues.

Those people are stupid.

[Nick]

People might have no interest in local issues but high interest in federal issues.

Those people are stupid.

That would be me then I suppose.

It's not that I have zero interest in state and local issues, it's simply that I spend a lot of time educating myself about national policy and at the end of the day don't have the time to educate myself to a level I'd feel is satisfactory to vote on state and local issues.

Luckily the dummies like me are still allowed to vote I guess, though I often feel those of us with a low IQ would be better off staying at home.

[rumborak]

People might have no interest in local issues but high interest in federal issues.

Those people are stupid.

How so? Sometimes there just aren't any real pressing issues on the local level.

[Shine]

The federal government is the government of the States, not of the people. Originally there was only one "direct" outlet for the people to influence the federal government and that was through the house. The Senate, the President, were to be elected by the States, and the Judiciary was to be appointed/approved by the Senate and President. Only the House was elected by the people directly.

That's the whole point of our federalist system, the States govern the people (and can delegate powers to "local" governments if they so choose) and the National government governs the States, so they don't fuck up too irrevocably. The notion that Californians can influence police-powers over people in Maine is silly.

[hefdaddy42]

People might have no interest in local issues but high interest in federal issues.

Those people are stupid.

That would be me then I suppose.

It's not that I have zero interest in state and local issues, it's simply that I spend a lot of time educating myself about national policy and at the end of the day don't have the time to educate myself to a level I'd feel is satisfactory to vote on state and local issues.

Luckily the dummies like me are still allowed to vote I guess, though I often feel those of us with a low IQ would be better off staying at home.

Well, maybe.

But local issues are also very important.  They are the ones that you will have to deal with on a day-in, day-out basis, oftentimes whether you realize it or not.

It would behoove you to do a little reading up on your local and state elections, and who is running.

[Cedar redaC]

I think that while the Electoral College shouldn't be done away with, electoral votes should be given relative to popular vote. If party "A" gets 70% of the popular vote, party A gets 70% of the state's electoral vote.

[Scorpion]

I think that while the Electoral College shouldn't be done away with, electoral votes should be given relative to popular vote. If party "A" gets 70% of the popular vote, party A gets 70% of the state's electoral vote.

I'm not really all that well versed in how the system works, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that make the whole thing kind of pointless?

[Cedar redaC]

I think that while the Electoral College shouldn't be done away with, electoral votes should be given relative to popular vote. If party "A" gets 70% of the popular vote, party A gets 70% of the state's electoral vote.

I'm not really all that well versed in how the system works, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that make the whole thing kind of pointless?

I don't think so, and it would certainly help people like Tick who vote republican in a democrat state.

Removing the electoral college would shift all of the voting power to the population centers, leaving states like Utah, Idaho, Montana and the like to basically go along with whatever they say. A few years ago, Utah faced a problem like this where a bill was almost passed allowing other states to dump toxic and nuclear waste in the state. If power lied almost exclusively in large population areas like Los Angeles and New York, Utah might be a toxic waste dump now. (not that I don't like Los Angeles and New York, they are just massive cities with lots of voters)

[kirksnosehair]

People might have no interest in local issues but high interest in federal issues.

Those people are stupid.

Vividly and spectacularly *stupid.






*And I'm not referring to any one particular person here.  But this is a big problem.  I'm saying, generally, those state and local elections are just as important as the federal elections.  Come on, you don't think who your representative in congress is going to be is worth heading down to the local polling place on election day to vote for?  The electoral college doesn't give a shit about congressmen, senators, selectmen, city council members, etc.    It may not be important to you personally, but maybe if people in this country thought a little more outside of the 10 foot area they are currently standing in we'd all be a little better off.

[Implode]

I wonder why more densely populated areas tend to be more liberal.

[hefdaddy42]

I wonder why more densely populated areas tend to be more liberal.

Because more smart people live there.

[Implode]

Wow. I was trying to be subtle.

[kirksnosehair]

I wonder why more densely populated areas tend to be more liberal.

Because more smart people live there.

The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics.

Read the whole thing here if you're interested

[rumborak]

I think in densely populated areas you are also exposed to a much wider range of people and ideas. The realization that one's own convictions and beliefs are just one of many other equally viewpoints is kinda a hallmark of liberal thought. "Different" people also tend to stay away from rural areas because cities provide much more anonymity. So you get these very homogeneous rural areas where prevailing thought doesn't get challenged much.

[Implode]

That's an great answer that I think applies to how I think too.

[hefdaddy42]

I think in densely populated areas you are also exposed to a much wider range of people and ideas. The realization that one's own convictions and beliefs are just one of many other equally viewpoints is kinda a hallmark of liberal thought. "Different" people also tend to stay away from rural areas because cities provide much more anonymity. So you get these very homogeneous rural areas where prevailing thought doesn't get challenged much.

That's what I meant.