and no Quid, don't strawman, no one said anything about special treatment, just equal treatment. If everyone was spread out equally throughout our nation I would be all for direct popular vote, but since we don't have transporters and traveling is expensive and time consuming, minorities would get steamrolled. No thanks.
Why is it important that rural voter's votes be more important? Because it's not equal treatment. One person's vote equaling another person's would be.
You know, 100 years ago it might have been true that politicians would ignore rural voters and just concentrate on big cities. That was when they had to campaign by physically going there to make a speech. But nowadays, the main form of campaigning is running TV ads, so it's just as easy to reach rural voters as it is urban voters. If anything, the rural voters are easier since TV ad time will be cheaper there. So there's really no reason to think that a popular vote would disenfranchise rural voters, at all. It would just take away the ridiculous power that states like Iowa have.
eliminating winner take all and mandating that each district gets their own vote is the perfect compromise. If you live in a democratic city, but that city is in a red state, and vice versa, your city has a better chance to have its voice heard but on the other hand, it does make it MORE democratic. Major population centers will still dominate the vote...just not completely so than it would in a National Popular vote.
There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.
Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.
One district, one vote would lead to even more gerrymandering than we have right now. I can only imagine the shit that would go on if districts were involved in the Presidential election.
, or you just didn't care?
I disregarded it because the burden of proof lies on you to prove that that would happen. Just because you say so isn't enough.
You don't think it's patently obvious that gerrymandering would get even worse if House districts meant Presidential votes in addition to party strength in Congress?
You need to make clear the difference between 'ignoring' meaning (a) not listening to people's wishes and (b) not going there, putting up advertising and kissing babies.
(a) would not happen at all if you had one person one vote.
(b) might happen, but so what? The point of democracy is not to get to shake Sarah Palin's hand.
You mean small town bumpkins would get steamrolled, but they are no way deserving of the term minority.
From now on every demographic that is smaller than another demographic shall be deemed a minority and given extra weight to their votes. Rural? Extra votes. Black? Extra votes. Left handed? Whoo boy are those some extra votes.
I don't think I believe it either, but I believe the idea is that it would turn into a tyranny of the majority situation, with the president actively not caring about and/or screwing over rural voters whenever possible to gain urban vote.
"But politicians already have plenty of incentives to screw over large swaths of the population for political gain!," you might say. And I don't really have a response to that.
edit: in response to
As I've said before, unless they're actually being oppressed by the majority, I don't see why rural voters are deserving of special treatment.
I guess one of the worries of implementing something like this and adopting a wait-and-see approach would be that it might take too long and too much suffering before it's noticed that the system might need to change back, and the system might lack adequate means for doing so once it's established.
The current system involves definitely screwing over the majority.
You're worried that the other system may or may not screw over a minority. I'm not convinced. I don't even see how they'd be screwed in any way that would violate their rights.
No, I'm not worried about it. I think you missed the part where I agreed with you. I was just trying to reply to your hypothetical "So?"
No, I'm not worried about it. I think you missed the part where I agreed with you. I was just trying to reply to your hypothetical "So?"
Well yeah there's always the risk that the majority is going to oppress the minority. But until it's demonstrably happening, laws shouldn't exist giving that minority special treatment.
No, I'm not worried about it. I think you missed the part where I agreed with you. I was just trying to reply to your hypothetical "So?"
Well yeah there's always the risk that the majority is going to oppress the minority. But until it's demonstrably happening, laws shouldn't exist giving that minority special treatment.
And in this case, an excessively oppressive executive could just be impeached and then removed by Congress. Obviously doubtful as a popular vote winner would probably have a majority in the House (at least until the next election), but there is a check already built in for that.
This idea that people in the countryside would be ignored is a fiction.
Each person living in the countryside would be just as powerful as each person living in the city.
Lower population density means each rural area would be less powerful.
But the state is supposed to represent people, not areas, so that would be fine.
If a politician ignored the rural vote they would lose an according number of votes. Then another politician would try to get those votes.
This is what democracy is. If you wanted areaocracy you should have... mystically animated the very earth itself to rise up and take power.
One person one vote.
No, it's quite factual that the countryside would be ignored. Our republic is quite large you see, and candidates can't visit everyone....
Yes, each rural area would become less powerful, thus, the individual people living in that area would become less powerful. Like I said, popular vote just shifts whose vote is meaningless from one group to another.
Politically, the reality of this system is that it would make the country more left leaning and I am all for it. But this just isn't a fair way to go about it. The mob is fickle and the instant the mob changes it's mind and votes the other way, you'll be on the other side of the fence screaming for more regional vote.
I wanted Gore to win too, but it's going to take a lot more than the Gore winning the popular vote and losing the electoral for me to scrap the whole system...fix it and tweak it, definitely...trash it? nope.
Politically, the reality of this system is that it would make the country more left leaning and I am all for it. But this just isn't a fair way to go about it. The mob is fickle and the instant the mob changes it's mind and votes the other way, you'll be on the other side of the fence screaming for more regional vote.
It is, in fact, the fair way to go about it. That I might not like the way the majority votes at times doesn't mean I currently think, or will think they shouldn't be equally represented. Should the majority decide to start actually oppressing people I would change my mind.
This idea that people in the countryside would be ignored is a fiction.
Each person living in the countryside would be just as powerful as each person living in the city.
Lower population density means each rural area would be less powerful.
But the state is supposed to represent people, not areas, so that would be fine.
If a politician ignored the rural vote they would lose an according number of votes. Then another politician would try to get those votes.
This is what democracy is. If you wanted areaocracy you should have... mystically animated the very earth itself to rise up and take power.
One person one vote.
No, it's quite factual that the countryside would be ignored. Our republic is quite large you see, and candidates can't visit everyone....
Yes, each rural area would become less powerful, thus, the individual people living in that area would become less powerful. Like I said, popular vote just shifts whose vote is meaningless from one group to another.
Politically, the reality of this system is that it would make the country more left leaning and I am all for it. But this just isn't a fair way to go about it. The mob is fickle and the instant the mob changes it's mind and votes the other way, you'll be on the other side of the fence screaming for more regional vote.
I wanted Gore to win too, but it's going to take a lot more than the Gore winning the popular vote and losing the electoral for me to scrap the whole system...fix it and tweak it, definitely...trash it? nope.
That doesn't make any sense at all. That's completely illogical.
People are not areas. Each person would have the same power as anyone else. Each rural area is currently over-powered and so would lose power to be exactly in line with their population. Whether the area had power is utterly irrelevant.
And the base of democracy is one person one vote. Not 'one area one visit by famous politicians'.
I live in Illinois, which is pretty much a blue state. Right now my vote either way is meaningless. I vote, but a lot of young people I know don't. Mainly because their vote doesn't matter.
In this new system, my vote would actually matter. Every vote from Illinois would matter, a lot more. A red vote here would match up to a blue vote in New York. A blue vote here would match up to a red vote in Florida. And the system would be simple majority rule.
I think it'd be a lot easier to get young people energized about voting if their vote mattered in deeply red/blue states. As it is right now, depending on where you live you really don't have much motivation to vote. And with a more active voting population would come more vocal/informed voters, which could really mean a lot in this day and age.
I don't have enough faith in the American public's perception of the nation's problems, or in the ability/willingness of those candidates to actually affect change, to think this would make things any better.
There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center.
Right now candidates ignore everyone who doesn't live in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
This argument leans more on cultural resentment than any kind of observable trend.
Yeah, until the primary system becomes anything more than blowing three states, any sort of "but-but-but think of the ignored rural states!" argument is moot because most rural states are already ignored.
Except electoral vote HAS carried out the will of the people in all elections but four....four in the entire history of our republic. You're going to need a VASTLY better argument to convince people to toss the whole system.
I've at least offered a compromise.
All this is going to do is feed into partisan politics. Your intentions may be good, but this is going to DEFINITELY be viewed as an attempt by Democrats to make elections go their way more often. You know how the media works and sensationalizes everything. It will be perceived as nothing less than a power grab...and then you'll see first hand how the mob will turn against you.
It's just like the Fair Tax...sounds great, but in reality it's just a bad idea.
Except electoral vote HAS carried out the will of the people in all elections but four....four in the entire history of our republic. You're going to need a VASTLY better argument to convince people to toss the whole system.
So it's failed repeatedly. Not a great argument there.
Meanwhile you still haven't proved why rural voters deserve special treatment. And yes, having your vote count for more is in fact special treatment.
Except electoral vote HAS carried out the will of the people in all elections but four....four in the entire history of our republic. You're going to need a VASTLY better argument to convince people to toss the whole system.
"It's only failed 4 times! Why bother changing!" is not a good argument. Especially when one of those failures happened in 2000, and it very nearly happened again in 2004.
Why exactly should votes in a nation wide election be weighted? I've never understood that. I mean, the defense for the EC is that it's only gone against the people's will 4 times, right? Why even bother with a system that can do it once?
Why exactly should votes in a nation wide election be weighted? I've never understood that. I mean, the defense for the EC is that it's only gone against the people's will 4 times, right? Why even bother with a system that can do it once?
Because what if a nightmare scenario occurs where large population centers vote in a president who demands rural voters something something something?
I was going to give an over the top example of oppression but I couldn't actually think of one that they might suffer.
Quid on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Why exactly should votes in a nation wide election be weighted? I've never understood that. I mean, the defense for the EC is that it's only gone against the people's will 4 times, right? Why even bother with a system that can do it once?
Because what if a nightmare scenario occurs where large population centers vote in a president who demands rural voters something something something?
I was going to give an over the top example of oppression but I couldn't actually think of one that they might suffer.
Wut if the president demands we end farm subsidies! Or demands we allow mosques in rural communities, should they acquire the necessary permits and zoning!
uhh yeah carrying out the public will in almost 60 elections over the course of 225+ years. pretty good track record actually.
See how shitty mob rule is? I want changes in the EC too and I have stated as such, but looking through the responses in this thread I have been mis-represented as someone who is entirely pro EC as it currently is, and I have been associated with Palin.
And you want to magnify that ignorance on a national level? No thanks.
Could you please just explain why rural voters, as a minority, deserve special treatment in this area? And why no other minority does? You've continued to not explain why other than vague hand waving at possible bad things you've yet to prove.
Except electoral vote HAS carried out the will of the people in all elections but four....four in the entire history of our republic. You're going to need a VASTLY better argument to convince people to toss the whole system.
So it's failed repeatedly. Not a great argument there.
Meanwhile you still haven't proved why rural voters deserve special treatment. And yes, having your vote count for more is in fact special treatment.
And since I disagree that they are given special treatment, why would I prove a question that I don't agree with? Again, nice strawman.
Except electoral vote HAS carried out the will of the people in all elections but four....four in the entire history of our republic. You're going to need a VASTLY better argument to convince people to toss the whole system.
So it's failed repeatedly. Not a great argument there.
Meanwhile you still haven't proved why rural voters deserve special treatment. And yes, having your vote count for more is in fact special treatment.
And since I disagree that they are given special treatment, why would I prove a question that I don't agree with? Again, nice strawman.
You don't believe making one person's vote more important than another person's vote is special treatment?
A system that can fuck up as big as it did in 2000 is not a system that's worth keeping around at all.
And now you're proving my point that this is going to be viewed as a shameless power grab because some people can't let 2000 go. I don't care how reasonable your argument is. Attempting to change election laws when the political climate is currently as polarized as they are now...horrible idea
Any state can award its electoral votes however it pleases. In the early nineteenth century, there were several major methods in use, but winner-take-all gave the states adopting it more power, and eventually everyone was on it.
Well I'll eat my hat. I didn't know that. Huh, an interesting tidbit.
@VoodooV: I don't think I am quite comprehending your proposal. As if, say State X has a total of 4 districts, each individual district should have a certain number of votes, and whomever wins within that district gets those votes which count directly towards a specific candidate as opposed to whichever candidate gets the majority of votes getting all of them (the current winner take all system). Am I getting that right?
If so I think the biggest potential issue being gerrymandering of the districts.
You know, 100 years ago it might have been true that politicians would ignore rural voters and just concentrate on big cities. That was when they had to campaign by physically going there to make a speech. But nowadays, the main form of campaigning is running TV ads, so it's just as easy to reach rural voters as it is urban voters. If anything, the rural voters are easier since TV ad time will be cheaper there. So there's really no reason to think that a popular vote would disenfranchise rural voters, at all. It would just take away the ridiculous power that states like Iowa have.
Boom. Right here. This is what I like.
And don't forget, the 2012 election is probably going to be huge on the social media websites too. There are a lot more ways to reach citizens now than there were when the college was first invented. You no longer need to ride on horse, or take a train, or go city to city to get your message out to the people.
Except electoral vote HAS carried out the will of the people in all elections but four....four in the entire history of our republic. You're going to need a VASTLY better argument to convince people to toss the whole system.
So it's failed repeatedly. Not a great argument there.
Meanwhile you still haven't proved why rural voters deserve special treatment. And yes, having your vote count for more is in fact special treatment.
And since I disagree that they are given special treatment, why would I prove a question that I don't agree with? Again, nice strawman.
You don't believe making one person's vote more important than another person's vote is special treatment?
Posts
Each person living in the countryside would be just as powerful as each person living in the city.
Lower population density means each rural area would be less powerful.
But the state is supposed to represent people, not areas, so that would be fine.
If a politician ignored the rural vote they would lose an according number of votes. Then another politician would try to get those votes.
This is what democracy is. If you wanted areaocracy you should have... mystically animated the very earth itself to rise up and take power.
One person one vote.
Why is it important that rural voter's votes be more important? Because it's not equal treatment. One person's vote equaling another person's would be.
(a) would not happen at all if you had one person one vote.
(b) might happen, but so what? The point of democracy is not to get to shake Sarah Palin's hand.
From now on every demographic that is smaller than another demographic shall be deemed a minority and given extra weight to their votes. Rural? Extra votes. Black? Extra votes. Left handed? Whoo boy are those some extra votes.
I read this as "The point of democracy is to not have to shake Sarah Palin's hand". I totally agree.
No, I'm not worried about it. I think you missed the part where I agreed with you. I was just trying to reply to your hypothetical "So?"
Well yeah there's always the risk that the majority is going to oppress the minority. But until it's demonstrably happening, laws shouldn't exist giving that minority special treatment.
And in this case, an excessively oppressive executive could just be impeached and then removed by Congress. Obviously doubtful as a popular vote winner would probably have a majority in the House (at least until the next election), but there is a check already built in for that.
No, it's quite factual that the countryside would be ignored. Our republic is quite large you see, and candidates can't visit everyone....
Yes, each rural area would become less powerful, thus, the individual people living in that area would become less powerful. Like I said, popular vote just shifts whose vote is meaningless from one group to another.
Politically, the reality of this system is that it would make the country more left leaning and I am all for it. But this just isn't a fair way to go about it. The mob is fickle and the instant the mob changes it's mind and votes the other way, you'll be on the other side of the fence screaming for more regional vote.
I wanted Gore to win too, but it's going to take a lot more than the Gore winning the popular vote and losing the electoral for me to scrap the whole system...fix it and tweak it, definitely...trash it? nope.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
It is, in fact, the fair way to go about it. That I might not like the way the majority votes at times doesn't mean I currently think, or will think they shouldn't be equally represented. Should the majority decide to start actually oppressing people I would change my mind.
That doesn't make any sense at all. That's completely illogical.
People are not areas. Each person would have the same power as anyone else. Each rural area is currently over-powered and so would lose power to be exactly in line with their population. Whether the area had power is utterly irrelevant.
And the base of democracy is one person one vote. Not 'one area one visit by famous politicians'.
Yeesh.
We should make their votes even more important.
Are we truly a democracy if Jim the alligator farmer isn't getting the same representation as all of Chicago?
Right now candidates ignore everyone who doesn't live in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
This argument leans more on cultural resentment than any kind of observable trend.
I live in Illinois, which is pretty much a blue state. Right now my vote either way is meaningless. I vote, but a lot of young people I know don't. Mainly because their vote doesn't matter.
In this new system, my vote would actually matter. Every vote from Illinois would matter, a lot more. A red vote here would match up to a blue vote in New York. A blue vote here would match up to a red vote in Florida. And the system would be simple majority rule.
I think it'd be a lot easier to get young people energized about voting if their vote mattered in deeply red/blue states. As it is right now, depending on where you live you really don't have much motivation to vote. And with a more active voting population would come more vocal/informed voters, which could really mean a lot in this day and age.
I don't have enough faith in the American public's perception of the nation's problems, or in the ability/willingness of those candidates to actually affect change, to think this would make things any better.
Yeah, until the primary system becomes anything more than blowing three states, any sort of "but-but-but think of the ignored rural states!" argument is moot because most rural states are already ignored.
I've at least offered a compromise.
All this is going to do is feed into partisan politics. Your intentions may be good, but this is going to DEFINITELY be viewed as an attempt by Democrats to make elections go their way more often. You know how the media works and sensationalizes everything. It will be perceived as nothing less than a power grab...and then you'll see first hand how the mob will turn against you.
It's just like the Fair Tax...sounds great, but in reality it's just a bad idea.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Meanwhile you still haven't proved why rural voters deserve special treatment. And yes, having your vote count for more is in fact special treatment.
Because what if a nightmare scenario occurs where large population centers vote in a president who demands rural voters something something something?
I was going to give an over the top example of oppression but I couldn't actually think of one that they might suffer.
Wut if the president demands we end farm subsidies! Or demands we allow mosques in rural communities, should they acquire the necessary permits and zoning!
See how shitty mob rule is? I want changes in the EC too and I have stated as such, but looking through the responses in this thread I have been mis-represented as someone who is entirely pro EC as it currently is, and I have been associated with Palin.
And you want to magnify that ignorance on a national level? No thanks.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
And since I disagree that they are given special treatment, why would I prove a question that I don't agree with? Again, nice strawman.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
You don't believe making one person's vote more important than another person's vote is special treatment?
And now you're proving my point that this is going to be viewed as a shameless power grab because some people can't let 2000 go. I don't care how reasonable your argument is. Attempting to change election laws when the political climate is currently as polarized as they are now...horrible idea
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Well I'll eat my hat. I didn't know that. Huh, an interesting tidbit.
@VoodooV: I don't think I am quite comprehending your proposal. As if, say State X has a total of 4 districts, each individual district should have a certain number of votes, and whomever wins within that district gets those votes which count directly towards a specific candidate as opposed to whichever candidate gets the majority of votes getting all of them (the current winner take all system). Am I getting that right?
If so I think the biggest potential issue being gerrymandering of the districts.
This was on the Compact Wikipedia page. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/post-kaiser-harvard-topline.pdf. Pretty interesting. Perhaps people could be made to care about the issue more were they aware there was a reasonably possible way of addressing it.
Boom. Right here. This is what I like.
And don't forget, the 2012 election is probably going to be huge on the social media websites too. There are a lot more ways to reach citizens now than there were when the college was first invented. You no longer need to ride on horse, or take a train, or go city to city to get your message out to the people.
Hence, fuck the electoral college.
sigh...please re-read the bolded.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!