Mindia and other GOP people

[Gidan]

My method of electing would make it so that no states controled the election, rather the people who live in this country controle the election. The current system allow candidates to ignor small states in favor of large states because of the dramatic effect the large states have on the election. Why spend time worrying about the people in Alaska, Delaware, DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Mississippi and Nebraska when you can spend all that time in Cal for just as many votes? With this system we have in place, it doesn't matter how close the race is in any state as long as you win it you get all the votes. Your telling me that is a system the would insure that non 'large' states are important in presidential elections? Seems to me to be a system that makes 'small' states worthless, it takes a 50.1 % vote in Cal to equal the 100% vote of these 15 states.

[Tikker]

eh?

it still wouldn't make a difference


If state_A has a population of 100 million

and state_b has a population of 10 million


where are you going to put most of your campaign time in?

[Gidan]

If state A has a population of 100 million

And States B - P had a population of 150 million

Should a 50.1% vote in state A = 100% votes from States B-P?

or in other words 50,000,001 votes = 150,000,000 votes.

[Martrae]

Gidan, the States elect the President. We vote to tell the State who we want them to elect. It really is the fairest way to ensure every state is important not just the ones with the largest populations.

Each State is supposed to be self-governed and the Federal government is supposed to be there to set general guidelines and establish a central military. Unfortunately, we've given more and more power over to the Federal government and it is sticking it's nose into matters that were once the purveyance of the State.

[Gidan]

Gidan, the States elect the President. We vote to tell the State who we want them to elect. It really is the fairest way to ensure every state is important not just the ones with the largest populations.

Go back to my 50.1% vote in Cal being = 100% vote in 15 small states. How is that making it fair for the smaller states?

Now if the states votes were divied up based on the % of the vote per cadidate, then the system would beter reflect the people. Say Cal votes 51/49% 28 votes to 1 party, 27 votes to the other.

Each State is supposed to be self-governed and the Federal government is supposed to be there to set general guidelines and establish a central military. Unfortunately, we've given more and more power over to the Federal government and it is sticking it's nose into matters that were once the purveyance of the State.

And I do agree with you here, more should be done by state rather then by a federal gov't. However, in the country we live in, more is done at the federal level then the state level. The president, in this situation should be voted on by the people not the states. If/When we get back to much more state governing and less Federal governing then maybe the state elected president would work.

[Lyion]

If state A has a population of 100 million

And States B - P had a population of 150 million

Should a 50.1% vote in state A = 100% votes from States B-P?

or in other words 50,000,001 votes = 150,000,000 votes.

Gidan you are not understanding our explanation

Our system espouses states rights. If we go pure 'population' which would eliminate states soverignty, then it also would ensure Presidential elections would solely campaign in large cities in large states.

[b]The number of electors assigned to each state is equal to the total number of Senators (always 2) and Representatives that the state has in Congress.[/b]

This ensures all states have at least some type of say in the election.

Without the Electoral College, it'd be possible to win a majority of votes by campaigning only in a few dense areas of the country, which is how it'd be.

[Harrison]

How is that making it fair for the smaller states?

So you think a state with a 200mil population should have an equal amount of votes as a state with a population of 50mil?

It is VERY apparent that it should not.

If it were to be divided as you said we might as well just go 100% "democratic" completely bypassing the EC and their votes.

[Harrison]

Without the Electoral College, it'd be possible to win a majority of votes by campaigning only in a few dense areas of the country, which is how it'd be.

Which again would create a LARGER "problem"(I don't see it as a problem) than the one he is outlining with the CA example.

[Gidan]

If state A has a population of 100 million

And States B - P had a population of 150 million

Should a 50.1% vote in state A = 100% votes from States B-P?

or in other words 50,000,001 votes = 150,000,000 votes.

Gidan you are not understanding our explanation

Our system espouses states rights. If we go pure 'population' which would eliminate states soverignty, then it also would ensure Presidential elections would solely campaign in large cities in large states.

[b]The number of electors assigned to each state is equal to the total number of Senators (always 2) and Representatives that the state has in Congress.[/b]

This ensures all states have at least some type of say in the election.

Without the Electoral College, it'd be possible to win a majority of votes by campaigning only in a few dense areas of the country, which is how it'd be.

It is already possible to win by campaining only a few dence area of the counrty. If you win CA, FL, IL, NY, TX, OH, PA, GA, MI, NJ and NC You win the election regadless of the results of the rest of the country. Those 11 states can outvote the rest. So lets say they all go 50.1% 49.9% Den. Them Dem would win even if the rest of the county voted 100% rep. I dont know about the rest of you but that does not look like a system that works to me.

If people are so insitant on the electoral system we have, I dont understand the reason why a state say CA has 55 votes and all 55 must be fore the same cadidate even if the state votes 50.1 to 49.9. Cant those 55 votes be voted based on how the people in the state vote? 50.1 % vote 1 way 49.9 vote another, why not have 50.1% of the states 55 votes go 1 way and 49.9 go the other. The president would still be voted on by the states and it would more acuratly refect the people of those states.

[Lyion]

That would be the Maine-Nebraska rules, Gidan. Some states have that already.

That is still different from a pure popular vote and what you were initially espousing, and even with this setup someone could lose the popular vote and win the election.

[Gidan]

How is that making it fair for the smaller states?

So you think a state with a 200mil population should have an equal amount of votes as a state with a population of 50mil?

It is VERY apparent that it should not.

If it were to be divided as you said we might as well just go 100% "democratic" completely bypassing the EC and their votes.

No a state with 200mil should not have an equal amount of votes as a state with a pop of 50mil. As the same time a state with 200mil votes should not have the same number of votes as 15 states totaling 400mil people either.

[Gidan]

That would be the Maine-Nebraska rules, Gidan. Some states have that already.

That is still different from a pure popular vote and what you were initially espousing, and even with this setup someone could lose the popular vote and win the election.

I guess it would be possible, though that would probably just mean that the nubmer of votes per state were not correct. If they were to do that in all states, in my mind the system would be beter. It would still allow for state elected presidents while at the sime time allowing states to vote more in line with the people from that state then the current system does.

[Martrae]

Ok...as an example if Kerry had taken Ohio that would have given him 272 to Bush's 266 since Ohio has 20 votes. All it would have taken is for NH (4 votes) to have stayed Bush to tie up the election. That's one way a small state could wield big voting power.

[xaoshaen]

It is already possible to win by campaining only a few dence area of the counrty. If you win CA, FL, IL, NY, TX, OH, PA, GA, MI, NJ and NC You win the election regadless of the results of the rest of the country. Those 11 states can outvote the rest. So lets say they all go 50.1% 49.9% Den. Them Dem would win even if the rest of the county voted 100% rep. I dont know about the rest of you but that does not look like a system that works to me.

Have you checked the population values in those states?

I'm not sure why you're not equally up in arms about the apportionment of House Representatives...

If people are so insitant on the electoral system we have, I dont understand the reason why a state say CA has 55 votes and all 55 must be fore the same cadidate even if the state votes 50.1 to 49.9. Cant those 55 votes be voted based on how the people in the state vote? 50.1 % vote 1 way 49.9 vote another, why not have 50.1% of the states 55 votes go 1 way and 49.9 go the other. The president would still be voted on by the states and it would more acuratly refect the people of those states.

States can, in fact, divide their electoral votes. For obvious reasons, they generally choose not to.

[xaoshaen]

Go back to my 50.1% vote in Cal being = 100% vote in 15 small states. How is that making it fair for the smaller states?

Now if the states votes were divied up based on the % of the vote per cadidate, then the system would beter reflect the people. Say Cal votes 51/49% 28 votes to 1 party, 27 votes to the other.

The same way it's fair in determining Congressional representation?

And I do agree with you here, more should be done by state rather then by a federal gov't. However, in the country we live in, more is done at the federal level then the state level. The president, in this situation should be voted on by the people not the states. If/When we get back to much more state governing and less Federal governing then maybe the state elected president would work.

Existant federal power is not a reason to ignore the Constitution.

[Gidan]

It is already possible to win by campaining only a few dence area of the counrty. If you win CA, FL, IL, NY, TX, OH, PA, GA, MI, NJ and NC You win the election regadless of the results of the rest of the country. Those 11 states can outvote the rest. So lets say they all go 50.1% 49.9% Den. Them Dem would win even if the rest of the county voted 100% rep. I dont know about the rest of you but that does not look like a system that works to me.

Have you checked the population values in those states?

I'm not sure why you're not equally up in arms about the apportionment of House Representatives...

Based on those states. it would take 41,436,740 votes to elect a president regardless of what the other 252,218,664 people voted.

If people are so insitant on the electoral system we have, I dont understand the reason why a state say CA has 55 votes and all 55 must be fore the same cadidate even if the state votes 50.1 to 49.9. Cant those 55 votes be voted based on how the people in the state vote? 50.1 % vote 1 way 49.9 vote another, why not have 50.1% of the states 55 votes go 1 way and 49.9 go the other. The president would still be voted on by the states and it would more acuratly refect the people of those states.

States can, in fact, divide their electoral votes. For obvious reasons, they generally choose not to.

What are the obvious reasons?

[Gidan]

My method of electing would make it so that no states controled the election, rather the people who live in this country controle the election. The current system allow candidates to ignor small states in favor of large states because of the dramatic effect the large states have on the election. Why spend time worrying about the people in Alaska, Delaware, DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Mississippi and Nebraska when you can spend all that time in Cal for just as many votes? With this system we have in place, it doesn't matter how close the race is in any state as long as you win it you get all the votes. Your telling me that is a system the would insure that non 'large' states are important in presidential elections? Seems to me to be a system that makes 'small' states worthless, it takes a 50.1 % vote in Cal to equal the 100% vote of these 15 states.

On this point I will admit I was wrong. I did some more research into the actual populations of each and from this example, the smaller states actually have to many electoral votes in comaprison to Cal. Cal actually have double the population of all 15 of those others combined. This is of course due to the 3 votes every state has regardless of size.

[Harrison]

Goal accomplished! (partially)

[Gidan]

And what goal would that be?

[Harrison]

Education

[Gidan]

Who exactly has been educated? I dont see anyone here who has changed their view on anything. If your refering to me, I still beleive the same as I did. I made an error in the way I presented something and noted that I made the error. It doesn't change my views on the issue.

[Darcler]

Whoa, you sure schooled him, Harrison...

[Lyion]

Gidan you completely missed Xao's extremely good point about the REAL problem in elections right now. Which is Congressional Apportionment. You do realize California sets up its congressional districts in an attempt to grab more seats in the house than they should based on zoning? Thus, many Republicans are unfairly disenfranchised and do not get their fair amount of representation in Congress.

This is a bigger isseut than a democratic election you didn't like that was essentially a tie and was determined by Federalism, as it should be.

Yet you completely missed that point. Why?

[xaoshaen]

Based on those states. it would take 41,436,740 votes to elect a president regardless of what the other 252,218,664 people voted.

Not only is this inaccurate, but you're still missing the point. You're addressing a symptom, not a problem.

What are the obvious reasons?

Ask yourself, why would a state decide to divide their vote?

[Harrison]

For blind "fairness and equality"...