Mindia and other GOP people

[xaoshaen]

For blind "fairness and equality"...

So, who would drive this change within a state? Think carefully before you answer.

[Harrison]

I wouldn't want it, fuck no.

I was answering to what I believe is what most people would think.

[xaoshaen]

I wouldn't want it, fuck no.

I was answering to what I believe is what most people would think.

I wasn't actually asking if you personally would want the change, just asking you who you thought would drive the change within a state, for the reasons of "blind fairness and equality" you quoted.

For the record, I think the idea of splitting a state's electoral votes is a good idea. I just don't think it's going to happen on a widespread basis.

[Gidan]

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.

How is that not accurate? Those 41,436,740 votes is the total number of votes based on 50.1% of the vote in every one of those states. That would result in 272 electoral votes assuming that all electoral votes went to the cadidate.

What are the obvious reasons?

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

Well if the state is divided why would the people in the state be aposed to splitting the vote? The people in the majority now may be upset because they feel they are losing votes, however the people in the minority on that vote wouldn't be upset to see their vots going toward something. Although I guess actual representation of the will of the people is a bad thing in this country.

[Gidan]

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?

I a confused as to what this has to do with my dislike of the way we handle the election process? If Cal is rigging things in such a way that it is attempting to keep 1 party in power, then it should be addressed. That doesn't have anything to do with my feelings on the electoral process.

If I am missing something tell me, I just dont see the connection.

[xaoshaen]

How is that not accurate? Those 41,436,740 votes is the total number of votes based on 50.1% of the vote in every one of those states. That would result in 272 electoral votes assuming that all electoral votes went to the cadidate.

Your population numbers are off.

Well if the state is divided why would the people in the state be aposed to splitting the vote? The people in the majority now may be upset because they feel they are losing votes, however the people in the minority on that vote wouldn't be upset to see their vots going toward something. Although I guess actual representation of the will of the people is a bad thing in this country.

Having bolded a section of your statement do you now begin to see the problem in a democratic system where the will of the people is expressed?

[Gidan]

First what source do you recomend for population?

Maybe the people in the majority at the time need to realize they will not always be in the majority. I guess I give people to much credit for inteliigence.

[xaoshaen]

First what source do you recomend for population?

U.S. census data.

Maybe the people in the majority at the time need to realize they will not always be in the majority. I guess I give people to much credit for inteliigence.

Haw! I was hoping you'd step in that one. Your entire basis for objecting to the electoral college was that, in Texas, not only do you view the political discrepancy as insurmountable, but unchangeable, thus your vote will never matter. Perhaps you need to realize that the opposition will not always be in the majority? If you're not capable of assuming such long term views, why would you expect anyone else to be different? (See my objections to a true democracy.)

[Gidan]

I do understand that TX could change from being a Rep state to a Dem state, I am not that ignorant. I was going based on the trend in the state. That doesn't change my view. I had the same view when I lived in NY, even though I was in the majority. I have always felt that both the votes of the majority and the minority should be counted.

[Gidan]

Oh and my population number are almost exactly that of the US Census, my source used the US census as their source.

[xaoshaen]

I do understand that TX could change from being a Rep state to a Dem state, I am not that ignorant. I was going based on the trend in the state. That doesn't change my view. I had the same view when I lived in NY, even though I was in the majority. I have always felt that both the votes of the majority and the minority should be counted.

So essentially you're abandoning your initial objection then?

The votes of the majority and the minority are both counted. It's just a matter of at which level they are counted.

[xaoshaen]

Oh and my population number are almost exactly that of the US Census, my source used the US census as their source.

Then either you or your source managed to foul things up badly in transcription.

[Gidan]

You are correct, I screwed up the numbers.

84,383,107 votes is required to elect a president. Somewhere my other number got divided by 2.

However the point still stands The US population is 295,507,134. It takes 84,383,107 votes to elect a president while the other 211,124,027 people could vote any way they wanted and it couldn't change the election.

Cadidate A - 84,383,107 (29%) votes
Cadidate B - 211,124,027 (71%) votes

Cadidate A wins with less then 1/3 of the vote.

[Lyion]

Your numbers also do not take into account at least 1/3 of the country does not vote, Gidan.

Go do some investigation into reapportionment of districts for gain in California.

[xaoshaen]

You are correct, I screwed up the numbers.

84,383,107 votes is required to elect a president. Somewhere my other number got divided by 2.

However the point still stands The US population is 295,507,134. It takes 84,383,107 votes to elect a president while the other 211,124,027 people could vote any way they wanted and it couldn't change the election.

Cadidate A - 84,383,107 (29%) votes
Cadidate B - 211,124,027 (71%) votes

Cadidate A wins with less then 1/3 of the vote.

So essentially, you've changed your objection to the Electoral College to an issue with the way the votes are apportioned? Fair enough, but if I were you, I'd be a whole hell of a lot more concerned about the Congressional appointments, especially since the numerical objection to the EC is a boundary condition issue, rather than a practical one.

[Gidan]

The numbers may change due to people who botes and who does not vote. However the % of voters will not change. It is still a 29% over 71%. This of course assumes equal drop in voters across all states and such. There is no real accurate way to 100% predict that biut even with say a 10% margin for error at best your still looking at 39% over 61% being able to elect a president.


On the issue in Cal you were talking about, I quickly scanned through some stuff on it. It does appear to be a major issue that needs to be addressed.

[Gidan]

You are correct, I screwed up the numbers.

84,383,107 votes is required to elect a president. Somewhere my other number got divided by 2.

However the point still stands The US population is 295,507,134. It takes 84,383,107 votes to elect a president while the other 211,124,027 people could vote any way they wanted and it couldn't change the election.

Cadidate A - 84,383,107 (29%) votes
Cadidate B - 211,124,027 (71%) votes

Cadidate A wins with less then 1/3 of the vote.

So essentially, you've changed your objection to the Electoral College to an issue with the way the votes are apportioned? Fair enough, but if I were you, I'd be a whole hell of a lot more concerned about the Congressional appointments, especially since the numerical objection to the EC is a boundary condition issue, rather than a practical one.

My whole issue with the EC is that there is so much room for it to completely misrepresent the people. It it where changed to a system when the peopel are beter represented such as with split voting, I would have no issue with it.

The congressional appointments thing is definatly a concern, and it does effect us more then the EC issue does.

[xaoshaen]

My whole issue with the EC is that there is so much room for it to completely misrepresent the people. It it where changed to a system when the peopel are beter represented such as with split voting, I would have no issue with it.

The problem with this is that the people have chosen not to split their states' votes (with the exception of Maine, and, ummm, Nebraska I think). You're asking to 'better represent' the people by completely abrogating their will.

[Zanchief]

Xao is by far the smartest conservative on this board.

[Tossica]

Xao is by far the smartest conservative on this board.

Not quite smart enough to abandon the "conservative" outlook but I would agree.

[Wrath Child]

Wow! You two really know how to give a guy good head! I mean, a big head.

Actually, probably both...

[Durck]

So basicly if you want more of a say in who becomes president, you need to pick what state you choose to live in much more carefully. For example its beter to live in Alaska then Florida if you want some sort of say.

Nope, not at all. As a matter of fact, your premise is quite backwards.

The main reason the Electoral College was put in place was to prevent situation where small states, Rhode Island etc... had no effectual vote against larger states, such as New York, Virginia, California etc. The Electoral College is 1 vote for every Seat in House And Senate. These seats(votes) are given based on Congressional Districting which is setup by population. In effect, yes, a state like Texas has more Electoral votes, than a state like Rhode Island. And population wise, its a sweep for Texas - Rhode Island could never vote and win population wise against Texas. And if you rethink your statement, Florida has many many many more votes than Alaska, because Florida has more of a population.

Some states grant percentage of votes (rounded to nearest vote) based on your percentage of votes won in that states general election. I believe Colorado does this. Some states such as Maine, grant votes based on whether the candidate won the congressional district. Maine has 4 seats(votes) and I beleive Kerry won all 4 congressional districts and all 4 votes in the last election. But most states, however, grant all votes for the candidate that wins the state.

What does this do then? First, it evens out the playing field in some ways. Smaller eastern states, can override the bigger states such as California/Texas, who give almost a 3rd of the votes needed if both won. I believe you need 270ish to win, and California and Texas together give just under 90 votes. However, winning Texas and California does not mean you will be elected. Because if you lost all the rest, you would get freight trained in the electoral college, and your loss would be considered a land-slide. Yet you could possibly still win the popular vote, if you won major majorities in those 2 states and lost by mimimal margins in the others.

Given that scenario, would it be correct for a country to put in place a President where 48 of the states did NOT Elect him? I say not, and THIS is the reason for the Electoral College.

And looking at the final road-map for the last election, Bush won by over 3 million popular votes, but only won by only 34 electoral votes. If Kerry would have won Florida and Ohio, he would have won the election. Despite, losing the popular vote by over 3 million.

Why?

Because a majority of the States elect the president, not the people.

And that is something to remember, when this system was put in place, State's rights was a huge issue. The founding fathers struggled to create the republic in such a fashion that states could govern themselves, in as much as it did not tread on federal powers. Hence, the need for an electoral college system.

I realize I have rehashed stuff that has been said over and over already, and sorr to repeat, but felt it was important. Hope this clarifies...

-Durck