The Electoral College

Yeah. As someone who equally prefers cities and the country (though I could do without the suburbs, thanks) and has been immersed in very "conservative" and very "liberal" communities -- well, the biggest day-to-day difference is how they perceive each other.

Oh well. That's my piece.

Patiodog and Timberlandko:

It would be interesting to see what core beliefs you think we agree on.

I have a core belief that we were all created equal, but judging by the statements of most of you in this topic, you think some are more equal than others.

I have sincere difficulties with those who think some are more equal than others! It bothers me a lot!

Anon

Well, First off, I think you ascribe more weight shift to the EC than what actually exists. You previoulsy mentioned that your vote is only worth about 60% of a vote but that doesn't even come close. If you look at the actual way the EC weight shift works your vote (assuming that you are in a major urban center) is probably closer to something like 99.9998% of a vote.

But, is 100% equality in vote weight the one and only factor in an election system? If it is then we have an even bigger problem because there are millions of absentee ballots that are tossed out every year that are NEVER counted. If we moved to a direct election no results could be considered valid until the FEC determined that every single person that had cast an absentee ballot had their vote counted.

The impracticality of administering such a system makes it impossible to implement.

anon:

I think if you ask most people individually, they'll say they place some value on, say, education, and most do not support the complete wanton rape of the earth, for instance. Of course there are going to be a broad spectrum of ideas on these topics, but I suspect most people you talk to will be fairly close together.

But representative democracy doesn't work on an individual level. People are required to act as groups. And the tendency in American political discourse (and elsewhere), is to set up two possible positions on an issue and force people to pick one of them, and the people on each side viciously attack the people on the other "side" on this issue. And you're expected to choose to align yourself with one of two parties on pretty much all issues -- and most people do, creating a gap between themselves and people in the other party which only widens as more rhetoric and propaganda spews forth.

I'd like to respond directly to the "more equal" comment, but I'm not sure what it refers to, so I can't. (Basically, I think that most people are sheep and are manipulated by people with the means to do so for their own gain, but to say that would by a bit cynical and wouldn't open up much room for discussion, now would it?)


Sideline, based on fishin's post:
Does the executive branch, headed by a single (okay, two, technically) elected officials wield too much power?

I think I know where you're coming from, Anon, and I can sure see how you got there. The "Equality" aspect of The Electoral College is something which has long vexxed me. It does not perfectly deal with the current issues, but it addresses an issue which is of great concern to me ... the concern for inequity arising from population distribution. As it is, any candidate must court support in the less populous states as well as from the metro-plex filled ones. There is some balance to campaign proposals intended to meet the expectations of both urban and rural voters. It is not a perfect solution, but it is unlikey Nevada will be paved to provide additional parking for California under the current system, or that New York City would be designated the site of The Permanent National Radioactive Waste Storage Facillity.



timber

Just a quick note here, I used the 99.9998% number but, knowing that Anon lives in CA and using the current EC setup and 1990 census numbers (which is what the last election using the EC was based on..) the actual number comes out to 98.05465285% for any resident of CA.

Just wanted to be clear here..

btw, CA, being the most populated state, takes the biggest hit. North Dakota picks up the most. Their vote comes in at 100.300859%. Everyone else is somewhere in between those two numbers.

Fishin:

In other words, just enough to make the loser of the election, the winner!!

Sorry, Still have a problem if it's 60%, or 98.05 ...

I'm just as much of a citizen as someone in Wyoming, Montana, or NYC.

To say I'm less, offends me!

Anon

And as an absentee voter I'm just as much a citizen too! Until the government can prove my vote was counted then NO ONE gets sworn in! But gee.. The Postal Service seems to have lost it... Well, we'll go without a President for 4 years. no biggie...

I hear what you're saying Anon but your still blowing off the problems presented by it. I don't think anyone out there will tell you our system is perfect. I don't hear any solutions being proposed that are any better though....

Fishin' - Perhaps I need to give your idea more thought.

Fishin':

I had to use an absentee ballot this last election because I was hospitalized. I'm happy with that.

It doesn't change the fact my vote is counted at 98.05%, which means I'm a 98.05% citizen.

I don't GIVE 98.05% only. My income is taxed is taxed at the same 100% of my tax bracket as someone in Montana and Wyoming. Why should I be counted at 98.05%.

When I was drafted, they didn't tell me only 98.05% of me had to report to duty.

I didn't give 98.05% of my life when I was in Tripler Hospital for three months, nor did I give 98.05% of my life while I was in the service.

I am not a 98.05% citizen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't accept that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anon

But not more so, which is the point.

Well Anon, If you voted absentee in CA then there is a VERY good chance your vote counted 0%. They didn't bother to count several million absentee ballots in your state.

There were twelve million voters in which 3.5 million were absentee votes in Calfornia and a little more than a million of them weren't counted on election night. They were eventually counted but did not change any results. It was one of the delays in the electoral college finalizing the election even though we all know there was another delay that trumped it!

Fishin'

At least I still had the same chance as everyone else that it was counted or not. "X" number of people voted absent, and "X" number of people who voted absent had the same 100% chance of being counted or not!!!! Not a 98.05% chanc Fishin', a 100% chance!! Therein lays the difference.

It is a sure fact that by everyone in this topic/interaction, I am a 98.05 citizen. You can't get by that!!


You say:

"But not more so, that is the point".

Nothing anyone has posted in here proves that. As a matter of fact, that is just game playing by you Fishin'. That statement is sloganistic, untrue, and intellectually dishonest ... period!

Given that 1 Million people in California vote, it's ok with everyone here that 20,000 votes are thrown in the trash.

That may be okay with you, but it doesn't wash with me. I don't think it'll wash with those 20,000 voters either.

Should we ask them !!!!

Anon

LW - You are correct. There were 12 million counted and those were the only ones allowed to be counted. Absentee ballots recieved after 8pm on election night were disqualified however (IAW CA State Law) and were not, nor will they ever be counted.

That's correct fishin' (and I posted too hasitly leaving out the exact number that were absentee ballots and what happened to them).
Some states don't even give one until 8PM on election night and California has always been slower in giving the electoral college the certified vote count. That should be changed in California -- it's kind of absurd as the counting proceedure is so incredibly slow for absentee ballots. What's anyone else's thoughts on voting from home via computer?

No, I didn't say that. Reread the thread Anon.

But, since you want to play games I'll leave you with a simple standard catch-all you've used hundreds of times. Suck it up for the good of the country Anon!

You've been very big on telling people that they should be willing to sacrafice here and there for the general welfare. Well, here's your opportunity. It's a small price to pay until you can come up with something better because so far all you've done is cry about "my rights". When you've figured out that perfect system that takes care of everyone's rights and addresses the other issues/problems that have been raised you just might get somewhere. In the mean time you're pissing in the wind.

Fishin':

I'm in the top 2% of taxpayers. I consider that my sacrifice. Unlike many of my tax rate, I don't bitch, moan and complain about the taxes I pay. I consider it the price of admission to my 100% citizenship. I think the current tax cut situation is straight crap!

I pay over $90,000. a year in payroll taxes for my employees. I think that is fine, because I get to own my own business and call my own shots. I don't bitch and moan about that either!!

I don't pay 98.05% of the taxes that someone in Montana pays!!

I don't pay 98.05% of the paroll taxes that and employer pays in Montana.

I am willing to sacrifice for the common good, that's why I never bitch about any of the taxes I pay. Something most of the people in my tax rate do nothing but bitch about. That's why I am against everything the current President has done with tax cuts.

I suck it up everytime I write a tax check. I suck it up everytime I get up and try to walk.

Don't expect me to suck it up for someone in Montana who thinks he has more value as a citizen than I do! I'm not going to do it. Not for him, not for anybody!!

Anon

Fish'

My apologies, Trespassers made the comment that I think I should get more. I should not have attributed that to you. I should have known you wouldn't say some that irresponsible.

Anon

More about 98.05%


I was a championship swimmer all through highschool. One of my events was the 100 Meter Freestyle. Never ... Never ... Never , did anyone say, "Byron, you only have to swim 98.05 meters because you come from a small town". YOU STILL have to swim 100 meters.

I never won because I was 98.05% slower than someone else!! I won, because ... I won ... with 100% effort. Not 98.05% effort, 100% effort!!

Anon