FINALLY!!! A NATIONAL PLAN TO REFORM THE ELECTRAL COLLEGE

Anon-Voter wrote:

AliceInWonderland wrote:
Well, since you don't listen to reason, I guess there's nothing left but to feed your delusion. Perhaps us small states with all of our huge powers will vote ourselves a big fat check from California. :wink:

You already have ... like Alaska! Those "rugged individualists" up there (red state - OF COURSE) get $2. back for every $1. they send to WDC. All those self-righteous "heartland states- (MORE RED STATES) ARE SUCKING UP $200 Billion of Farm Welfare payments over the next ten years. Look it up, goodness knows you think you're smart enough!! So, yea, you boys are sucking at the national teat real hard, which of course, WE are paying!!

Reason to you, is that you get a larger piece of the pie for paying less than we do ... I'm sure that makes sense .. to you!!

Alice in Wonderland suits you well ...

Anon

I s'pect that New Hampshire (hardly a red state) also gets more back than it puts in. And Texas (hardly a blue one) may get less back than it puts it. Is it not about population, rather than politics?

PS My state's better than yours, nyah, nyah, nyah. Razz

<runs>

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

tommrr wrote:
No, you were not disenfranchised. You got to vote, that was not denied to you. Your candidate lost. got less votes than the other guy. But by your own admission, you voted. You can only be disenfranchised if you are denied the OPPORTUNITY to vote. It has nothing to do with voting for candidate that gets less votes than the other candidate.

I disagree. A vote is not a vote until it is counted. If your vote is not awarded to the candidate for whom you voted, you are disenfranchised.

In effect, your vote is stolen from you and awarded to the candidate you opposed. It's no different than voter fraud. What is the difference of someone fraudently changing your ballot vote after it is in the ballot box, but not yet counted, and the winner-take-all laws changing your vote to that of your opponent?

BBB

This is a representative republic, not a pure democracy. If you desire every vote to count equally, and throw out the influence of the existence of states, do you also favor eliminating 2 senators from each state in the Congress? Tiny Wyoming has as many senators as California. That is grossly unfair according to your thinking.

0 Replies

Okie
Okie, the least you could do is to read chapter 6 and maybe even the introduction before you post. Your posts are non-responsive to the proposal that is the subject of this thread. Your comments do not relate to the proposal. Instead, they relate to eliminating the electoral college, WHICH IS NOT THE PROPOSAL.

Why are you so resistant to responding to the actual proposal?

BBB

0 Replies

jespah wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:
AliceInWonderland wrote:
Well, since you don't listen to reason, I guess there's nothing left but to feed your delusion. Perhaps us small states with all of our huge powers will vote ourselves a big fat check from California. :wink:

You already have ... like Alaska! Those "rugged individualists" up there (red state - OF COURSE) get $2. back for every $1. they send to WDC. All those self-righteous "heartland states- (MORE RED STATES) ARE SUCKING UP $200 Billion of Farm Welfare payments over the next ten years. Look it up, goodness knows you think you're smart enough!! So, yea, you boys are sucking at the national teat real hard, which of course, WE are paying!!

Reason to you, is that you get a larger piece of the pie for paying less than we do ... I'm sure that makes sense .. to you!!

Alice in Wonderland suits you well ...

Anon

I s'pect that New Hampshire (hardly a red state) also gets more back than it puts in. And Texas (hardly a blue one) may get less back than it puts it. Is it not about population, rather than politics?

PS My state's better than yours, nyah, nyah, nyah. <runs>

The raspberry was particularly effective Smile

:wink:

Anon

0 Replies

jespah wrote:

I s'pect that New Hampshire (hardly a red state) also gets more back than it puts in. And Texas (hardly a blue one) may get less back than it puts it. Is it not about population, rather than politics?

PS My state's better than yours, nyah, nyah, nyah. <runs>

I can't quite follow the population argument, though. For every vote somebody in Rhode Island casts for one party, there have to be at least three voters in Texas voting for the other party, just to make even.

What happened to "one man, one vote"?

0 Replies

Well, I just mean that a state with bigger population is bound to toss more into the tax pot than a state with less. Sure, Calif. pays the way for others. So do Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and all of the other larger population states. New Hampshire pays less. So do Wyoming, DC, etc. I was addressing the tax argument being made, not the vote arguments.

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

AliceInWonderland wrote:
Well, since you don't listen to reason, I guess there's nothing left but to feed your delusion. Perhaps us small states with all of our huge powers will vote ourselves a big fat check from California. :wink:

You already have ... like Alaska! Those "rugged individualists" up there (red state - OF COURSE) get $2. back for every $1. they send to WDC. All those self-righteous "heartland states- (MORE RED STATES) ARE SUCKING UP $200 Billion of Farm Welfare payments over the next ten years. Look it up, goodness knows you think you're smart enough!! So, yea, you boys are sucking at the national teat real hard, which of course, WE are paying!!

Reason to you, is that you get a larger piece of the pie for paying less than we do ... I'm sure that makes sense .. to you!!

Alice in Wonderland suits you well ...

Anon

I think you missed some of my intent. I agree that the small states are getting back more than they pay - that could change if the populations of the larger states weren't so set on closing down the money-making industries we have and would allow us to use even half of our land. The problem goes both ways, Anon. It would be so much better for all of us if less money went into the Federal pot and more stayed home in the states where it is generated.

0 Replies

jespah wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:
AliceInWonderland wrote:
Well, since you don't listen to reason, I guess there's nothing left but to feed your delusion. Perhaps us small states with all of our huge powers will vote ourselves a big fat check from California. :wink:

You already have ... like Alaska! Those "rugged individualists" up there (red state - OF COURSE) get $2. back for every $1. they send to WDC. All those self-righteous "heartland states- (MORE RED STATES) ARE SUCKING UP $200 Billion of Farm Welfare payments over the next ten years. Look it up, goodness knows you think you're smart enough!! So, yea, you boys are sucking at the national teat real hard, which of course, WE are paying!!

Reason to you, is that you get a larger piece of the pie for paying less than we do ... I'm sure that makes sense .. to you!!

Alice in Wonderland suits you well ...

Anon

I s'pect that New Hampshire (hardly a red state) also gets more back than it puts in. And Texas (hardly a blue one) may get less back than it puts it. Is it not about population, rather than politics?

PS My state's better than yours, nyah, nyah, nyah. <runs>

Actually, it's about dollars earned per capita along with population. NH gets back less than it pays in (about 70% in 2003, last year I could find data) because people there earn more money. Texas gets back slightly more than it pays in (102%) because people there earn less per capita. States that get back less are: New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Minnesota, Nevada, Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, Delaware, Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington, Georgia, Indiana, Florida. Oregon is dead even and the rest get back more. Georgia, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Nebraska and Indiana are all very close to even.

0 Replies

In essence Red states get back more than Blue states, or so it seems. What would be the implications of that?

0 Replies

I find that very interesting as well. Particularly given that red states tend to want tax cuts and blue state tend not to want them, when blue states are the ones that would benefit most from tax cuts. Perhaps, in the blue states there is a wider spread between rich and poor incomes? Curious.

0 Replies

jespah wrote:

Well, I just mean that a state with bigger population is bound to toss more into the tax pot than a state with less. Sure, Calif. pays the way for others. So do Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and all of the other larger population states. New Hampshire pays less. So do Wyoming, DC, etc. I was addressing the tax argument being made, not the vote arguments.

Even if populations were exactly the same, California would still being paying much more in because the wages are radically higher than in other states. Higher wages, higher tax rates, higher taxes.

I think that elimination of the winner-take-all concept would be a good start in doing away with some of the inequity of the Electoral College and would foster better support for additional parties.

Anon

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

jespah wrote:
I s'pect that New Hampshire (hardly a red state) also gets more back than it puts in. And Texas (hardly a blue one) may get less back than it puts it. Is it not about population, rather than politics?

PS My state's better than yours, nyah, nyah, nyah. <runs>

I can't quite follow the population argument, though. For every vote somebody in Rhode Island casts for one party, there have to be at least three voters in Texas voting for the other party, just to make even.

What happened to "one man, one vote"?

I think i have just tripped to your basic misunderstanding. Texas has about 25 members in the House of representatives (i think, it will work for the purpose of this illustration just to assume so). Wyoming has one. Texas gest 27 votes in the Electoral College--25 Reps and two Senators. Wyoming gets three--one for their Rep, two for their Senators. The population of Texas is more than 30 times greater than the population of Wyoming. But every state gets at least one Representative, and two Senators. Therefore, the vote of an individual in Wymoning is, in a sense, worth three times as much as the vote of an individual in Texas. If the voter turn out in both states were the same, thirty times as many Texans would produce only nine times as many electors as the voters in Wyoming. Capiche?

Are you startin' to get the picture now about the huge differences which the system makes between densely populated states and sparsely populated states? Do you begin to understand why the elminiation of the Electoral College would, effectively, make Wymoning and states like it meaningless in an election? The simple elimination of the winner-take-all system for the Electoral College would go a long way to the equalization of the value of each vote, but still would not eliminate the discrepancy. Wyoming, with one Representative, would inevitably instruct its three electors to vote for one candidate, and one candidate only.

0 Replies

Re: Okie

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Okie, the least you could do is to read chapter 6 and maybe even the introduction before you post. Your posts are non-responsive to the proposal that is the subject of this thread. Your comments do not relate to the proposal. Instead, they relate to eliminating the electoral college, WHICH IS NOT THE PROPOSAL.

Why are you so resistant to responding to the actual proposal?

BBB

Okay, I scanned through the proposal. I didn't read every word. I read enough to know it is what I thought it was. It doesn't change the argument. Everything I've said responds to the proposal. As I've said before, this is a representative republic, not a pure democracy, which I personally am glad of. Surely, you understand the difference?

First of all, we elect people to govern our local communities, and also within our state. The respective states that we live in then sends their representatives to Washington to represent us. I would like to have a vote on Ted Kennedy, and would definitely like to vote him out. His votes in the senate affect me even though he supposedly represents only Massachusetts. I understand that, and accept that. The best I can do is vote to send someone from where I live to try to offset his agenda in the senate.

This whole argument about the electoral college really boils down to the power of the popular vote nationwide versus the power of the states. I favor the latter for many reasons. I think the argument can be made that one voter has more impact in the state that he resides than he would have nation-wide, if you analyze it in a statistical manner. This would be true, regardless of which state you reside in.

The argument over which state produces more is not pertinent to the argument here. The point is that states produce unique things, apart from what other states produce. To judge whether one is more important than another misses the whole point. If one wishes to talk about Alaska, all of us should be mighty glad Alaska is part of the union, or we would be importing alot more oil now than we are, and the price of gasoline would likely be more volatile than it is. Alaska is a leading state in terms of oil production, yet it has only 3 electoral votes, compared to California with 55.

0 Replies

Okie,

I have been jacking with you. I don't care what you make, what you produce, where you live, what color you are, or any other such thing.

I do resent that your vote is worth more than mine, and that even moreso that you think you deserve it!

You don't care for it much when I treat you like an inferior, but you expect me to like it that by being a Californian, my vote is inferior to yours.

Anon

By the way, the reason Alaska is drilling for oil, and the scumbag residents allow it is that they get blood money for it. They get a bribe each year for it!!

0 Replies

Your vote is not inferior to mine, except as Setanta pointed out that by virtue of the electoral votes being comprised of congressional districts plus senate seats, which really skews it only very, very slightly, as originally designed on purpose. The number of electoral votes is based on population, plus the very, very slight adjustment for 2 senate seats. I view that adjustment as a very slight consideration for the interests of simply being a state. People have rights, but so do the states along with the people residing in those states.

Perhaps if you want to be totally fair, how about counting the value of votes based on how much tax you pay in personally to the federal government. If you pay nothing, why should you even have a right to vote on what the government does with that money? After all, you did not contribute so why should you have any say in it. My question is a bit tongue in cheek, but really, how about it? For people that are being supported by the government, why should their vote count as much as people's that are supporting them? I have no idea how much tax you pay, but I am simply making a point here that there are lots of inequities, depending on how you look at it.

And I would need to look it up, but early on, didn't voters have to own property?

As the old saying goes, life isn't fair. There is no way to make things perfectly fair. To repeat, this is a representative republic, not a pure democracy.

0 Replies

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

"When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote."

The 15th {amendment} gave the vote to all males 21 years of age, the 19th allowed for women to vote, then the 26th lowered the age limit to 18.

0 Replies

BBB wrote:

Quote:

I disagree. A vote is not a vote until it is counted. If your vote is not awarded to the candidate for whom you voted, you are disenfranchised.

In effect, your vote is stolen from you and awarded to the candidate you opposed. It's no different than voter fraud. What is the difference of someone fraudently changing your ballot vote after it is in the ballot box, but not yet counted, and the winner-take-all laws changing your vote to that of your opponent?

BBB

Main Entry: dis·fran·chise
Pronunciation: (")dis-'fran-"chIz
Function: transitive verb
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote
source

So you have not been disfranchised, as long as you were allowed to vote. I don't see how you think your vote has been stolen, as the way the electors are chosen:

Quote:

The winner of the popular vote in most states receives all of the electoral votes in that state.

source
Just because the candidate of your choice did not win the popular vote in your state, thus the winner getting the electors, then your vote did in fact count, but your guy lost. No one had a vote stolen, no one had thier votes changed. That is also how a candidate can lose the national popular vote and still win the election.

0 Replies

Anon
[quote="Anon- I think that elimination of the winner-take-all concept would be a good start in doing away with some of the inequity of the Electoral College and would foster better support for additional parties.

Anon[/quote]

Anon, thanks for actually responding to the proposal, which is the topic of this thread.

Do you think your legislature would support eliminating the winner-take-all law in your state?

BBB

0 Replies

The only states likely to implement such a change to their electoral college votes are those where the split is typically very close. State like California that are generally tipped pretty far in one direction are unlikely to want to change.

0 Replies

I for one, being a Californian, wish they would change it. Our electors are decided mainly by the Bay area, Los Angeles and a few other areas. If you look at a county by county map, it is suprisingly red, just not populous enough to overcome the big cities. Something along the lines of Nebraska would be good, but if it doesn't change, then I am not going to stress about it.

0 Replies

FINALLY!!! A NATIONAL PLAN TO REFORM THE ELECTRAL COLLEGE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know