The W
Views: 178591697
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.3.17 0234
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Colorado Considering Scrapping Winner-Take-All Electoral College Votes
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1212 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 144

Posts: 2871/5410
EXP: 35837633
For next: 872761

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 3060 days
Last activity: 395 days
#1 Posted on 16.8.04 1304.05
Reposted on: 16.8.11 1304.31
I absolutely love this idea. If we have to keep the Electoral College, I think all states ought to move to this sort of allocation of votes, letting each locality have a bit more sway in how the voting goes. Then the race will become truly more national, as picking up 5 instead of 3 votes in some state could be important, instead of now where really we know how about 40 out of 50 states are going to vote no matter what.

Colo. Weighs Proportional Electoral Votes (story.news.yahoo.com)

    Originally posted by from the story

    If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all of the state's electoral votes.


    Secretary of State Donetta Davidson said Friday that supporters have gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot.

Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3720/4700
EXP: 28678549
For next: 656532

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4704 days
Last activity: 3158 days
#2 Posted on 16.8.04 1311.31
Reposted on: 16.8.11 1312.31
I actually prefer the Nebraska and Maine model, where it is done by congressional district with the two Senate "votes"(for lack of better descriptor) going to the winner of the popular vote.

I'm going to look at some numbers and see how this would've changed things in 2000...
King Of Crap
Goetta
Level: 41

Posts: 221/309
EXP: 470045
For next: 10104

Since: 17.9.03
From: Holley, New York

Since last post: 6912 days
Last activity: 6843 days
#3 Posted on 16.8.04 1317.23
Reposted on: 16.8.11 1319.20
I love this idea too. I'm surprised it took people so long to realize that "winner take all" is the absolute worst way to allocate points.

I would actually like to see the EC done with completely, and just let the popular vote speak for itself.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3721/4700
EXP: 28678549
For next: 656532

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4704 days
Last activity: 3158 days
#4 Posted on 16.8.04 1334.49
Reposted on: 16.8.11 1335.33
Incidentally, here is the vote total on my count.

Bush Gore
AL 8 1
AK 3
AZ 7 1
AR 4 2
CA 15 38
CO 7 1
CT 8
DE 3
DC 3
FL 11 13
GA 11 2
HI 4
ID 4
IL 9 13
IN 10 2
IA 5 2
KS 6
KY 7 1
LA 8 1
ME 4
MD 3 7
MA 12
MI 7 11
MN 5 5
MS 6 1
MO 8 3
MT 3 0
NE 5 0
NV 3 1
NH 3 1
NJ 2 13
NM 1 4
NY 4 29
NC 12 2
ND 3
OH 13 8
OK 8
OR 3 4
PA 10 13
RI 4
SC 7 1
SD 3
TN 8 2
TX 22 10
UT 5
VT 3
VA 10 3
WA 3 8
WV 4 1
WI 3 8
WY 3

Final Total
Bush: 286
Gore: 249
Outliers: 3

3 were too close to call.

Feel free to check my work: http://uselectionatlas.org
spf
Scrapple
Level: 144

Posts: 2872/5410
EXP: 35837633
For next: 872761

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 3060 days
Last activity: 395 days
#5 Posted on 16.8.04 1352.02
Reposted on: 16.8.11 1357.25
Which way did you do those numbers Grimis, on a district-by-district basis or on a proportional basis? As really that article doesn't make clear how the votes will be proportioned in the Colorado system.

Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3722/4700
EXP: 28678549
For next: 656532

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4704 days
Last activity: 3158 days
#6 Posted on 16.8.04 1438.10
Reposted on: 16.8.11 1439.13
It's the district by district, with +2 for the popular vote(the same system I described in my previous post).
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc
Level: 103

Posts: 1023/2490
EXP: 11190140
For next: 281305

Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 54 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#7 Posted on 16.8.04 1748.15
Reposted on: 16.8.11 1749.36
    Originally posted by King Of Crap
    I love this idea too. I'm surprised it took people so long to realize that "winner take all" is the absolute worst way to allocate points.

    I would actually like to see the EC done with completely, and just let the popular vote speak for itself.


How can you prefer using the popular vote when it is the ultimate of the "absolute worst" "winner take all" scenarios? Do you prefer distributing the vote over smaller regions, or one giant poll?

(edited by EddieBurkett on 16.8.04 1848)
SKLOKAZOID
Bierwurst
Level: 90

Posts: 771/1821
EXP: 6965420
For next: 223216

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 1683 days
Last activity: 812 days
#8 Posted on 16.8.04 1823.00
Reposted on: 16.8.11 1829.01
    Originally posted by EddieBurkett
    How can you prefer using the popular vote when it is the ultimate of the "absolute worst" "winner take all" scenarios? Do you prefer distributing the vote over smaller regions, or one giant poll


The winner takes all no matter what scenario. There must be a winner and a loser, no co-Presidents.

In the proposed scenario, instead of splitting things up into 500+ electoral votes, they are split into 100 million votes which reflects the voting population better.

Right now, I live in Minnesota. If I vote for Bush, and Kerry wins, then my vote for Bush doesn't count in the national election. It's garbage. If the Presidential elections counted EVERY vote (as best as it can), then my vote will be a small drop in the pool of 100 million or so votes that were cast that day. So, it would at least count on SOME level instead of being a phantom vote that isn't seen or heard from ever again outside of my state.

I have never quite liked the idea of an electoral college in Presidential elections. It's a national election for a national office, so I should be voting as a United States Citizen and not a citizen of Minnesota (though, Minnesota is PART of the United States of course). We're not voting for House members, but our votes are treated that way. We're voting for representation in the Presidential election, but we're not actually voting for the candidates.

I'm totally talking out of my ass here, but:

The main reason the electoral college exists, I think, is because it allows the states to maintain some sort of pseudo-power. I could be wrong on that. It supposedly has something to do with "proportional" representation, but that happens no matter what. California has more people than New Jersey. So, if California has 20 million voters and New Jersey has 4 million, there's still a proportion represented.

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 16.8.04 1647)
MoeGates
Boudin blanc
Level: 100

Posts: 1679/2353
EXP: 10277078
For next: 77354

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 7 days
#9 Posted on 16.8.04 2315.02
Reposted on: 16.8.11 2319.59
The problem with the congressional model is that even less areas will be targeted than are now. Consider, say Ohio - now it's a swing state. But if the electoral votes are counted by Congressional District, probably all but a couple of the Districts are locked up one way or another, as Northern Ohio is solidly Dem and the Southern Ohio solidily GOP. Instead of 10-20 swing states where all the resources are focused (where GOTV and such matter) you get 10-20 CDs where all the resources are focused.

With SPF's scheme though, it's worth campaigning everywhere - you can pick up or lose a delegate in pretty much any state. The whole country matters again, which is a lot better than a handful or States or CDs getting all the attention.

As for how this would have worked in 2000 - if you count by CD PLUS the 2 extra seats per state, Buch wins. If you count by CD but don't count the extra 2 seats per state Gore wins.

Personally, I don't understand why smaller states should get a disproportionally larger share of determining who's President. They get all the tax dollars, they get unfair extra clout in COngress and in the electoral college, and all they do is complain about Washington.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3727/4700
EXP: 28678549
For next: 656532

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4704 days
Last activity: 3158 days
#10 Posted on 17.8.04 0633.22
Reposted on: 17.8.11 0634.29
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Personally, I don't understand why smaller states should get a disproportionally larger share of determining who's President. They get all the tax dollars, they get unfair extra clout in COngress and in the electoral college, and all they do is complain about Washington.
Mainly because without that clout, there is no country. Face it, without it all of the attention in everything would be paid to New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. You would be disproportionately benefiting the population centers.

And incidentally, there is no disproportion. Alaska has 3 EV's; California 55. What's the problem?
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 165

Posts: 4111/7534
EXP: 58155449
For next: 780356

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 3914 days
Last activity: 3914 days
#11 Posted on 17.8.04 0704.23
Reposted on: 17.8.11 0704.29
    Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
      Originally posted by EddieBurkett
      How can you prefer using the popular vote when it is the ultimate of the "absolute worst" "winner take all" scenarios? Do you prefer distributing the vote over smaller regions, or one giant poll


    The winner takes all no matter what scenario. There must be a winner and a loser, no co-Presidents.

    In the proposed scenario, instead of splitting things up into 500+ electoral votes, they are split into 100 million votes which reflects the voting population better.

    Right now, I live in Minnesota. If I vote for Bush, and Kerry wins, then my vote for Bush doesn't count in the national election. It's garbage. If the Presidential elections counted EVERY vote (as best as it can), then my vote will be a small drop in the pool of 100 million or so votes that were cast that day. So, it would at least count on SOME level instead of being a phantom vote that isn't seen or heard from ever again outside of my state.

    I have never quite liked the idea of an electoral college in Presidential elections. It's a national election for a national office, so I should be voting as a United States Citizen and not a citizen of Minnesota (though, Minnesota is PART of the United States of course). We're not voting for House members, but our votes are treated that way. We're voting for representation in the Presidential election, but we're not actually voting for the candidates.

    I'm totally talking out of my ass here, but:

    The main reason the electoral college exists, I think, is because it allows the states to maintain some sort of pseudo-power. I could be wrong on that. It supposedly has something to do with "proportional" representation, but that happens no matter what. California has more people than New Jersey. So, if California has 20 million voters and New Jersey has 4 million, there's still a proportion represented.

    (edited by SKLOKAZOID on 16.8.04 1647)






Here are the problems:
First, its not a national election for a national office, its a federal election for a federal office. While national and federal are used as interchangeable words by many, there is a distinct difference.
As for Why Total Votes wouldn't work: Besides the historical and states rights arguments, How many million dead voters from Chicago would the Daley family dig up every election in order to swing an election? At most, somoene can only rig 1 state with the dead, not 50.
MoeGates
Boudin blanc
Level: 100

Posts: 1682/2353
EXP: 10277078
For next: 77354

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 7 days
#12 Posted on 17.8.04 0841.24
Reposted on: 17.8.11 0841.30
Mainly because without that clout, there is no country. Face it, without it all of the attention in everything would be paid to New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. You would be disproportionately benefiting the population centers.

And incidentally, there is no disproportion. Alaska has 3 EV's; California 55. What's the problem?


The problem is that California has 54.7 times as many people as Alaska (35,484,453 to 644,818) but only 18.3 times the electoral clout. Or, to put it another way, if California simply divided itself into 55 "States," about the size of Alaska, it would have 165 electoral votes instead of only 55.

You would be benefiting the population centers, yes (not disproportionally though) because THAT'S WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE. The principle of one PERSON one vote was what this country was founded on, and it shouldn't matter where you happen to live.

(edited by MoeGates on 17.8.04 1853)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3732/4700
EXP: 28678549
For next: 656532

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4704 days
Last activity: 3158 days
#13 Posted on 17.8.04 0848.31
Reposted on: 17.8.11 0856.22
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    The principle of one PERSON one vote was what this country was founded on, and it shouldn't matter where you happen to live.
But it wasn't because of the slavery issues involved and you know that.

One other fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that the one-man, one-vote is a symbol of democracy. This is not a democratic government, but is a federal republic, as I have mentioned six dozen times prior to this.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 106

Posts: 1117/2743
EXP: 12414588
For next: 257396

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2336 days
Last activity: 2238 days
#14 Posted on 17.8.04 0904.57
Reposted on: 17.8.11 0905.48
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    You would be benefiting the population centers, yes (not disproportionally though) because THAT'S WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE. The principle of one PERSON one vote was what this country was founded on, and it shouldn't matter where you happen to live.

    (edited by MoeGates on 17.8.04 0941)


Another founding principle of our country is to protect the rights of the minority. If we change and aren't careful, you essentially disenfranchise most of the country. The way it is currently, small population states matter.

As far as one person one vote, remember that for alot of our history the only election that was by that rule was the House. There were also a lot of other factors such as property, and slaves as Grimis mentioned, that render that arguement untrue.
SKLOKAZOID
Bierwurst
Level: 90

Posts: 773/1821
EXP: 6965420
For next: 223216

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 1683 days
Last activity: 812 days
#15 Posted on 17.8.04 0915.30
Reposted on: 17.8.11 0920.05
    Originally posted by redsoxnation

    First, its not a national election for a national office, its a federal election for a federal office. While national and federal are used as interchangeable words by many, there is a distinct difference.
    As for Why Total Votes wouldn't work: Besides the historical and states rights arguments, How many million dead voters from Chicago would the Daley family dig up every election in order to swing an election? At most, somoene can only rig 1 state with the dead, not 50.


Yeah, but in a federal election, with the electoral system we have now, if the candidate in my state loses, the votes cast by those dead people count more in the vote for the federal office while mine don't count outside of my state. They're meaningless.

Voter fraud happens, whether it's at the state level or the federal level.

Nevertheless, I can live with the electoral system, but if every state followed in Colorado's suit and talked about doing what they might do, that may be a better compromise.

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 17.8.04 0723)
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 51

Posts: 194/517
EXP: 1009670
For next: 4275

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 2596 days
Last activity: 2169 days
#16 Posted on 17.8.04 1035.18
Reposted on: 17.8.11 1036.03
I think the main problem with the Winner Takes All system is that if someone lives in a state that is a given to a particular candidate, the supporters of the other candidate will not be inclined to even vote, as their vote will essentially mean nothing.

Breaking up a state's Electoral votes by congressional districts would make more sense, as it would provide a clearer depiction of how a particular state stands rather than just saying New York is for all for Kerry & Kansas is all for Bush (for you DrDirt ;-). Putting each congressional district in play electorally would make all our votes count & still give a voice to those outside the population centers by maintaining the Electoral system.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 112

Posts: 2148/3066
EXP: 15180500
For next: 157753

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 1809 days
Last activity: 986 days
#17 Posted on 17.8.04 1339.52
Reposted on: 17.8.11 1339.55
The best case scenario for the upcoming election is for John Kerry to win the electoral college but lose the popular vote. Then maybe we could finally have an actual discussion about this issue like adults instead this hyper-partisan noise machine afraid to say anything bad about the system lest they make George W. Bush look bad by proxy.

I promise you, if we were having this conversation in October of 2000, you wouldn't see this ridiculous and insincere divide along party lines.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3737/4700
EXP: 28678549
For next: 656532

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4704 days
Last activity: 3158 days
#18 Posted on 17.8.04 1641.15
Reposted on: 17.8.11 1642.18
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    I promise you, if we were having this conversation in October of 2000, you wouldn't see this ridiculous and insincere divide along party lines.
If John Kerry wins the electoral and loses the popular, my opinion won't change. The country will go to hell in a handbasket, but I still stick with the EC. Sorry...
policus
Loukanika
Level: 9

Posts: 1/9
EXP: 2283
For next: 879

Since: 17.8.04

Since last post: 6874 days
Last activity: 6851 days
#19 Posted on 17.8.04 1648.49
Reposted on: 17.8.11 1651.50
Here some food for thought on the CD system. In most states I think, I know for sure it is true in mine, the CD's are decided by the state legislature. You might remember an incident a year or two ago where Texas legislatures left the state to stop a bill to redraw the districts that was unfavorable for their party. In effect the legislature of a state that is 50-50 between the two parties could redraw the state so that it will in most likely probability come out with a vote of 9 in their favor and 1 against even though the state is 50-50 and in effect although the popular vote of the state is split the electoral effect could be 9-1. Here some numbers to look at and think. State has 1,000,000 people with 10 CD's

CD# DemVote-RepVotes winner
1 100,000-0 D
2 47,00-53,000 R
3 47,00-53,000 R
4 47,00-53,000 R
5 47,00-53,000 R
6 47,00-53,000 R
7 47,00-53,000 R
8 47,00-53,000 R
9 47,00-53,000 R
10 47,00-53,000 R

523,000-477,000 1 - 9

even if you give the dem's the extra 2 EV for popular vote they'll have 25% of the EV and have 52% of the popular vote. Worse yet is if you were a dem in CD1 as is everyone else in CD1 your vote is rendered completely useless, and no one will ever campaign in your district. It is also unlikely with a 6% difference in the other districts that anyone will campaign there. I concede I'm assuming that swing votes won't matter much in this model.
Essentially this kind of distribution of electoral vote will take the vote out of the people directly and put in the people indirectly through their state legislature.

Remember assigning electoral votes is a state right granted in the constitution it is up to each state to chose how they distribute them. The all or nothing model works well. Another fault of the CD system is third party candidates. I don't know of Perot would have taken any CD's in '92, but now you could have a bunch of third party candidates focusing their efforts in one CD here one CD there. The effect being that the result will be no clear majority at which point people will not vote directly but indirectly for the president through Congress. This is like campaign finance reform it seemed like a good idea but how it's implemented totally undermines the intent of it.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 106

Posts: 1121/2743
EXP: 12414588
For next: 257396

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2336 days
Last activity: 2238 days
#20 Posted on 18.8.04 0819.30
Reposted on: 18.8.11 0821.44
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    Breaking up a state's Electoral votes by congressional districts would make more sense, as it would provide a clearer depiction of how a particular state stands rather than just saying New York is for all for Kerry & Kansas is all for Bush (for you DrDirt ;-). Putting each congressional district in play electorally would make all our votes count & still give a voice to those outside the population centers by maintaining the Electoral system.


That would work better than popular vote, however, satan could run as a Rep. and win in my district. The only district that could go Dem. is around KcK.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: I guess this is what the French think about Eurosoc...
Next thread: Retiring GOP congressman breaks ranks on Iraq
Previous thread: Kerry's Ex-girlfriend Website
(1212 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Colorado Considering Scrapping Winner-Take-All Electoral College VotesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.198 seconds.