Obama's first 100 Days Report Card

[AceHigh]

Lol, that comment was a pure win. Why do people bother to vote then? Wouldn't it be cheaper to let the electoral college to vote instead of the people? As mgz said the outcome would be the same.

Or is it just an expensive entertainment for the mob? You know... to create an illusion of democracy.

[SeventyX7]

Truthfully, why the electoral college is around today is still beyond me. 

Is there anyone here who truly prefers the electoral college over a simple majority of the votes?

[vicious796]

Me. I like the electoral college. Continuing a tradition that isn't really wrong isn't that bad of a thing. People only really bitch when things don't go their way. Obama's victory would have been a little less sweet had it been viewed by popular vote and alot more republicans in the liberal states may have gone out to vote after seeing the results from the east coast. Not saying McCain would have won, just saying it may have been closer that it was (which was pretty close).

[zherok]

Dunno about being that close, it was the widest popular vote margin in 20 years. Its certainly not the widest margin, but McCain'd have needed 10 million votes to tie.

[AceHigh]

Me. I like the electoral college. Continuing a tradition that isn't really wrong isn't that bad of a thing. People only really bitch when things don't go their way. Obama's victory would have been a little less sweet had it been viewed by popular vote and alot more republicans in the liberal states may have gone out to vote after seeing the results from the east coast. Not saying McCain would have won, just saying it may have been closer that it was (which was pretty close).

Fine, but still why do you bother voting for a president when you already elected and elector who will do that job for you? Sounds like a waste of time to me.

[mgz]

Me. I like the electoral college. Continuing a tradition that isn't really wrong isn't that bad of a thing. People only really bitch when things don't go their way. Obama's victory would have been a little less sweet had it been viewed by popular vote and alot more republicans in the liberal states may have gone out to vote after seeing the results from the east coast. Not saying McCain would have won, just saying it may have been closer that it was (which was pretty close).

Fine, but still why do you bother voting for a president when you already elected and elector who will do that job for you? Sounds like a waste of time to me.

ive been saying that for years

[zherok]

Fine, but still why do you bother voting for a president when you already elected and elector who will do that job for you? Sounds like a waste of time to me.

Its worse, actually, the electoral college has the effect of nullifying your vote if it isn't aligned with the majority of your state. All but two states have a winner takes all system, which means the majority candidate receives the full electorate for the state.

So that means in terms of competitiveness, larger states that tend to vote for a single party (California, New York, and Texas are solid examples) tend to be glossed over during the campaigns for anything outside of fund raising. So every election cycle a state of nearly 37 million people (California) is less significant to the race than a state with nearly 11 1/2 million (Ohio).

Third parties aren't ever likely to win under the current system, and it gives disproportionate power to certain states while making votes in most states worthless past a majority to secure the state for one party.

There are issues with the popular vote too, of course, it would likely swing heavily to metropolitan areas because its a hell of a lot easier to cover large cities with tons of people than it is to do all that town hall crap. But at least it wouldn't put the entire election down to only a handful of states.

[AceHigh]

Nice rant, good points.

However the question remains unaswered: Why do people vote when electoral college does that for them. I mean by voting only for the representatives in the electoral college would make it indirect democracy. However it seems that Americans vote twice, where the second time is simply a waste of time and money.

Can any American then tell me why you bother doing that?

[SeventyX7]

To be honest, if you look at the % of registered voters who actually vote, the simple answer is that we don't.

[mgz]

a small % do vote, but im pretty sure we dont elect our electoral college

[AceHigh]

a small % do vote, but im pretty sure we dont elect our electoral college

From wiki:

Nomination of electors

Candidates for elector are nominated by their state political parties in the months prior to Election Day. The Constitution delegates to each state the authority for nominating and choosing its electors. In some states, the electors are nominated in primaries, the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other states, such as Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina nominate electors in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committees of each candidate name their candidates for presidential elector (an attempt to discourage faithless electors).

and the most important:

Federal law sets the Tuesday following the first Monday in November as the day for holding federal elections.[18]

Each state's legislature determines how its electors are to be chosen.[19] Currently, all states choose electors by popular election on the date specified by federal law. Forty eight states, and Washington, D.C., employ the winner-takes-all method, each awarding its electors as a single bloc. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, select one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and additionally select the remaining two electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992.

It seems that you vote for electors. Unless I misunderstood something here.

[mgz]

a small % do vote, but im pretty sure we dont elect our electoral college

From wiki:

Nomination of electors

Candidates for elector are nominated by their state political parties in the months prior to Election Day. The Constitution delegates to each state the authority for nominating and choosing its electors. In some states, the electors are nominated in primaries, the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other states, such as Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina nominate electors in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committees of each candidate name their candidates for presidential elector (an attempt to discourage faithless electors).

and the most important:

Federal law sets the Tuesday following the first Monday in November as the day for holding federal elections.[18]

Each state's legislature determines how its electors are to be chosen.[19] Currently, all states choose electors by popular election on the date specified by federal law. Forty eight states, and Washington, D.C., employ the winner-takes-all method, each awarding its electors as a single bloc. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, select one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and additionally select the remaining two electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992.

It seems that you vote for electors. Unless I misunderstood something here.

you did misread, it says that the parties select them.
Not common people.
We elect senators and congressman etc. And thats about it.

[AceHigh]

I thought that "popular election" means that people elect someone.... silly me.

Anyway, electors are appointed by the party that won in a particular state? And it is the common people who elect the state government. So it's kind of extremely indirect vote, isn't it?

So it wouldn't be far fetched to say that common people only make impact on local and state level. On federal level voting is just to make a hype and entertainment.


Also Vicious defended electoral college by saying that it makes small states count and that is fine by me, but wouldn't it make more sense that dem/rep electoral officials would be proportionate with the percentage of rep/dem people in the state? That way the small states would still be of some importance and swing states would no longer be an issue. Also Semnae's vote could actually count (just as example).

[SeventyX7]

a small % do vote, but im pretty sure we dont elect our electoral college

From wiki:

Nomination of electors

Candidates for elector are nominated by their state political parties in the months prior to Election Day. The Constitution delegates to each state the authority for nominating and choosing its electors. In some states, the electors are nominated in primaries, the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other states, such as Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina nominate electors in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committees of each candidate name their candidates for presidential elector (an attempt to discourage faithless electors).

and the most important:

Federal law sets the Tuesday following the first Monday in November as the day for holding federal elections.[18]

Each state's legislature determines how its electors are to be chosen.[19] Currently, all states choose electors by popular election on the date specified by federal law. Forty eight states, and Washington, D.C., employ the winner-takes-all method, each awarding its electors as a single bloc. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, select one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and additionally select the remaining two electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992.

It seems that you vote for electors. Unless I misunderstood something here.

you did misread, it says that the parties select them.
Not common people.
We elect senators and congressman etc. And thats about it.

Even that is only on paper.  Elections for senators and congressmen only have like 20-30% turnouts and they are weighted pretty heavily in the oldest age groups.

Even then, generally, the candidate who gets the most money from interests usually wins (unless he's the incumbent, of course).  Organized money > organized people.

I thought that "popular election" means that people elect someone.... silly me.

Anyway, electors are appointed by the party that won in a particular state? And it is the common people who elect the state government. So it's kind of extremely indirect vote, isn't it?

So it wouldn't be far fetched to say that common people only make impact on local and state level. On federal level voting is just to make a hype and entertainment.


Also Vicious defended electoral college by saying that it makes small states count and that is fine by me, but wouldn't it make more sense that dem/rep electoral officials would be proportionate with the percentage of rep/dem people in the state? That way the small states would still be of some importance and swing states would no longer be an issue. Also Semnae's vote could actually count (just as example).

The electoral college originally was conceived as a way of giving small states more importance during elections, but in today's elections there are certain states that ALWAYS vote Republican and some states that ALWAYS vote democrat.  Due to this, politicians only campaign extensively in "swing states" and large states.  Abolishing the electoral college would force politicians to campaign more in "strongholds" due to there being parts of those states that can still swing.

[mgz]

while it is rigged, senators and congressman are technically popular vote.
Until they make voting much easier nothing will change, people will never want to go to a place wait for 20 minutes to place a seemingly useless vote.

[SeventyX7]

while it is rigged, senators and congressman are technically popular vote.
Until they make voting much easier nothing will change, people will never want to go to a place wait for 20 minutes to place a seemingly useless vote.

imho, I think that we may see internet voting in our lifetimes. 

[AceHigh]

My government proposed that already, a E-election program for 2011. The result is that a American group of hackers tested the system, found so many weaknesses that they made a report of several pages and said that is was not secure enough.

However they tested an unfinished system, so maybe it will be made secure enough for the next election.

[SeventyX7]

Lol, we will know the hackers have won when Chuck Norris becomes the next president of the United States of America.

[zherok]

Anyway, electors are appointed by the party that won in a particular state? And it is the common people who elect the state government. So it's kind of extremely indirect vote, isn't it?

So it wouldn't be far fetched to say that common people only make impact on local and state level. On federal level voting is just to make a hype and entertainment.

The electorate is determined on Election day by the popular vote, so its perhaps not quite as indirect as you make it sound. In voting for a candidate you're indirectly voting for an electorate pledged to that candidate. The bigger issue is again, the fact that anything above or below a majority doesn't really matter since the electorate is entirely determined by the winner's party.

Also Vicious defended electoral college by saying that it makes small states count and that is fine by me, but wouldn't it make more sense that dem/rep electoral officials would be proportionate with the percentage of rep/dem people in the state? That way the small states would still be of some importance and swing states would no longer be an issue. Also Semnae's vote could actually count (just as example).

The problem with any reform is that the electorate rules are a state issue, so you're not just changing national policy, you're changing each state, one at a time. And the majority would likely be leery about any effort to change the system in a given state away from what currently favors their personal preferences.

For example, I believe either this early in the last election, there was an effort (although I can't tell you how serious it was) to change California's electorate to a district based proportionate system (the system that Maine and Nebraska currently use.) This wasn't out of any effort to democratize the system in California though, it was simply an effort to break up the significant (55 electoral votes) block California represents for the Democrats. That system also runs the risk of encouraging Gerrymandering; redistricting in order to favor your party.

Percentages might be a difference that could make it work, I don't know, but again the larger issue is changing policy in a way that doesn't just result in states being changed only where it benefits a particular party.

[Pigeon]

The least important problem of voting in the US is the electorate system. Fraud in the electoral college has never resulted in the 'incorrent' president being put in office. Ever. Not even once.

The problem with the US presidential system is the two party system - there's no room for compromise. There's no room for "Well, McCain is less a piece of shit than Obama is, but I think Ron Paul would be a really great candidate". If my vote went for who I really wanted, (Ron Paul) instead of the person I wanted the second least, (John McCain) our system would be perfect. I don't give a flying fuck if my vote has to go through an intermediary (the electorate) on the way there.