51–60 of 175 posts
1. Give the democrats Wisconsin (I don't know why people are treating it as a swing state)
2. Give the democrats Ohio
3. Give the democrats any other state (except New Hampshire)
Basically, as long as Obama takes Ohio, Obama wins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would not appear to, but in effect, it would make the entire election simply based on popular vote. Therefore your vote is not lost, it simply becomes equal. This is far better than your vote actually being lost in the mass of California votes, since you, living in California, would still have some impact on the national outcome. And candidates, looking for popular votes instead of electoral votes, would have much…
I see your point, but have a strong suspicion that the election would just be fought out on TV to an even greater extent, with more mudslinging and rumor-mongering. Traditional city/country campaign rallies would become a fixture, but mainly as audience competitions. But the internet and broadcast media would become more critical than ever, and accuracy or integrity haven't exactly been at a premium in large-scale el…
Damn, I wish I lived in one of the states that gets to choose our president.
If you're sufficiently convinced by this, the 538 model, or your favorite electoral vote map, and you are willing to bet your beliefs (and you are in a jurisdiction that has not regulated prediction markets out of existence), Intrade contracts on an Obama victory were trading around $6.70 today.
The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. I fully understand that the popular vote option has its issues (focusing on large population areas, etc.). However, a lot of this can be mitigated through legislation and regulation of the process. Here's a random set of ideas: - Candidates are only allowed to visit each state capital once. That's it. - Candidates a…
Most of the rest of your points are arbitrary things that nobody could be in a position to judge, like "trashing" the other candidates. Publishing poll data being illegal? A politician is a criminal if they don't align with promises? What about compromises or emergencies?
What happened to free speech? Who would be in a position to judge any of these restrictions and how would they not eventually result in tyranny?
I feel like you're trolling... this doesn't sound democratic at all.
The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. I fully understand that the popular vote option has its issues (focusing on large population areas, etc.). However, a lot of this can be mitigated through legislation and regulation of the process. Here's a random set of ideas: - Candidates are only allowed to visit each state capital once. That's it. - Candidates a…
Only can use government money to campaign (and not their own)? Can only visit state capitals once? Candidates obligated to participate in debates? Are you suggesting candidates have to become slaves to the process in order run for office?
On top of that, you expect government officials, the same ones put into office by this process to be the ones deciding whether someone is "biased" or not and who "didn't deliver" a campaign promise. Your proposals, if enacted, would probably generate a horribly corrupt government, where every politically motivated person would take every chance to destroy opponents through legal processes until an establishment party has so permeated the government they're basically a dictatorship.
As much as I'd like to believe this post was made in jest, I feel like you're taking cues from Hugo Chavez.
The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. I fully understand that the popular vote option has its issues (focusing on large population areas, etc.). However, a lot of this can be mitigated through legislation and regulation of the process. Here's a random set of ideas: - Candidates are only allowed to visit each state capital once. That's it. - Candidates a…
Is this a joke? What you're proposing is almost fundamentally contradictory to the principles the nation was founded upon. Banning bias? No "trashing" other candidates? No polling? No public endorsements? Incumbent can't run? You propose some of the most egregious restrictions on freedom of speech I've ever heard of. Only can use government money to campaign (and not their own)? Can only visit state capitals once? Ca…
- Historically, the majority of presidents have been rich and white. How do you fix that?
- Candidates make heavy use of propaganda, there is no accountability to what is said. Is censoring information (i.e What China's PRC does) any different from glutting all forms of media with YOUR information so other information is harder to find? This (among other things) was how Berlusconi came to power, and stayed there in Italy.
- Industry getting involved in matters of state... is this any different from Church and state? Should the same 'fix' be applied?
The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. I fully understand that the popular vote option has its issues (focusing on large population areas, etc.). However, a lot of this can be mitigated through legislation and regulation of the process. Here's a random set of ideas: - Candidates are only allowed to visit each state capital once. That's it. - Candidates a…
Is this a joke? What you're proposing is almost fundamentally contradictory to the principles the nation was founded upon. Banning bias? No "trashing" other candidates? No polling? No public endorsements? Incumbent can't run? You propose some of the most egregious restrictions on freedom of speech I've ever heard of. Only can use government money to campaign (and not their own)? Can only visit state capitals once? Ca…
What those restrictions are, I don't know, but I do know that we should be able to brainstorm without being accused of taking cues from Hugo Chavez.
Over the years in different elections in different countries I've heard this complaint [1]
> The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view.
Translation:
> It's unfair that I don't get my way even though I'm in the minority.
Also, this isn't just an election for president. There are Senate (in 2 out of 3 elections) and Congressional races, probably local races too.
But let me address the common "solution" for this "problem": the popular volte (for president). That is a terrible idea.
The electoral college doesn't only exist for the reasons of state rights (although that's a pretty big part of it). It exists to avoid a deadlock. The delegate almost without exception vote as their state did. The possibility of no decision coming out of the electoral college is practically zero.
For those of you who were paying attention in 2000, just look at what a mess Florida became. Now watch me get downvoted into oblivion (but that doesn't make me any less right) but the optional nature of the US voting system has resulted in:
- the left buying votes (cigarettes to homeless people, that sort of thing); and
- the right trying to disenfranchise groups that tend to vote left with such measures as removing the right of felons to vote (and even people who aren't felons).
HOWEVER, by the rules that were in place at the time of the election Florida was always a Bush win (seriously, please don't downvote siimply because you disagree). Even extensive analysis (by the likes of the New York Times, etc) after the fact supports this.
My point was that Florida turned into a circus of trying to change the rules after the fact (eg what constitutes a vote, the whole dimpled and pregnant chad business). You just can't do that.
Imagine that circus on a national level with an incredibly close popular vote.
On a personal note, as someone who resides in New York, one of the most expensive media markets in a state that is safely blue, I appreciate the minimal amount of election ads.
Anyway, the electoral college is not the problem here. There are however two glaring problems (IMHO):
1. Voting is optional;
2. Elections are first-past-the-post ("FPTP").
The argument for (1) is that mandatory voting leads to uninformed people voting. I assure you that uninformed people are already voting.
Voter turnout nationally is something like 50% (IIRC). Of those 40% always vote Democrat, 40% always vote Republican and the 20% in the middle decide the election. So 10% of the population is deciding the election even key states.
The problem with optional voting is it creates the wrong incentives. Measures like voter ID, removing felons right to votes are a consequence of this. If voting were mandatory (as it is in Australia) then a lot of these problems go away. Also, in many parts of the US it is hard to vote with long lines. It should be moved to a Saturday but this difficulty is, in many places, a natural consequence of voting being optional. Election officials are partisans too so you shouldn't be surprised if a right-leaning official under-resources an area with a lot of poor people.
As for (2) the problem is that this reinforces a two-party system. A vote for a minor party is often a vote for the other side (eg voting for the Greens is a vote that would probably otherwise go to a Democrat so is effectively a vote for the Republicans).
Australia has a preferential voting system. Given a field of 5 candidates you number then 1 to 5. When votes are counted you allocate all the "1"s. The candiate with the least number of "1"s is eliminated and their votes are distributed to the "2"s. This continues until something has more than 50% of the vote.
This means you could vote [1] Green [2] Democrat [3] Republican and protest the Democrat candidate without losing your vote.
One last point, as much as people focus on key states deciding the election, the reality is that the states are on a spectrum based on the popular vote. If a Republican wins the popular vote by 8% or more they'll probably carry California, otherwise they won't. A Democrat will have to win by 5-8% to carry Texas. When the popular vote is close, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Wisconsin are in play. Were it not close they wouldn't be.
Over time states change their "bias". For example, Florida is becoming more Democratic with retirees from blue states in the Northeast. California used to be a safe red state but is now safely blue. These changes aren't sudden and the variations possible are actually quite small.
Whatever the case, the popular vote at the national level would be a disaster.