Well Florida did it again

[SeaCat]

Yesterday we had our Primaries here. Unfortunately there were more than a few people in my county who were not allowed to vote. The reason was many of our Voter ID Cards had the words Independant or NPA (No Political Affiliation) on them. For some reason this disallowed us from voting.

Needless to say I and my wife have written fairly nasty letters of complaint to the state about this. (As I'm sure many other people have.)

One of these centuries Florida will fix their voting system.

Cat

 

[only_more_so]

Yesterday we had our Primaries here. Unfortunately there were more than a few people in my county who were not allowed to vote. The reason was many of our Voter ID Cards had the words Independant or NPA (No Political Affiliation) on them. For some reason this disallowed us from voting.

Needless to say I and my wife have written fairly nasty letters of complaint to the state about this. (As I'm sure many other people have.)

One of these centuries Florida will fix their voting system.

Cat

Actually, I see no problem with this. Why should an independent get to choose which candidate the Repulicans nominate for President? Why should an unaffiliated voter get to choose a Democratic candidate? Wouldn't those people choose the person most likely to lose?

The primaries and the caucuses are methods for political parties to choose representatives to send to the national ballots. They are not elections in an of themselves. The is really clear when you hear how Florida has zero, that's 0 delegates for the Democratic nomination this year. The state is being punished by the national Democrat party for moving the primary date earlier. Many other states only receive half their delegates this year for similar infractions.

It's a stupid system, but the part you complain about actually makes sense.

 

[sr71plt]

Yesterday we had our Primaries here. Unfortunately there were more than a few people in my county who were not allowed to vote. The reason was many of our Voter ID Cards had the words Independant or NPA (No Political Affiliation) on them. For some reason this disallowed us from voting.

Needless to say I and my wife have written fairly nasty letters of complaint to the state about this. (As I'm sure many other people have.)

One of these centuries Florida will fix their voting system.

Cat

I'm not sure I follow. These were party events, not for the general public. Why would you claim the right to vote in a party event when you weren't a member of the party? Many states do permit voting in one (but not both) of the party primaries for people who won't declare for that party--but they are just being nice, aren't they? (And opening themselves to votes for the worst candidate in one party to bolster the candidate in the party of the voter's true affiliation.) This is still in an internal party selection phase, not a general vote. Not all States hold primaries at all for the parties--so there's no individual voter participation there at all.

 

[Weird Harold]

Yesterday we had our Primaries here. Unfortunately there were more than a few people in my county who were not allowed to vote. The reason was many of our Voter ID Cards had the words Independant or NPA (No Political Affiliation) on them. For some reason this disallowed us from voting.

Needless to say I and my wife have written fairly nasty letters of complaint to the state about this. (As I'm sure many other people have.)

One of these centuries Florida will fix their voting system.

Cat

If there weren't any non-partisan races in your precinct, there wouldn't be much point in voting anyway. I generally don't bother with primary elections because as an Independent I can only vote on non-partisan races (for things like judges and JP's) and 90% of those around here are running unopposed and only in the primaries because the law requires them to "win" a primary to be on the general election ballot.

Florida does seem to have a consistent failing in keeping it's voters informed as to what's going on.

 

[MaeveoSliabh]

There were other things to vote on as well, such as Amendment 1. It passed. Which, in short, means that the people in general will get a tax cut (figure a couple hundred bucks a year) but will be sacrificing funding for schools, police, firefighters, health care, and a multitude of other state funded goodies.

There's so much more than just the primaries going on. People tend to forget that if they're caught up in the presidential bullshit.

 

[SeaCat]

Sorry for not replying earlier. I had to go watch "The Hills have eyes" for the second time. (My wife hadn't seen it.)

Maeveo,

Yes there were other things to vote on, and vote I did.

SR71,

I understand your views on this and yet I have to wonder. I am an Independant because I do not follow the party lines. I don't vote for the party, instead I vote for the person I like. (Or dislike the least as the case may be.) Does this mean that because I don't follow a party line I am not allowed to have a voice? Maybe last time around I liked one of the Dems. but this time I like one of the Reps. My vote is supposed to count, just look at the package.

On the same track as the one person one vote counting what's with the Electoral College? As I understand it a Politican can actually get a higher number of actual votes and lose the election because they didn't win enough states to win in the electoral college. (Each state has a certain number of votes in the college. These are assigned to the winner in that state.) Doesn't this put the lie to the idea that our votes count? Yes I understand why this system was put into place, it was difficult to do a total tally of all votes. Now though we have the computers, we have the infrastructure, we could tally all votes. Why not change the system so each vote actually counts?

Cat

 

[sr71plt]

Sorry for not replying earlier. I had to go watch "The Hills have eyes" for the second time. (My wife hadn't seen it.)

Maeveo,

Yes there were other things to vote on, and vote I did.

SR71,

I understand your views on this and yet I have to wonder. I am an Independant because I do not follow the party lines. I don't vote for the party, instead I vote for the person I like. (Or dislike the least as the case may be.) Does this mean that because I don't follow a party line I am not allowed to have a voice? Maybe last time around I liked one of the Dems. but this time I like one of the Reps. My vote is supposed to count, just look at the package.

On the same track as the one person one vote counting what's with the Electoral College? As I understand it a Politican can actually get a higher number of actual votes and lose the election because they didn't win enough states to win in the electoral college. (Each state has a certain number of votes in the college. These are assigned to the winner in that state.) Doesn't this put the lie to the idea that our votes count? Yes I understand why this system was put into place, it was difficult to do a total tally of all votes. Now though we have the computers, we have the infrastructure, we could tally all votes. Why not change the system so each vote actually counts?

Cat

Yes, I can't see why you would expect to be given a voice in a party decision if you won't affiliate with the party. The voting primaries aren't a general election: they are party events administered by the state electoral boards. You get your unencumbered vote in the general election. The parties can even set their own rules over how the primary voting is set up (the Democrats tend to divide the party delegates by the percentage of the vote won; Republicans tend to be like the Electoral College--the winner takes all party delegates even if he/she only won by one vote). Parties have a full right to require that voters in their primaries be registered members of that party on the voting roles (which doesn't require you to vote that way in the general election if you don't want to). In some states, there aren't primaries at all--the parties have conventions of registered party members to select delegates for a selected candidate. Some, as we've already seen in this election have strangely convoluted town meeting-style caucuses and don't take secret ballots at all.

If you won't commit to a party, you have no say in who they pick for candidates. This isn't a general election phase. The main reason the state electoral boards are involved at all is to try to keep people from claiming to be members of all parties and vote in all of the primaries.

Once these delegates get to the convention, they are only bound to vote how the primary turned out for the first round of voting--after that, if there's not a clear winner, it doesn't really matter how you voted in the primary that they should vote in the convention at all. It all becomes horse trading at that point.

I'd like to pick both the Democratic and Republican candidate too. It doesn't work that way, though. There's no law that says only those two parties get on ballot--we frequently have independents running on the ballot for president. If you want a voice in who one of the major parties will run as their candidate, you need to commit to one of those parties--not all of them. This doesn't control who you vote for in November.

And, yes, the Electoral College system means you aren't voting directly for president anyway. You are voting for an elector (who can vote for Mickey Mouse if he/she wants to when that vote is taken in December--and electors have been known not to vote as pledged), and whoever gets the most votes in a state, gets all of the electoral votes for that state. This is not a popular majority voting system. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 (and if I remember correctly, Nixon was a minority popular vote winner in one of his elections too); if there hadn't been shenanigans in Florida, he would have won the Electoral College too.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yes, I can't see why you would expect to be given a voice in a party decision if you won't affiliate with the party. The voting primaries aren't a general election: they are party events administered by the state electoral boards. You get your unencumbered vote in the general election. The parties can even set their own rules over how the primary voting is set up (the Democrats tend to divide the party delegates by the percentage of the vote won; Republicans tend to be like the Electoral College--the winner takes all party delegates even if he/she only won by one vote). Parties have a full right to require that voters in their primaries be registered members of that party on the voting roles (which doesn't require you to vote that way in the general election if you don't want to). In some states, there aren't primaries at all--the parties have conventions of registered party members to select delegates for a selected candidate. Some, as we've already seen in this election have strangely convoluted town meeting-style caucuses and don't take secret ballots at all.

If you won't commit to a party, you have no say in who they pick for candidates. This isn't a general election phase. The main reason the state electoral boards are involved at all is to try to keep people from claiming to be members of all parties and vote in all of the primaries.

Once these delegates get to the convention, they are only bound to vote how the primary turned out for the first round of voting--after that, if there's not a clear winner, it doesn't really matter how you voted in the primary that they should vote in the convention at all. It all becomes horse trading at that point.

I'd like to pick both the Democratic and Republican candidate too. It doesn't work that way, though. There's no law that says only those two parties get on ballot--we frequently have independents running on the ballot for president. If you want a voice in who one of the major parties will run as their candidate, you need to commit to one of those parties--not all of them. This doesn't control who you vote for in November.

And, yes, the Electoral College system means you aren't voting directly for president anyway. You are voting for an elector (who can vote for Mickey Mouse if he/she wants to when that vote is taken in December--and electors have been known not to vote as pledged), and whoever gets the most votes in a state, gets all of the electoral votes for that state. This is not a popular majority voting system. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 (and if I remember correctly, Nixon was a minority popular vote winner in one of his elections too); if there hadn't been shenanigans in Florida, he would have won the Electoral College too.

In 1968, Nixon won a plurality of popular votes and a majority of the votes in the electoral college. There was a third party winning some of the states that year, but Tricky Dick still got more votes than anybody else. JFK in 1960 and Clinton in 1992 also won with a plurality of the popular vote, but not a majority.

Like most people seem to, I think the electoral college should be eliminated and popular vote be the standard. I also think only a plurality should be required, since a runoff would be so expensiveand time consuming.

There is a move afoot to change the system in California so that each congressional district would send one elector, elected by the people in that district, with two additional votes going to the overall winner. Although this would be more democratic, Democrats are fighting against it.

 

[keeblercrumb]

In 1968, Nixon won a plurality of popular votes and a majority of the votes in the electoral college. There was a third party winning some of the states that year, but Tricky Dick still got more votes than anybody else. JFK in 1960 and Clinton in 1992 also won with a plurality of the popular vote, but not a majority.

Like most people seem to, I think the electoral college should be eliminated and popular vote be the standard. I also think only a plurality should be required, since a runoff would be so expensive and time consuming.

There is a move afoot to change the system in California so that each congressional district would send one elector, elected by the people in that district, with two additional votes going to the overall winner. Although this would be more democratic, Democrats are fighting against it.

Your point about the proposed system being "more" democratic is correct, of course. But I totally agree with that the electoral college should be eliminated all together. I have always assumed that the reason for the electoral college system was because of the impracticality of collecting the votes in the 18th century. I see no reason for “modifying” this archaic system when it should be trashed.

As for the Democrats opposing the “district” version.... of course they are.... if it was only going to be used in California, which they clearly have a good chance to win.... If it was used everywhere, I am sure they would be all in favor of it....

-KC

 

[matriarch]

I finally understood the whole college thing.........it took the wife several goes......what a bizarre way for a democracy to handle voting. I understand why in its origins, but nowadays.......no need. It should be one vote, one person, highest scorer in total wins. With modern technology it shouldn't be a problem, in fact, I would think it would be a much easier to administer system.

And before certain persons come down on me because of the UK system, I agree, ours needs some updating as well. There has long been a call for proportional representation at a general election - a good idea in itself, but not easy to administer.

Currently, the whole country is dividided up into areas, and each of those areas can elect one Member of Parliament from any party. Joe Bloggs down the road can stand for the 'Vote for Me' party if he wishes, providing he can raise the required initial funding. For heavens sake, we had the 'Monster Raving Loony Party', originally with only Screaming Lord Sutch as the only member, but he gathered a few more loose cannons along his journey. The people of that area vote for the person they want to represent them in parliament, and that person is usually representative of one of the [major] parties - Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland also have their own regional parties, Welsh National, Scottish National, Democratic Unionist and Ulster Union, Sinn Fein), and in later years the emergence of The Green Party and BNP as well as a few others. The party that gets the most people elected as repreesentatives [Member of Parliament], (which does not equate to the most votes) becomes the governing party, and the leader of that party (elected by members of the party only, not the general populace), becomes the Prime Minister.

Every time the general election is held, unless it's a total and utter landslide, like the first time Tony Blair got in after the interminable reign of the Tories - Thatcher, Major, Haig, etc. - it is very often the case that the number of votes cast does not equate to the number of seats gained by say, the third of the major parties, the Liberal Democrats.

But, at least every person gets to vote for the person they want as their representative.

Seems to me its time for a change of voting styles all over.

 

[sr71plt]

The State of Maryland has launched a challenge of the Electoral College system and is putting forth legislation to try to get rid of it.

 

[Weird Harold]

I have always assumed that the reason for the electoral college system was because of the impracticality of collecting the votes in the 18th century. I see no reason for “modifying” this archaic system when it should be trashed.

Being from a "small" state I disagree that the Electoral College is archaic and outdated. It exists not becuse the votes were difficult to collect and tabulate nationally, it exists to give each State a more equal voice so that the sparsely populated agricultural and "frontier" states aren't smothered by the more populous states.

Its structured so that every State has at least three votes. By a stricly popular vote standard, there are siz or seven states that would lose considerable voice in Presidential elections because their population alone works out to less than the equivalent percentage of a single electoral college vote.

The Electoral College exists because we're electing a President of the United States and not a "President of America" and even Alaska deserves full partner's voice in who leads the Union even though my 1991 atlas and almanac says the city of San Juan Puerto Rico has nearly as many people as the entire state.

California had 28 Million+ people and Alaska had just over Half a million -- Do we really want to live in a "United States of California and New York"?

I know the "small" states with only three or four electoral college votes don't and if we do away with the electoral college, that's what we'll get because 20% of the US population (as of the 1991 almanac) live in those two states.

Sports fans are always bitching about an East Coast Bias in sports reporting -- how bad would the political East Coast Bias be if the vote was strictly population apportioned? What voice would Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, The Dakotas, Nevada, New Mexico and all of the other "Red States have without the "territorial votes" in the electoral college?

 

[SensualCealy]

I understand most of how one gets elected in the US, the thing I dont understand is:

If on your voting card it states you are Democrat or Republican or Independent, why the hell do you vote? They already know who you are going to vote for!

The point of voting is to pick the candidate who best serves the needs of the people, which in some cases may or may not include everything you believe in. One party may have strong feelings for one issue, and another has two issues they are willing to work on that you feel are important to everyone, it isnt rocket science folks, you vote for the party that gets the job done while helping the most people. To be able to make a difference you have to make your voice heard!

IMO- anyone who doesnt vote doesnt have the right to complain about which government gets into office!

C-hopefully Florida can count better this time! hehehehe!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sure CAT! Let an Independent pick your candidate. Thats like letting the other teams pick your players for you.

Besides, the parties decide who votes in their primaries, not the state.

 

[sr71plt]

I understand most of how one gets elected in the US, the thing I dont understand is:

If on your voting card it states you are Democrat or Republican or Independent, why the hell do you vote? They already know who you are going to vote for!

The point of voting is to pick the candidate who best serves the needs of the people, which in some cases may or may not include everything you believe in. One party may have strong feelings for one issue, and another has two issues they are willing to work on that you feel are important to everyone, it isnt rocket science folks, you vote for the party that gets the job done while helping the most people. To be able to make a difference you have to make your voice heard!

IMO- anyone who doesnt vote doesnt have the right to complain about which government gets into office!

C-hopefully Florida can count better this time! hehehehe!

You can actually vote for whoever you want to who is either on the ballot or permitted as a write-in. And your actual vote isn't connected in any way to the declaration on your voting card (if there is such a declaration on your voting card--there isn't one on my voting card). I don't understand your point on that aspect of your post.

 

[DesertPirate]

Yesterday we had our Primaries here. Unfortunately there were more than a few people in my county who were not allowed to vote. The reason was many of our Voter ID Cards had the words Independant or NPA (No Political Affiliation) on them. For some reason this disallowed us from voting.

Needless to say I and my wife have written fairly nasty letters of complaint to the state about this. (As I'm sure many other people have.)

One of these centuries Florida will fix their voting system.

Cat

Most states have closed primaries. Independants are not allowed to vote then. They of course are allowed to vote in the general election. They also set the machine for your party. Dems can't vote for Rep. or vice versa.

I have seen a way around that. In NM where Dems have a 2.5 to 1 advantage, there is always 1 Rep. Senator and 2 of the 3 House seats. How? Many people register as Dems and choose the worst moron in the primary, then vote Rep. in the general. It really is true, I grew up there.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I understand most of how one gets elected in the US, the thing I dont understand is:

If on your voting card it states you are Democrat or Republican or Independent, why the hell do you vote? They already know who you are going to vote for!

The point of voting is to pick the candidate who best serves the needs of the people, which in some cases may or may not include everything you believe in. One party may have strong feelings for one issue, and another has two issues they are willing to work on that you feel are important to everyone, it isnt rocket science folks, you vote for the party that gets the job done while helping the most people. To be able to make a difference you have to make your voice heard!

IMO- anyone who doesnt vote doesnt have the right to complain about which government gets into office!

C-hopefully Florida can count better this time! hehehehe!

In the PRIMARY election, which is what this thread is about, people registered in various parties vote for the candidate for that party's nomination. There is no such thing as "The Independent Party" but there are several parties who are described as independent, because they are not part of either of the two major parties. This includes The Green Party, and The American Independent Party, and The Prohibitionist Party, and The Boston Tea Party (Okay, I'm kiddding about that one) In the November election, nobody will even ask party affiliation, because anybody can vote for any candidate, and party affiliation means little. For instance, if Huckleberry were to somehow win the Rep. nomination, there would be many Reps. who would not vote for him.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Uhmm, look at my number of posts; 6. Now 7. This is not a forum I frequent, so I don't know what you post here "ad nauseum". I do read the fiction on the archive section and when I had question(s), I came here to ask those questions.

My opinion about the 18 barrier is just that, opinion and I am allowed have that comment thank you very much. Am I looking to change that barrier? No. Why? Because it is not my site and I don't make the rules. I can just comment on how they affect me or if I have an opinion and on a lot of things I don't have an opinion, but I do have one pet peeve, censorship of any kind.

Being from a "small" state I disagree that the Electoral College is archaic and outdated. It exists not becuse the votes were difficult to collect and tabulate nationally, it exists to give each State a more equal voice so that the sparsely populated agricultural and "frontier" states aren't smothered by the more populous states.

Its structured so that every State has at least three votes. By a stricly popular vote standard, there are siz or seven states that would lose considerable voice in Presidential elections because their population alone works out to less than the equivalent percentage of a single electoral college vote.

The Electoral College exists because we're electing a President of the United States and not a "President of America" and even Alaska deserves full partner's voice in who leads the Union even though my 1991 atlas and almanac says the city of San Juan Puerto Rico has nearly as many people as the entire state.

California had 28 Million+ people and Alaska had just over Half a million -- Do we really want to live in a "United States of California and New York"?

I know the "small" states with only three or four electoral college votes don't and if we do away with the electoral college, that's what we'll get because 20% of the US population (as of the 1991 almanac) live in those two states.

Sports fans are always bitching about an East Coast Bias in sports reporting -- how bad would the political East Coast Bias be if the vote was strictly population apportioned? What voice would Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, The Dakotas, Nevada, New Mexico and all of the other "Red States have without the "territorial votes" in the electoral college?

Not surprisingly, I could not disagree with you more. Your concerns about "small states" are misguided in practice.

Here is the thing.... If you have a direct vote... Every vote, everywhere would count.... and exactly the same. Frankly, the system now of "winner take all" is horribly skewed in favor of the big states now!! Fuck the small states and their "three" electoral votes... if you can eek out a 1 vote margin in Florida, California, New York and Texas... you don't need any other states (I have not done the math, but it must be close!)... Does Alaska attract a lot of campaign visits now????

If it was a direct vote, the Florida debacle in 2000 would not, could not happen…. Who gives a shit unless the total vote margin was a couple votes. In which case EVERY state would have been counting hanging chads….

With a direct vote, even if you lose by a small margin in a big state, winning by large margins in the Alaska's, will win you the election. Every vote counts.

Besides.... the Presidential election is the only truly national election where we should all be voting as Americans, not as Alaskans.....

-KC

 

[Boxlicker101]

Being from a "small" state I disagree that the Electoral College is archaic and outdated. It exists not becuse the votes were difficult to collect and tabulate nationally, it exists to give each State a more equal voice so that the sparsely populated agricultural and "frontier" states aren't smothered by the more populous states.

Its structured so that every State has at least three votes. By a stricly popular vote standard, there are siz or seven states that would lose considerable voice in Presidential elections because their population alone works out to less than the equivalent percentage of a single electoral college vote.

The Electoral College exists because we're electing a President of the United States and not a "President of America" and even Alaska deserves full partner's voice in who leads the Union even though my 1991 atlas and almanac says the city of San Juan Puerto Rico has nearly as many people as the entire state.

California had 28 Million+ people and Alaska had just over Half a million -- Do we really want to live in a "United States of California and New York"?

I know the "small" states with only three or four electoral college votes don't and if we do away with the electoral college, that's what we'll get because 20% of the US population (as of the 1991 almanac) live in those two states.

Sports fans are always bitching about an East Coast Bias in sports reporting -- how bad would the political East Coast Bias be if the vote was strictly population apportioned? What voice would Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, The Dakotas, Nevada, New Mexico and all of the other "Red States have without the "territorial votes" in the electoral college?

Wth direct vote, every voter would have one vote. No more, and no less. The vote of a wyoming resident would be worth exactly as much as the vote of a person in California or Texas or New York, the three largest states.

As it is: CA, with a population of 33,871,648 has 55 electoral votes, one for every 655,848 persons. TX, with a pop. of 20,851,820 has 34 votes, or one for evry 613,288 persons. NY, with a pop. of 18,976,457 has 31 votes, or one for every 612,144 persons. WY, the smallest state, has a pop. of 493,782 and 3 votes, or one for every 164,594 persons. This means that the vote of a person in WY is worth almost four times the vote of a person in those three largest states.

ETA: Those are the 2000 census figures.

 

[Weird Harold]

Not surprisingly, I could not disagree with you more. Your concerns about "small states" are misguided in practice.

Here is the thing.... If you have a direct vote... Every vote, everywhere would count.... and exactly the same. Frankly, the system now of "winner take all" is horribly skewed in favor of the big states now!! Fuck the small states and their "three" electoral votes... if you can eek out a 1 vote margin in Florida, California, New York and Texas... you don't need any other states (I have not done the math, but it must be close!)... Does Alaska attract a lot of campaign visits now????

No, Alaska doesn't attract a lot of campaign visits, but as it turns out, theirs were the elctoral college votes that actually tipped the election in 2004 (because one of the eastern states was having trouble counting their votes again and couldn't certify their results.)

However, the problem is the "winner take all" method of apportioning electors used by MOST states which hs absosutely nothing to do with the Electoral College except that the electors are being selected for it.

The "Winner Take All" problem is related the the "Closed Primary Election" problem that inspired this thread; the "Winner Take All" practice is a "State" decision and coul dbe much worse -- and has been much worse in some states because the constitution does NOT even require that the state hold a popular election for President (that I know of) it only says electors will be chosen, "In a manner the States shall determine."

With a strictly popular vote, the Election would be pretty much decided when the polls closed East of the Mississippi. I haven't really looked the exact number up in several years, but IIRC, California is the only western state with sufficient population to really affect the decision East of the Mississippi under a direct election/popular vote system.

The Winner Take All objection to the current system is a valid objection, but it is NOT an objection to the electoral college per se, it's an objection to the way the States have chosen to instruct their electors -- and is only binding on the first ballot of the Electoral College -- if a second ballot is required, the Electors are released to vote their conscience until the Election winds up forced into the House of Representatives (which is a strictly population based apportionment.)

Besides.... the Presidential election is the only truly national election where we should all be voting as Americans, not as Alaskans.....

But the Presidential Election is NOT a "truly national election" in the sense of the people electing a President -- it is fifty separate selection processes of the Electors who will choose a President to represent the interests of ALL fifty states. Changing that essential characteristic of the Presidential Election is changing the fundamental nature of the US Government and removes one of the check and balances built into it.

The Presidential Election is more like the Election of a CEO by a Board of Directors than it is the Elction of a Mayor by the citizens of a community -- and it is deliberately designed to be different, just as the proportion of representation is designed to be different between the House and the Senate.

Sure, we now have the technology to tally the votes and provide a national result in mere hours after the last poll closes -- but we've had that capability since the telegraph line reached from coast to coast. But we haven't done away with the Electoral College and we never will until somebody manages to sneak and ammendment through on what it takes to ammend the Constituion. Until then we'll remain a Representative Republic rather than the "democracy" people tend to think we have.

 

[Weird Harold]

Thanks for the more recent numbers, Box -- but see my reply to KC for the rebuttal.

ETA: The Electoral College is structured to give the people of the USA exactly the same voice in the Executive Branch as they have in the Legislative Branch (and of course, they had no direct voice in the Judicial Branch.)

 

[keeblercrumb]

The Winner Take All objection to the current system is a valid objection, but it is NOT an objection to the electoral college per se, it's an objection to the way the States have chosen to instruct their electors -- and is only binding on the first ballot of the Electoral College -- if a second ballot is required, the Electors are released to vote their conscience until the Election winds up forced into the House of Representatives (which is a strictly population based apportionment.)

Exactly... but that IS the way it works now. So if your issue is to insure that the "little" states have a larger voice in the election, you would be far better off with a true direct vote!

I am not a constitutional expert, Harold, but the "representative" democracy and the checks and balances, are to my understanding adequately (some might argue too heavily) reflected in the "Senate" body. Nobody intended the electoral college to be the vehicle for this. If it had been the intent, they would have specified a distributed electoral representation in lieu of making it optional to have the "winner takes all" currently used. Which, as you agree, DOES skew the election in favor of the big states!

Moreover, if it was the intent of those Founding Fathers to have this decided on a skewed basis favoring small states, it would go to the Senate, not the House as you point out. As you also note, there is nothing that keeps an elector from voting for anybody after the first vote…. Do you really want us to go there?????? If it ever comes down to that, (because of the fucked up electoral college system), I guarantee the Amendment would be passed faster the repeal of prohibition.

Of course any change would take an amendment. But if you think it is SUPPOSED to favor the small states (I.E. the House/Senate analogy) you NEED a constitutional amendment to do so! Because presently, in practice, the system has exactly the OPPOSITE effect; it favors the Big States...

So since we are changing things..... let us make it truly democratic and based on the popular vote. One Man, One Vote. Uhhhh One Man/Woman, One vote! It is only a matter of time before this screwy system will bite us in the ass.


-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

They created the Electoral College to keep the lid on illegal and unethical voting practices within each state. Florida doesnt get an extra elector if the governor finds an extra million votes that got missed the first time.

 

[SensualCealy]

In the PRIMARY election, which is what this thread is about, people registered in various parties vote for the candidate for that party's nomination. There is no such thing as "The Independent Party" but there are several parties who are described as independent, because they are not part of either of the two major parties. This includes The Green Party, and The American Independent Party, and The Prohibitionist Party, and The Boston Tea Party (Okay, I'm kiddding about that one) In the November election, nobody will even ask party affiliation, because anybody can vote for any candidate, and party affiliation means little. For instance, if Huckleberry were to somehow win the Rep. nomination, there would be many Reps. who would not vote for him.

Ahhhhh! Okay, now since Im Canadian and we do things differently here (snowshoes and mucklucks) I thought that when you declair your party thats who you would vote for- why declair it if you arent sticking to it?

We have municiple elections, provincial elections and federal elections. Basically your mayor has nothing much to say in either of the provincial or federal areas, they can give their view points but thats about it.
Members of Provincial Parliment obviously govern the provinces where the Members of Parliment govern our country. Each member is voted for seperately in each case just like your governers and presidents.

I guess Im just not understanding why you guys have the primaries- is it just to see who the state would like to see as president or is it to show those running where they have to try harder to please?

C

 

[keeblercrumb]

Ahhhhh! Okay, now since Im Canadian and we do things differently here (snowshoes and mucklucks) I thought that when you declair your party thats who you would vote for- why declair it if you arent sticking to it?

We have municiple elections, provincial elections and federal elections. Basically your mayor has nothing much to say in either of the provincial or federal areas, they can give their view points but thats about it.
Members of Provincial Parliment obviously govern the provinces where the Members of Parliment govern our country. Each member is voted for seperately in each case just like your governers and presidents.

I guess Im just not understanding why you guys have the primaries- is it just to see who the state would like to see as president or is it to show those running where they have to try harder to please?

C

The purpose of the Primaries is help each political party to choose it's candidates for President and Vice-President. Unlike the parlimentary system, our executive branch (The President) is elected separately from the house of representatives (Parliment, if you will) and the Senate. The House of Representatives and the Senate together are called "Congress".

This occasionally results in the majority in Congress and the President being from different political parties...... This is the situation now.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach vis a vis a Parlimentary system..... but such is life....

-KC