Does anyone have any cheese?

[Mickey Finn]

Should be there. I feel so cheap……

[Ronin]

Mickey:

Thanks (I think). I'll go home to check it out. If it's as bad as you say I don't wanna risk being kicked out of school by opening it here in the computer lab.

[judo guy]

Time to get this thread back on topic.

Mr. Miyagi,

Well, we don't want to go down the slippery slope of saying who is worthy to vote. If you take a look at most polls, the more affluent and higher educated vote for Republicans. Personally, I believe that all people from all regions of the country should have a say in how we are governed.

But that's just me.

Direct election of the President might make sense if we were a homogenous society. We are not. The concerns and interests of a farmer in the heartland, a wildcatter in Texas, an urbanite in NY or Boston, a technology consultant in Silicon Valley and a suburbanite in the South are not the same and in some instances are diametrically opposed. All interests must be protected. The electoral college ensures that a candidate must gain the confidence of a majority of the population on a state by state basis. It makes a whole lot more sense than direct voting.

Besides, both candidates ran their campaigns on winning the electoral vote. The popular vote was not a consideration.

Anyway, Gore still might win the popular vote in Florida. We will see how it plays out.

For the record, I didn't vote.

[Mickey Finn]

I was one who was advocating abolition of the Electoral College. After doing some research, I have changed my opinion. Without the electoral collage candidates would probably campaign exclusively in areas with concentrated populations. The needs of voters in, say Montana, wouldn’t even be addressed. I find Judo’s argument compelling.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Judo Guy, you make a good point and I see where you are coming from. Not all urbanites in LA and NYC think alike, they are a diverse bunch also. I think the opinions of each person should be considered person by person anyway, but that's me. As for the upper class voting republican, yeah they will, if they make more than 300k a year.
I remember that you started a thread saying that you weren't going to vote because no election had ever come down to one vote. If you lived in Florida a handful of people could be tipping the scale either way....

[judo guy]

Hi Mr. Miyagi,

Well, the way different regions of the country vote clearly show that urban areas have very different values and concerns than the suburbs and country.

Also, as Mickey said, if the election were by direct vote, candidates would only care about the big urban areas. The pandering would be worse than it is today.

If Gore ends up losing Florida and the election it is his own fault. Do you realize that if he had carried his own home state he would be president elect? He should have spent some more time campaigning in his own state and not take it for granted.

NYC is a great town. Hell, I was born there and spent the first 24 years of my life in NY and NJ. But even with that hometown bias I don't think New Yorkers should rule the country.

[Edited by judo guy on 11-09-2000 at 02:08 PM]

[judo guy]

Mr. Miyagi,

Ah, the every vote counts argument. OK. Well, as far as I can see 47.7 percent of the population still didn't vote, so which one of those people's vote counted?. I also think that when the final results are tabulated in Florida that more than 1 vote will separate the candidates. Also, I live in a state where Gore won by a wide margin. My vote didn't make a difference either way.

Nice try though.

Did you see how accurate the Zogby poll was with interviewing 750 people across the country? Wanna know why? Because that was a big enough sample to know how the country was gonna vote. So even if 100% of all people vote it ain't gonna change a thing.

If you can convince everyone else in California not to vote, I will definitely cast my vote next election. It will be an electoral win for the Libertarian Party.

Was looking at voting by income. It seems that the level is much lower than 300,000. People with incomes over 75,000 voted Republican by a discernable difference.

[Ronin]

I really should have waited until my lunch had digested to open that...

Still, since they're not my type, it doesn't really affect me...much.

BTW, Joe Manco, my grandparents are all dead, so that would add yet another layer of icky to the whole matter.

Man, I thought they'd be wearing turbans or something the way you were blathering on about it.

[Edited by Ronin on 11-09-2000 at 03:14 PM]

[Mojo]

[nhb_wanabe]

thanks

that was a good post judo guy.

i don't know that i agree but it got me to thinking.

in our day and age of IT and TV and Radio it would not be necessary to ignore anyone.

urban areas don't vote as a block, neither do other areas. if one area was seen by people to have an undue influence the other area's participation would increase.

people feel that their votes don't matter and they don't vote. the electoral college is partially to blame for this and thus, part of the problem with modern american politics.

in VA your vote does not count. VA will go Repub regardless. If you don't like it the only thing you can do is move to MD (or some other state)

before i moved to FL (two months ago) I had never seen or heard a presidental political advertisement. in 18 years!

all of a sudden my vote matters alot.

the electoral college means my vote is 250,000,000 times more important then my Mom's.

that's just not right.

[Atomic]

Judy--

Here it is and it's long, but try to break away from your pics for a few minutes to read.:P

"A couple of points. First of all, the candidates conducted their campaigns based on the fact that it was the electoral
college that decided the election."

Yes, they did. Keep in mind that typically, the electoral college goes the way the popular vote goes. This is only the 4th time it's been different.

Remember, there were predictions that this would happen and they were thinking about changing the system the last time this happened. People would have loved to have changed this system before this, but it takes impetus, like this election, for things to change.

"The argument can be made and justifiably that IF the election was decided by direct vote that George Bush would have spent more time trying to gather votes in NY, CA, and TX and might have closed Gore's lead in those states to where he would have won the popular vote."

Just because you campaign in a state doesn't mean you'll garner more votes. It depends on demographics and how many people you reach. Also keep in mind that both Gore and Bush didn't spend hardly any time in the states they knew they'd win or ones they knew they couldn't win, which brings me to my next point.

The electoral college only requires a majority of the popular vote for all the delegates to be awarded the majority winner. Meaning, if you win large states, with a lot of delegates, you'll have more power in your race towards the presidency.

These are the states that candidates typically spend most of their time courting, anyway. I believe Gore and Bush must have visited Michigan about 2 and 1/2 dozen times over the last 2-3 weeks. On top of that, they spend most of their time in big states anyways, so does it matter? How often did each candidate visit, oh, say, Delaware or Wyoming over the course of the race? Probably not much at all because these states do not garner the largest amount of votes and candidates spend most of their time there anyway!

So, it makes sense to spend time were you will garner the most votes (I.E. delegates) overall if you have a chance at winning these states.

"Both candidates waged their campaign based on the electoral college REGARDLESS of the popular vote. You cannot extrapolate that under a direct election of the president that Gore would have won. You have zero evidence for it."

Under the current circumstances and using polling techniques, one can extrapolate a lot and say that Gore or Bush would have most likely lost. The key to that is, there's always a 5% margin of error in polls, as there typically is in all statistical analysis. So, we can guess that Gore or Bush would win, but did I use that as an argument? No! So why bring this up? All I'm saying is that typically, in more elections than the 4 anamolies, the person that wins the popular vote wins the electoral college and the presidency.

"Secondly, it is the electoral college that ensures that the President must build a consensus among constituents of various states and interests in order to govern."

Explain to me how so? At least 20 states didn't want Bush as their president, so how is that building consensus? There isn't any consensus in this election, Judy, or many others for that matter. Consensus is usually reserved for homogenous situations and Oprah's Book Club. The fact is, almost half of the nation doesn't stand before either candidate. Consensus is only achieved after someone becomes president. Either you like them, and vote them on for another 4 years, or you ditch them. This is why we have approval polls for presidents.

"Under a direct election of the President conceivably a president could be elected with absolutely no nationwide support and overwhelming support from one or two areas of the country."

Actually, this is how the electoral college is starting to work in many ways. The big prizes are FL, NY, CA, and a few others. These are the states that generally elect the president because they have the most power to do so by having the most delegates. Hence, if Bush wins, he gets the presidency without a majority of the people's approval. So, basically, you give big states with large populations the power. This is why Gore is still in the race after only winning 20 states!

"Take away NYC and the boroughs Gore loses the popular vote by 1.2 million people. Should NYC decide the fate of the entire nation? I don't think so."

You're playing into my point. NYC gains a lot of power because they only need a majority of the state's votes to win that state for a particular candidate, regardless of the split of votes.

"People might say that Florida is deciding the election this year. Not true. Bush had to gather support in 29 other states to get to this point. Florida is only one piece of the puzzle."

No, Florida is deciding the presidency as of now. Each needs 270 votes to be president and neither can reach it without FL as of now. It is a piece of the puzzle, yes, but given the circumstances, it's the largest piece of the puzzle right now.

Take a look at the electoral map. Bush has the support of 3/5ths of the states."

And what's the overall population of each state that he won? Like Wyoming, Montana, etc. They aren't very big. Should each state be valued for its people or as an equal to all other states? The current system says each state is not equal given they have a set amount of delegates based on overall population. Hence, your point is moot because many of those states where quite small.

"Clearly the United States is not as homogenous as people who call for the direct election of candidates claim it is."

No, I think you see it wrong. The US is not homogenous, but various areas are actually quite homogenous. You like in a suburb, most likely a neighborhood. You probably share quite a few of the same ideas as your neighbors because this is one way people pick where they live. I seriously doubt there's much diversity in your neighborhood. Same can be said about cities, which often times have pockets of democrats and/or republicans. This is why Missouri is being contested for allowing the cities for staying open past 7 PM.

Now, given the composition of cities and the party lines, this is why Jerrymandering is important (note for all those that forgot what Jerrymandering is--it relates to redrawing the different districts in the state to favor a particular party) in state elections, but probably not as important as National elections. Typically, more people live in large cities and/or cities in general, so they're going to weild the power of the electoral college in their state anyway. How many farmers are in NY compared to city dwellers?

"The electoral college ensures that candidates have to take into consideration the needs of those in smaller states as well as the larger states."

So, are you saying it's the government's job to take care of these states? Explain how this takes these states into consideration? I believe the opposite. It takes into account the vote of the majority of that state because they will decide who will get that state's delegates. The minorities will get little say in any of this and they will not give any delegates to a minority candidate (remember Ross Perot, who won 19% of the popular vote, but received NO DELEGATES!). And as you said, your vote wouldn't have counted because California has a Democratic lean. Well, if it went by popular vote, your voice would count because it makes everyone's vote equally powerful.

"I'm not against altering the electoral college to make it more equitable."

I'm not either. That's why I proposed a system like Maine or Nebraska has, which is splitting delegates based on the overall popular vote. Basically, it takes care of the winner takes all mentality.

"I believe that California should be split up into 3 different electoral regions. Texas should be 2 and NY should be 2. I think because these states are so big in area and population that they wield more power than they should and also it makes it more equitable for the citizenry to make their vote "count" for the lack of a better word."

Ah, but just splitting each group would most likely require redrawing boundry lines, like we see in state wide elections, which would equal Jerrymandering and probably would be less fair than the current system. Next, the people that draw up those lines could set it up so their party wins the elections in that state from now on. Proportional splitting of votes based on popular vote (like ME and NE) is a better system. Then, it gives everyone that votes in that state more power!

"You make the case for electoral voting when you bring up the fraud in Chicago. Chicago fraud could only affect the state of Illinois' electoral vote."

But it still affected the overall popular vote. Next, it probably affected where a whole lot of delegates went to. In a close state popular vote race, it'd be more beneficial to cook the vote in favor of a particular candidate because all you need is one more vote than the other person to take the delegates away.

"But under a direct election of the President by the citizenry, that fraud has much greater ramifications. Voter fraud is a much more powerful weapon."

How so? Voter fraud is probably down from what it used to be and how easy is it to cook 2+ million votes? Voter fraud is easier when you need less votes cooked because it takes less time and effort to achieve. This is why cooking them in a close electoral vote would be easier, as would a close popular vote election. It's an inherent flaw of each system. Also, your view that fraud is more detrimental in a popular vote is not based on any known facts. We've seen voter fraud in the current system and how it affects the presidency (too bad you couldn't ask Nixon because he found out first hand, even though the race wasn't as close as this one).

"Lastly, as I stated earlier this nation was founded as a republic and not a democracy. For good reason."

Our nation was actually founded on a Commonwealth and progressed from there. We have seen our nation change in form over time as needed. The founding fathers did the best they could given what they had. They made mistakes but the system they set up was by no means perfect. This is why we have ammendments to our current constitution, changing the way our government originally was.

"True democracy invites tyranny. When the majority can impose their will on the minority all freedoms melt away. Plato was a pretty smart guy. I'll go with him on this form of government."

Plato also believe some pretty wacked out shit besides this theory. I find this statement ironic, given your consensus statement earlier in your writing. How can you condone consensus or want consensus without a majority of the people? Are we an aristocratic society? Should only a select few rule us? That's one example of minority rule and I could go on and on. Our nation has tried to get away with that and you seem to falsely believe that giving everyone equal votes takes away the minorities' say. It doesn't and in fact, gives them say.

We should give equality through proportional voting or a popular election, instead of giving a minority the choice of our next president, which we may see happening in this election (and the other three occurences).

"Being biased that way, I'm pretty much opposed to any system that gives more power to majoritarians. No doubt the founding fathers of this country felt the same way."

As is our country in general. Our laws are there to protect the minority. Like, the minority of people that would like an abortion, or would like to choose whether they wear a helmet riding a motorcycle, Scientologists, etc, ad nauseum.
Now, if you would have read my first post a little more closely, you'd have seen I said we should do a proportional electoral college like ME and NE.

Also, why am I not on your mailing list anymore? You bastard! Heeheh.


atomicc@hotmail.com

[judo guy]

Atomic,

Ok, you win. Your post is too long for me to go through and respond. If a post doesn't follow the KISS (keep it simple stupid)format I don't read it.

Addendum,

Since you bought my lottery tickets for the big Michigan jackpots a few months ago, I tried to read your post and respond appropriately.

1) In the first part of your response you prove my point. You have no proof that Gore would have won the popular vote if they had conducted their campaigns accordingly.

Where did Bush spend his last day of campaigning? Tennessee and Arkansas. Two small states. Therefore your statement about them spending not much time in small states is well, false. He spent the most important day of the election in two small states.

As for electoral strategy, yeah it is conceivable that a candidate could win with only a few big states under his belts. However, they could never win because of just one or two big states. That could definitely happen under a direct vote. It already did 100 years ago.

Regarding NYC. Of course they can affect their state. They should. However it can't control the destiny of the ENTIRE NATION! Get it? Under a direct vote they could.

Agreed Plato had some wacky ideas. But the Republic wasn't one of them.



[Edited by judo guy on 11-09-2000 at 10:44 PM]

[judo guy]

Hi nhb wannabe,

Thanks for keeping it simple. Makes it easy for me to respond.

I don't follow the logic of how your vote is 250,000,000 times more important than your mom's.

Bush could not win without support from voters in the other 29 states that voted for him. If all he won was Florida this election would have been long over.

Urban and rural areas vote in clear patterns. Take a look at the electoral map. Take a look at where Gore's support came from. Take a look where Bush's support came from. MSNBC just put up a map an hour ago showing all the districts Bush and Gore won in. It makes my point.

Now its not for me to say who is right and who is wrong in how they vote. We all have various reasons for the way that we vote or don't vote.

But let's remember that this union we call the United States (did you ever stop and think what UNITED STATES stands for?) was put together by the States and not vice versa. The Constitution was ratified by the individual states that attended the convention.

The only way the system works is if all people are represented. That is why the electoral college works. About 5 percent of the time it doesn't represent the popular vote. In fact, the last time that it didn't work was because the losing candidate had such an overwhelming majority in one state.

I fear for this country if it ever goes to direct voting. I believe it will destroy the United States. I think that it could lead to further alienation of the different interests contained within the Union (remember it is a UNION of different states).

The electoral college ensures that all candidates make an effort to appeal to various interests. I think that is important to the preservation of the union.

Do you live in an urban area of Florida? If you didn't, I guarentee you that your concerns would never be addressed by a candidate if the election was held by direct vote.

Today the Secretary of State of California that over one million absentee ballots have not been added to their totals. It very well could be that Bush still might be the winner of the popular vote. If Gore ends up winning in Florida but losing the popular vote because of the California absentee ballots would you feel Bush had the election stolen from him?

I know I wouldn't.

[Edited by judo guy on 11-09-2000 at 10:29 PM]

[SweepEm]

Man you dudes have diarrhea of the keyboards.

Almost as bad as Darren

[judo guy]

Sweep,

LMAO. You are right. My apologies.

I was thinking the exact same thing ten minutes ago. It's time for me to go back into hibernation. When I'm wasting this much time on the forum, I'm not doing the other things I should be doing.

Talk to you guys later.