Jenn Dolari

I never understood why it was setup this way in the first place. The only thin I can think of is that the larger states wanted a larger say in who was president...

From:

They're jus tworried that winning Texas or California won't MEAN anything anymore. I think it's an excellent idea, and wish ALL the states did it.

Then we'd have President Gore. :)

From:

Colorado has bounced back and forth a couple times in this race, and in a race as close as this one, 4 electoral votes could swing the winner. The variance in the polling numbers indicates to me that some money has been spent there to try to woo the voters to one side or the other. With the perennial almost 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans in this country, it is almost guaranteed that the E.V. split will be 5 and 4. If you know that the best you can hope for is one vote over your opponent in the state there is ZERO incentive for a Presidential Candidate to campaign there or promise anything.

I can understand a proportional split along congressional district lines, but I don't get the popular vote split. Every state (almost) will split to (half+3) and half. At that point, the electoral college becomes COMPLETELY obsolete.

However, I don't think anyone will propose national congressional district vote because it weakens the city votes (historically Democratic) because the suburban districts tend toward Republican. Of course, it may just have the same effect after all. In Illinois we get 21 Electoral Votes (down from 25, DAMN YOU CENSUS *shakes fist*). The popular vote would probably send maybe 9 (possibly 8) Congressional districts' E.V.'s to the Democrat (thank you Mayor Daley and "Don't worry, I'll deliver Chicago *wink*) while the remaining ten would go to the Republican. The two Senatorial E.V.'s to the republican since we have elected Republican Governors throughout my whole lifetime up until 2003 (when a scandal-ridden scumbag was run out of the state on rails...or should have been anyway - George Ryan killed the chances of MANY local republican candidates, but the Republicans are still Republicans - I think Blago got elected to send a message to the party leadership). That leaves it at a 12/9 Republican split... still not too attractive to politicians.

I don't think this will take off nationally any time soon. It makes too many now-attractive states unattractive. Texas, Florida, California, Illinois, and New York have too much to offer politicians with 168 E.V.'s between them to roll over and give half to each...

I think its weird that they're pushing for it to take effect this election. Such a huge change ought to take effect with the next election as far as I'm concerned.

Whoa.. way too rambly... I'll have to consider this further and probably work through in my political blog.

From:

The reason it was set up in the first place was to give the small states any say in the Presidential election at all. A popular vote system puts almost all the power in the large cities (i.e. the population centers). That being the case, the candidates would campaign in New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. exclusively and leave the non-neglible population in the smaller and western states to rot. They have no influence on Presidential elections and so their issues have no interest to the candidates. By giving even the smallest states 3 E.V.'s they are now (as a bloc) worth a hell of a lot more to the candidates and they at least have to pay lip service to them. They also have to fix their issues every so often to maintain their hold on them too. Dividing the electoral votes by popular vote has a similar, but less profound effect. Dividing them by congressional district is a little less drastic an effect because you reduce the (for example) 3 million people to 8 to 9 votes instead of overwhelming the rural counties...

From:

nathan-r.livejournal.com

Can somebody give me a logical explanation why we even have states?

From:

nekonikoban.livejournal.com

Yay! Thank you for the links. I think this "citizen's lawsuit" (sounds suspicious) won't hold up, either way it only effects this year's election. Right?

From:

nekonikoban.livejournal.com

I don't know, one person one vote still sounds more democratic to me. Anyway, it seems that white land owners (majority of rural states' voting population) have had plenty of time to have more than their fair share of power, especially when it comes to representation via voting.

From:

>I can understand a proportional split along congressional district
>lines, but I don't get the popular vote split. Every state (almost)
>will split to (half+3) and half. At that point, the electoral college
>becomes COMPLETELY obsolete."

The EC being obsolete has been my main mode of thought for YEARS, even before the 2000 election. I'm not a fan of it whatsoever, especially with the winner-take-all format it has. My attitude probably comes from beng a liberal in Texas, and I never get the representation I want (and now with gerrymandering, my whole city will never get the representation we want).

>I think its weird that they're pushing for it to take effect this
>election. Such a huge change ought to take effect with the next
>election as far as I'm concerned.

That I do agree with. I believe in split electoral votes, but proposing this a MONTH before the 2004 election? That's cutting it WAY too close.

From:

I don't believe in States. They're a cultural wasteland filled with inappropriate metaphors and an unrealistic portrayal of life created by the liberal media elite.

From:

Actually, no. This is a permanent change. It's one I applaud, but it's MUCH TOO close for the 2004 election for me. Sure, this prolly means Colorado will go to Bush, but I'd rather have a clear Colorado victory for Bush than another Florida Debacle for Kerry.

From:

It doesn't work for foreign countries. All countries with the Westminster system work exactly the same as the US, only the "electoral votes" are based on "electorates" (sorta like congressional districts) rather than states. It's a smaller scale, but it's still winner-takes-all within in a certain area. And then you get people whining about gerrymandering, so it'll still be "controversial". The thing i like about the American system is that because of the way presidential and senate elections are set up, it reminds people that the federal government is appointed by the states and that state legislature should actually be more important and relevant to citizens than federal legislature. One would hope that would lead to smaller government. Not happening in practise, but i can assure you if you go the Westminster system special interest pandering will get even worse.

From:

kisai.livejournal.com

Over here in canada, it at least results in some occasional third party or even a 4th party having at least a few seats. Not strictly bipartisan (the two large parties represent liberal and conservative views, but aren't too traditional about it...) Though there is no direct electing the head honcho.

though in reality, with the exception of the actual state/provience governments, the federal government has never elected a far-left leaning party. With good reason, economic self-destruction. Traditionally labour parties and green parties are on the far left.

Trouble with the USA is that both parties are actually on the right, with the democrats being to the left of the republicans... right now the image given by the republicans is that of an almost nazi party. Nazis took the rights away from the jews, the republicans take rights away from the GLBT people.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/strangelv__/

1. The states created the Federal Government. The other possibility would be to have 13 fully independent countries from the start -- instead they agreed to form a loose composite (and then a somewhat less loose composite that delegated a handful of powers to the previously powerless central government).

2. Federations are a lot less unstable than other forms of government, especially when you scale them to something really, really huge. We would have long ago disintegrated into a bloodied wasteland if we weren't a federal structure (the mess of the 1860s shouldn't have happened -- the Fed had and has no legitimate authority to keep states in by force). This means that California may well subsidize something that's a first degree felony in Alabama (abortion, if the Supreme Court hadn't gotten into the habit of violating the Constitution it exists to enforce). So if your state is doing the WRONG THING the place to complain about it is your state capital and/or throw out the bums you're sending to it -- instead of trying to force Alabama's societal norms on California or vice versa -- or you move to another state that you agree with (with 50 permutations there should be one you'll approve of). Instead, when everything hinges on Washington take the mess we have now and up it a few magnitudes. Riots, guerrilla movements, and coups d'etat -- unfortunately, that's the direction we're heading at an accelerating pace.

Direct election of senators, as nice as it sounds, was probably a mistake. The senate exists to represent the state as a whole, not function as an effort to be the most ueberslimey super-representative who can woo the mainstream media the most. If you hate your senator that the bums in Austin or equivalent are sending, then tell them -- and if they don't replace him then take it out on THEM at the next election cycle. That said, direct election would be a good fallback if the legislature is unable to select a senator for one of it's allotted positions, and it's the empty seats in the senate that caused the present situation where Senators actively subvert state governments and destabilize our federation when there role was created to protect the states.

SL

From:

You're talking about parliamentary elections, which the United States has as its congressional elections. These are won by popular vote within the local congressional district. Senate and presidential elections are not decided by a popular vote on the federal level, but on the state level - this is for a reason, and it is simply to allow smaller states to have a fair say in federal politics by not favoring the more populous states.

Saying that the US is an "all right wing" nation is partisan and missing the point. There's no law limiting any nominees for ANY seat of government to two parties - it is simply that there are two parties who the vast majority of people tend to vote for. That's democracy in action, my friend.

From:

In case no one has let you know, you can vote even if you don't own your land... and if you're not white too. In fact, every citizen over 18 can vote.

Really, I don't understand the significance of the white land-owner comment. Its not like there's a National White Land-Owner Lobby or anything... Are you saying that white land-owners don't deserve the vote? Land-Ownership hasn't been a voting prerequisite since the 14th amendment in the mid-1860s, if it was a requirement before that. Maybe the non-sequitor was just for humor, and if it was, I missed it, and I apologize...

As for the one person, one vote: Perhaps its time to become a democracy, but we have done pretty darn well as a Republic for 230 years. Talk to your senator or representative about submitting a Constitutional Amendment. If you believe in it, go for it. And I am sincere. I may even lobby my representatives to approve it.

From:

(I know this is several days old, but)

"My attitude probably comes from beng a liberal in Texas, and I never get the representation I want (and now with gerrymandering, my whole city will never get the representation we want)."

I think we're even. As a conservative in Illinois, I don't really get the representation I want either... However, with the scumbags the Illinois Republican Party has had over the last few election cycles, they deserve to lose. A Pox on their house I say!

And speaking of election chicanery, Hizzoner Mayor Richard Daley will "deliver" Chicago for Kerry in sufficient quantities to "deliver" Illinois for him too. Remember, Chicago invented "Vote Early and Vote Often" and it was Hizzoner's dad, Boss Daley that was so kind as to offer the dead the chance to vote even after passing on. That's serving your citizens!!!

From:

You copy of the U.S. Constitution seems to be missing the 17th Amendment. It provides for (in effect) direct popular elections of Senators. Sadly, so. Now the Senators must campaign to the general public rather than concentrate on doing their job. It is yet one more state power paved over in our march to centralization.

There is a (very small) movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, but without some major crisis, I can't see it happening.

From:

P.S. On behalf of we Americans who support such things, to those Aussies who are willingly making the sacrifices, Thank you for decades of strong support and solidarity. It means a lot to us to know that we have such steadfast allies, even though one of our presidential candidates doesn't seem to think that a country who has marched with us shoulder-to-shoulder into all of the major battles in the last century is a real ally and is instead bribed and coerced.

You certainly may not agree with your government, and we have plenty who do not agree with ours, but I wanted to give my thanks as an American to you as an Australian. Thanks.

From:

Don't thank me! I might be living in Australia but i'm definitely not an Australian. I'm a Brit, born and raised! This is just my temporary (7 year?!) prison till i can move to America :-)

I love how before the Aussie election all the lefties were spinning it as a referendum on the war, and then after the landslide win for the incumbents suddenly it was all about economics and never had anything to do with the war. The truth is, while the economy was a key issue, the fact the "uproar" about Iraq had faded is just a testament to the fact that a lot of people pretty much see it was for the best and support the current efforts.

From:

Actually i wasn't very clear, but what i was trying to say in my post is that both senators and presidents (or more specifically, electoral college representatives) are voted by popular vote on a state-by-state basis.

I'm curious, before the 17th amendment passed, how were senators appointed? I hope not "one from each party", because that really wouldn't help things!

From:

Well then, let me thank you as a Brit :) You have been by our side as well. As I understand it, the populace has been more divided over working beside the US, but your government does and without question. We are truly blessed to have bribed and coerced you ... ;) I hope you can make it to the US soon. We'll be glad to have you :)

There is an interesting book coming out soon (in the States anyway) called The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century which talks about the importance of the English-speaking alliance to the world. It sounds interesting and I'm gonna have to check it out.

From:

In the original construction of the US Constitution, the only government job that was directly elected by the populace was Representative in the House of Representatives. There were several reasons for this. For all their talk of returning the power to the people, the Founding Fathers didn't really trust the people of the time. Most were illiterate and with the slow movement of information, they weren't the most prepared to make educated choices about their government beyond their local town council or county board. Of course, they elected their State Governments as well, but that process varies from state to state. Its because the people elected the Representatives that any proposed taxes have to originate in the House, so that the people control when they are taxed. To counter putting governing power in the hands of the people, Representatives only have two year terms so that the entire House of Representatives is up for election every two years. Also, the Constitution provides for the election of Senators by the Legislatures of the states. So we elected our state government and they then elected the Senators. The Electors for the Electoral College were also popularly elected (and to this day, this is who we actually vote for when we vote for president). Originally, we were electing people we trusted to have informed themselves of all the relevant local issues and would cast their vote for the person they felt was best qualified. Originally, the President and Vice-President were simply the #1 and #2 winner in the electoral college. As the two-party system became more entrenched the party's began nominating their own electors who were promising to vote for their party and the President and Vice-President became a joint ticket to prevent any more President and Vice-President of opposing parties (as had happened in the past).

The 17th Amendment allowed for direct election of Senators which shifted their focus from serving their state governments (as you pointed out) to serving the people (which the House of Reps. is supposed to do). This also provides the distraction of having to run for re-election.

From:

I've seen some of the pseudo-neo-cons (?) on Cavuto now and then. He gets some interesting people in. They're not really those staunch hawks so much as people with a very clear plan of how to make the world a better place. It scares me a bit that i listen to them and they sound sane because i worry that perhaps people might've thought the same thing listening to early Nazi or Communist rallies and this is heading the same way. It's hard to tell and hindsight is always 20/20, but i think it'll be an interesting ride whatever happens.

From: