Uhhhhh Electoral College :(

Well it's in a different thread now.

The Electoral College is necessary so that we still have something resembling a federation. The misrepresentation problem can be solved by adding more voters to the College, probably as many as there are members of the house. That has it's own problems, though. Ideally we should also have more members of the house to better represent more people. But then more congressmen equals... more congressmen.

What a worry.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

That's a good thing, really. Because candidates don't have to campaign in every single state, it means that the financial strain will favor third party or independent candidates somewhat. If a third party can successfully campaign in a key state like California, they're shoeing themselves in on a road to legitimacy.

Some people might bitch about it being unfair, but due to the free flow of information that we enjoy with cable networks and the internet, it's easier more than ever for anybody to follow presidential campaigns. Honestly you could say part of the problem is that people have to be campaigned to in the first place.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

They do that already. The point is that the way the system is set up currently doesn't put an incredible financial strain on campaigns. Do you think that a third party ticket could get anything resembling legitimacy if it had to campaign in every single state? How would that be feasible even for the Repub and Dem tickets? If you win one state, you get the electoral votes. That's a much better indication of legitimacy than getting maybe 2 million voters nationally.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Ross Perot is remembered for getting 20% of the popular vote, but most people never consider that he didn't even win a single electoral vote. He was the most successful 3rd party-candidate in 80 years and he campaigned in all 50 states. No electoral votes.

Ross Perot was also a billionaire.

A lot of third party candidacies can't even break the million mark in their warchest. Popularizing the election process ensures that only the two major Parties and eccentric billionaires can ever campaign on a significant stage.

How ya doing, buddy?

The chances may still be microscopic but the point is that they're there.

In any case, the change has to be made at the state level. Ceding control of the election process to the Fed ensures the triviality of state power. If you want electoral votes to be split up proportionally you have to do it through your state legislature.

I was speaking idiomatically.

That's horseshit. Comparing the 3/5ths Compromise to campaign focus is just plain retarded. The fact of the matter is that regardless of the way the system is set up, campaigns will go to where the people and the money is. That happens to be in states like California and New York. An equal amount of money spent is going to reach a much larger amount of people in California than it would in South Dakota.

Opinions have no value, it's all about votes, and some jerk in Montana will never have the same value as somebody from Texas. It'd be nice if candidates would give equal screentime and pander to the buttfuck issues of all 50 states, but it'd also be nice if we all had unicorns and rainbows dropped skittles.

Practically it just isn't realistic, and in the long term you know why the system will always be broken from a populist democratic perspective? Because states are supposed to determine the voting laws. If the election of the president became popularized nationally who do you think would run it? The Fed. This might not seem like much of a danger to you, but if Florida is suspected of having a rigged election, imagine what could happen if actors sought to skew a national system? What would happen if all states had to use electronic voting machines? It doesn't matter how dangerous they are, since voters don't directly control the actions of the Fed, and they can easily extort state compliance.

You can gripe about how broken the system is in regard to the democratic principles of our democracy-spreadin' democratic democracy constitutional republic but it's a safe system. One not easily tampered with. With that in mind, the danger of a president being elected by a minor margin by a minority of popular votes is insignificant compared to our complete disenfranchisement.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Despite all the dangers of vote manipulation that I've just outlined for you?

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Your vote matters more than all of ours, though. You vote in the first primaries. :P

(Which is more absurd.)

noot zo. Again it comes down to campaign finances. Focusing the primaries on Iowa and New Hampshire allows candidates with very small finances to focus their money and time on a few states so that their candidacy has the potential to snowball. Imagine what it would be like if all states had their primaries at the same time. Grassroots candidates wouldn't have a chance.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It's better than nothing.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by quazi

If the electoral college is not supposed to represent (albeit not exactly) the people,

The Electoral College isn't supposed to represent people, it's supposed to represent states. State delegates only represent the people in states where votes are split up proportionally. In winner-take-all states, the voters determine which candidate represents their state, not themselves.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

Theoretically, yes. But they have a lot of influence over what is ultimately less influence (being the electoral votes coming out of New Hampshire). So what's worse: having little influence over a lot of power, or having a lot of influence over little power?

I'd rather be in the state that has higher proportional representation since it gives my vote more weight. =\/

Of course, I also wish we had enough members of the House for every 50,000 people each. Talk about a headache.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.