Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

That said, we'll just have to declare a mutual disagreement on this topic.
We can declare agreement. I agree with you on your decision to vote for RP. I really didn't understand why before, but I get it a little better now.

Bottom line, I voted MY WAY and I make absolutely no apologies for it or my reasoning thereof.
Now, that I agree with and respect 100%!


But I want to thank you and deepimpact for raising some good thought-provoking issues and being civil in so doing. No thanks necessary. Thank you for explaining your beliefs because you didn't have to.

Originally Posted by SummerChild

IASK and DeepImpact,
Also, I really wish that the electoral college idea would just go away.
I don't like the electoral college. It is insulting to me. At the same time I do realize that there may be a time where it could be necessary/useful. Since the electors vote as the people have voted I am not too concerned by the EC. The EC votes are equal to the number of Representatives a state has plus the number of senators. Since the # of Reps is "proportional" to the population the number of Electoral votes is also considered proportional to the states population.
The EC was put in place as a safety net. If McCain gets the popular vote on Nov 4th and then on Dec. 1 we find out he is a looney toon (who refuses medication/treatment) and they've been hiding that fact there is basically nothing that can be done. There will not be a re-vote because his condition does not disqualify him for the position. The American people may no longer want him as president. The states can decide to ask their citizens (via a poll/vote) if they would like for the other candidate to be president (an essential re-vote, but not a nationwide re-vote. It is a state decision). If that poll turns out for Obama then all the state has to do is ask the electors to vote Obama instead of McCain. Thus there is no need for a nation wide re-vote just have the electors change their vote.
The Electors are supposed to be educated people who would only vote differently than the citizens have if they felt the popular vote was a grave miscarriage of justice (ie: the citizens would have elected a man with dementia who may have run the nation into the ground)
I lived in D.C. for a short peroid of time and they really get screwed in this process because they do not truly have representation in Congress at all. They basically just get stuck with the least amount of electoral votes possible (their amount is eqaul to that of the least populus state). That is wrong to me.
BTW, Georgia might go BLUUUUUUUUUUE!!!!!!! I sent in my BLUE ballot!
SC

Originally Posted by ladygreek

All I gotta say is he has constitutional right to vote for whomever he pleases without the need to justify it. At least he voted. (can't believe I am taking up for him )

I agree, but LOL at that smiley. It gets me every time.

[SummerChild]

But IASK,
My point exactly, is that the number of votes is not proportional to the population relative to the population in other states.
Here's what I mean - take South Dakota, which had 781,000 people on the 2006 census, and take NY, which had 19,306,000.

Ok, 781,000/19,306,000 = 0.4
HOWEVER, South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes to New York's 31 --> 3/31 = 0.9.

Maybe I'm missing something or it's just me. But it seems to me, that if I'm not off base here, the effect of using the electoral college to seemingly represent population when, in fact, it does not proportionately represent population, gives the people of South Dakota more say in the election than they should have. To some extent, it is somewhat of an equal protection problem whereby each vote in NY weighs less than each vote in South Dakota.

However, if you take the sheer popular vote, then you get the true representation of who really won, and each person's vote is (theoretically) weighed the same, all across the nation.

Get what I mean?

Down with the electoral college. Those folk in South Dakota and North Dakota burn me up every election with their disproportionate say in who gets to be President.

If my memory serves me correctly, the move toward the electoral college was actually an attempt to protect the voice of the small states. I don't know if I remember correctly, but I think they are getting way more say than they deserve.

SC

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I agree, but LOL at that smiley. It gets me every time.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

But IASK,
My point exactly, is that the number of votes is not proportional to the population relative to the population in other states.
Here's what I mean - take South Dakota, which had 781,000 people on the 2006 census, and take NY, which had 19,306,000.

Ok, 781,000/19,306,000 = 0.4
HOWEVER, South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes to New York's 31 --> 3/31 = 0.9.

Get what I mean?

Down with the electoral college. Those folk in South Dakota and North Dakota burn me up every election with their disproportionate say in who gets to be President.

If my memory serves me correctly, the move toward the electoral college was actually an attempt to protect the voice of the small states. I don't know if I remember correctly, but I think they are getting way more say than they deserve.

SC

I think I get what you mean. The EC favors large states not small states though.
Each state automatically gets 2 electoral votes (for their senators).
Then the number of electoral votes is 1 to 693,000 popular votes.
Each person's vote no matter where they live is worth .000001 electoral votes. (1/693,000=.000001)
The number of electoral votes after the first two is equal to the number of Reps in the house. So S.Dakota's people really only get 1 electoral vote where the people of N.Y. get 29. The EC was designed to mirror the house and senate votes. So a state has the same amount of reps in congress as it has votes in the EC.
The EC's purpose was to keep the undereducated people of America from electing an idiot or someone otherwise unfit. The idea was that the average voter really is not educated enough to cast a ballot wisely. Since America is a democracy and the people have to be included in the process the EC was put in place just in case the people were too stupid to do the right thing.

If the proportion was counted your way it would be:
# of electoral votes/# of people in state= Value of each person's vote.
S.D.= 1/781,000=.000001
N.Y.= 29/19,306,000=.000001
So the people of S.Dakota and the people of New York have exactly equal say in who becomes president.

[deepimpact2]

I definitely have issues with the electoral college. However, I doubt they will be doing away with it any time soon.

[jitterbug13]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

BTW, I phone banked for Obama today and will probably do so tomorrow, too!

Originally Posted by SummerChild

I'll be canvassing to get out the vote. Looking forward to it.
SC

I will be supervising the poll watchers and runners (people who pick up info from the polling places and from poll watchers). I know I will be tired as the devil but seeing Obama winning will be worth it.

RIP Toot.

[nachural]

Unlike a lot of voters, I vote with my heart, not with my head. Meaning, I don't analyze any extraneous factors other than which candidate's stance on the issues are most compatible with mine.

Finally, while you criticize voters who use their head instead of their heart, many times going by your heart will get you in trouble. It is far more wise to really use your head in making such a decision. That means you are actually thinking about the issues and what the candidates are saying.

So, I was just browsing cnn.com as per usual and came across this video of a 76 y/o woman voting for the first time. She hearkens on deepimpact's point about thinking with your heart vs your head. I found it quite interesting. I don't have an opinion on this discussion other than I think people should vote.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-133521


I'm volunteering as a poll watcher tomorrow, too.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by nachural

So, I was just browsing cnn.com as per usual and came across this video of a 76 y/o woman voting for the first time. She hearkens on deepimpact's point about thinking with your heart vs your head. I found it quite interesting. I don't have an opinion on this discussion other than I think people should vote.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-133521


I'm volunteering as a poll watcher tomorrow, too.

Wow. Thanks for posting this.