Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[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.