I totally agree. After the botched 2000 election, the pundits kept showing maps with red counties and blue counties and saying, “see, most of the country voted Republican!” This seems to me to be utter nonsense. Does anyone really think that if a county (or state) is won by Party X, it means that everyone or nearly everyone in the county (or state) favors Party X? This plainly isn’t the case. In many counties, the party that won, won narrowly. In many (most?) counties, the people who didn’t vote (and who therefore cannot be counted as favoring either of the major party candidates) outnumbered the people who voted for the winner.
Re where candidates campaign, what difference does it make what states they do and do not visit in person? They make speeches, issue press releases, etc. Who even notices where they are? What difference does it make where a candidate is located when he says whatever he says? It’s his posistions on the issues that matters.
If a candidate takes positions designed to win over voters he feels he really needs, the Electoral College system does make him think in terms of winning states. Which states does he care about? Which states is he going to woo the hardest? The answer is not that he will woo the large states, or the more urban states. Regardless of size or pop. density, he’ll ignore the states that his party has all sewn up, and he’ll ignor the states viewed as being owned by the other party – he’ll try to win over the “up for grabs” states.
Seems to me that one problem faced by the candidates is the difficulty in wooing a whole state. How does one do this? I suppose they could study the public opinion poll results for each state that they need, and tailor their positions accordingly, as “I need State X, a majority of the people there are pro choice, I’d better speak out strongly in favor of the right to choose.” But what if the pro choice position only wins narrowly in that state? What if people in the pro life minority are more likely to base their vote on that issue? Perhaps if the candidate is going to tailor his positions according to poll results in battleground states, he should only count those issues where a substantial majority holds a particular position. And, by the way, do we really want candidates to blow in the wind this way, favoring and opposing things according to opinion poll results in the states they most need to win?
The EC system gives small states an advantage. They’ll never willingly give it up.
[Part of a Post by Stratocaster]In a simple plurality, a candidate will ignore the regional needs of population centers that are small. An individual Iowa vote will count the same as one in California, but politicians will cater to California’s regional preferences to the absolute exclusion of Iowa’s, to the extent that the two conflict.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never understood this. It seems to me that state lines just are not of any great significance. The important divisions are not what Californians want vs. what Iowans want. The important divisions are not this state vs. that state.
There are two important things. One is the big issues, both current ones (such as whatever war we’re in or are contemplating the launching of) and perpetual (such as the gun issue, pro life vs. pro choice, etc.). In any state, you will find people on all possible sides of each of these issues.
Also important is the three way rural/suburban/urban split.
I don’t know why people talk about rural vs. urban. Do they count the suburbs as being urban? It seems to me that there is a much conflict between urban and suburban as there is between either of them and rural.
In any case, all states, even the ones counted as being rural, do have cities and suburbs.
I’m not sure I believe the idea that many counties(compared to the total) were narrowly won or lost in 2000 or any year for that matter.
I may have miscounted slightly but I have looked at the Bush/Gore results for three close states - Iowa, Florida and New Mexico.
In Iowa, 40 of 99 counties had margins 10% or greater, and quite a few close to 10%. In Florida, 44 of 58 were 10% or greater. In New Mexico 22 of 33 equaled or exceeded 20%.
I would expect these type of results. Counties often are one way or another politically. That’s just the way things are.
aahala, regardless of the margins, any county shown on the map as being Republican does also contain people who voted for the Democrat, people who voted for minor party candidates, and people who didn’t vote. Likewise, any Democratic county does also contain people who voted for non-Dems, and people who didn’t vote.
In the 2000 election, more people stayed home than voted for Gore, and more people voted for Gore than voted for Bush. I can’t see that where any voter lives is of any importance. Why is the location of Bush and Gore voters supposed to be so important? The guy who came in second is now occupying the White House – and this is supposed to be a right and proper outcome… because of where the people who voted for and against him lived? People’s votes shouldn’t all be of equal worth? Votes should carry more or less weight according to where the voters live? Why location? Why not some other factor? Left or right handedness, for example, or height, or weight, or age, or education level?
Hazel, I’m one who believes Gore probably got cheated in Florida. I’m not one who believes Gore should be President because he got more votes nationwide, that wasn’t the system in place in 2000 or any previous presidential election.
You’re right to say Gore got fewer votes than the no shows. So did Bush. But if you were referring to registered voters, then these stats might surprise you.
Gore got 51,003,835 votes. This is about 98.7% of registered voters who did not vote and Bush got a slightly smaller percentage. We have a hard enough time, particularly in Florida, to count the votes actually made to worry over non-voters.
About 54.5% of all citizens of voting age voted in 2000 and 67.1% of registered voters did so. According to my source:
I consider these percentages pretty good when one considers there are probably millions not in a good position to vote, such as those in nursing homes, prisons, etc.
The election was indeed close nationwide and in some states, but in many areas it wasn’t close. And not being close everywhere is the norm rather than the historic exception.
Very interesting, aahala. (I’ve bookmarked that site.) In 2000, aprox 54.5% of citizens (voting age citizens, I presume) voted. Not much over half. Discouraging.
Of people who were registered, aprox. 67.1% voted. You’re right that I did not know this second statistic. Actually, I find it perhaps even more discouraging – of people who had gone to the trouble of registering, over 30% chose not to vote. And this was an election that we knew was going to be close.
At the time, my expectation was that, if elected, Gore would be pretty similar to Clinton (politically speaking, anyway; I didn’t expect him to have any sex scandals). My expectation was that, if elected, Bush would not be very different than his Dad. From my perspective, Bush II has turned out to be far worse than his Dad, or Regan, or Nixon. OTOH, if the Gore we’ve seen in recent months is the real Gore, I wish the real Gore had campaigned for President in 2000. The real Gore might have galvanized the left and won by a big enough margin for it to stick.
In any case, my point is that even thinking that both men were more moderate than they seem now, I saw enough difference between them to make it definite that it was worth the trouble to vote. It was not a tweedle-dee vs. tweedle-dum election. Yet among people who cared enough to get registered, over 30% didn’t see any reason to actually VOTE!? I’m really bummed…
I wonder if voter turnout will be any better this time. To me, the contrast this time is far more pronounced than last time, but I don’t know if the borderline “may vote” people see it that way.
Hazel your argument is basically that states mean nothing.
So therefor your argument is you hate George Bush so much you would like to see the U.S. Constitution destroyed.
I know that you are basing all of your “arguments” on the overall issue of popular vote winner not winning the Presidency.
However, I think it’s time you cease presenting this falsehood and just admit you wanted Gore to win anyway possible even if it meant throwing the constitution out. You’re so misguided that you somehow think Bush is a guaranteed loser if we change how the EC works, because the EC is some conspiracy that just insures conservatives win. Eventhough a result similar to the 2000 election has only happened THREE TIMES IN HISTORY, and the conservative arguably only won out in one of these incidents.
Without Federalism we lose an important division of power, without federalism we do not have local government. Without federalism we are relying on WASHINGTON for everything. A political entity far removed from you and me.
That’s why States matter. We may be a nation but under our present Constitution we are undeniably a nation of states, states that have a right to exist that is absolute. Under our constitution an individual state has just as much right to existence as the federal government itself. To so idly dismiss them as “meaningless lines on a map” shows a vast and infectious misunderstanding of not only the Constitution but the entire history of America leading up to it.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Hazel your argument is basically that states mean nothing.
So therefor your argument is you hate George Bush so much you would like to see the U.S. Constitution destroyed.QUOTE]
Stop pulling crap out of your own mouth and inserting it into other peoples’.
Hazel’s main point had nothing to do with Bush. She was talking about voter turnout. Nor did she propose “destroying the Constitution”. I don’t know if you were high or what during high school civics, but the great thing about the Constitution is that it can be amended.
Again, you’re wrong. Without Federalism we do not have local government? Do you know anything about comparative politics? There isn’t a sizeable country in the world where everything is run by the national government. Can’t be done. Regardless of whether local government is guaranteed, local government will ALWAYS exist in a good-sized state.
And States most certainly are meaningless lines on a map. They are exactly that, in fact. How do I know where Florida ends and Georgia begins? I’ll tell you- they mark it on maps. That, and gas stations start serving fried chicken.
Look, nobody is suggesting that Federalism should be thrown out of the window anyway. You came up with that one all by yourself. What we’re suggesting is that a government “by the people, for the people” might just make more sense if it represented, well, the people. So what if candidates spend more time in heavily populated areas? They aren’t going to start ignoring Montana; the Republicans know where their bread is buttered. It would make sense for Democrats to spend more time looking for the urban vote, too.
Sorry, my last post should have looked more like this:
Hazel’s main point had nothing to do with Bush. She was talking about voter turnout. Nor did she propose “destroying the Constitution”. I don’t know if you were high or what during high school civics, but the great thing about the Constitution is that it can be amended.
Again, you’re wrong. Without Federalism we do not have local government? Do you know anything about comparative politics? There isn’t a sizeable country in the world where everything is run by the national government. Can’t be done. Regardless of whether local government is guaranteed, local government will ALWAYS exist in a good-sized state.
And States most certainly are meaningless lines on a map. They are exactly that, in fact. How do I know where Florida ends and Georgia begins? I’ll tell you- they mark it on maps. That, and gas stations start serving fried chicken.
Look, nobody is suggesting that Federalism should be thrown out of the window anyway. You came up with that one all by yourself. What we’re suggesting is that a government “by the people, for the people” might just make more sense if it represented, well, the people. So what if candidates spend more time in heavily populated areas? They aren’t going to start ignoring Montana; the Republicans know where their bread is buttered. It would make sense for Democrats to spend more time looking for the urban vote, too.
When local government isn’t guaranteed, when local government does not have certain spheres of power reserved to itself local government basically has no meaningful existence.
There are a no countries where local government doesn’t exist at all but there are a lot of countries where local government is just around to enforce diktats from on high.
If you want the United States to be a nation of PEOPLE then fine, you can change the constitution. But right now we are a Union of States, fuck that is obvious just from looking at the NAME of our country. Quit trying to pretend that states are meaningless just because you hate Republicans.
Just like Stoops said prior to going into the National Championship, “If someone had told us prior to the beginning of this season that we had to win our conference to get in the national championship, that would have been fine. But it is only fair that now, at the end of our season, we agree to continue playing under the rules we agreed on at the beginning. Not change them at the very end to modify who is on top in the BCS poll going into the Sugar Bowl.” That is a reference non-sports fans won’t get, but basically people need to quit bitching.
George Bush won under the rules that existed at the time, you cannot change them after people voted. You cannot tell people you are going to do things one way, then change it after they have voted with no regards to what they think on the matter.
Also, considering your argument about states, I guess that means nations are meaningless too? Are you one of those hippies that believes in “One Big World” if so take crazy somewhere else, my house if stocked up to the fucking rafters with it.
I made it perfectly clear in my post that Hazel never said anything specific about Bush.
I said I that is what underlies hers and every other left wing whackjob on this forums hatred of the EC, and I won’t be convinced otherwise. I’m that convined of everyones dishonesty on the matter.
Do you do this in real life, too?
Cab Driver- “That’ll be five bucks, mister.”
Martin Hyde-“You can’t charge me just because you hate Republicans!”
On what planet would anything I said imply a dislike of Republicans, exactly?
In any case, the GOP is no longer the States’ Rights party. Gay Marriage, remember?
Most importantly, and I want you to read this carefully- I DIDN’T SAY A DAMN THING ABOUT BUSH. We’re not changing the rules after the votes have been cast; we’re proposing to change them before the next ones are cast. Have you seen anyone in this thread propose that Bush be turned out of office because he didn’t win the popular election? No? Didn’t think so.
I’ve conceded you haven’t said anything about Bush. I concede Hazel did not.
What I am saying is both of you, without stating it, are simply anti-Bush morons, the same type of leftist morons who use newsrooms as soap boxes, that bitch about the EC in order to attack the 2000 election and its results in a roundabout way. Ultimately hitting on crescendo that the EC is invalid and so is the current President who was elected via that method.
Completely. Except that you’re wrong. Leftist moron? Possibly. Anti-Bush? Certainly. “Morons who use newsrooms as soap boxes”? Hardly. Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity fit your description rather nicely, though.
I have no problem with Bush taking office as a result of the 2000 election. I would be saying the same thing even if no President had ever won an election despite losing the popular vote.
Okay, I’ll ask you one thing thing, and based on your results I will (or will not) completely abandon that avenue of argument:
You are given some mystical powers, say you’ve stumbled upon a rogue Djinn. Let’s also assume it is the eve of election day 2000. You have a decision to make and the Djinn will insure it goes through.
You can 1) abolish the EC, or 2) allow it to remain. If you allow it to remain Gore wins the election.
If you vote 1, Bush wins. Not only does he win the election, he wins reelection. And Pat Robertson then wins four years after Bush is done with his 8, but, the EC is gone.
If you can tell me that you would choose no. 1, and truly mean it, that is you aren’t just saying it to make your own point, then I can accept that you have a legitimate grievance with the EC.
But that doesn’t mean your critique of said institution is any more well-founded.
Sort of like in the U.S. Senate a “question” will be asked during a filibuster, a single question that is in four parts and is twenty type-written pages long.
Really Not All That Bright has already supplied a better reply than I can, but nevertheless…
Actually, we’ve reached the point where states really do mean nothing. I don’t like this, but it’s true. States no longer have any rights the fed govt feels obligated to respect. Consider hiway speed limits, 21 as the drinking age, medical marijuana, and the Oregon assisted suicide law. I wish the Feds would leave these matters to the states.
Re “Washington deciding everything,” that’s the direction we’ve been heading in for a long time. Consider the public schools. More and more, Washington is making the decisions. I don’t like that, either. Bush, with his No Child Left Behind has increased this. I’d like to see education go back to being a local matter.
Re our electoral methods, I think a system that can award victory to the candidate who got the 2nd highest number of votes needs modifying. This could be done by awarding EC votes proportionally, instead of winner takes all. Also, a system where one can win with less than 51% of the vote needs modifying. This could be done either by enacting Instant Runoff Voting, or by having actual runoff elections whenever the candidate with the most votes has less than 51% of the votes.
It’s not the EC that’s invalid. Rather than “invalid” I would call it “obsolete; in need of modification”. What was invalid was declaring Bush the winner in Florida. If Bush had been the legitimate winner in Florida, he’d have been the rightful winner of the election, dispite having lost the pop vote. The problem was that he was not the legitimate winner in Florida.
Has it never occured to you that, if we do nothing to fix the problems with our election methods, someday down the road, in some future disputed election, it may be a liberal Democrat who is unjustly declared the winner?
I disagree. Quite apart from the observation that each and every vote can be called a deciding vote, in the last election in the UK there was a dead heat - the winner was decided by rolling a die - so each and every vote for the winner was definitely a deciding vote