If you’re attempting to highlight the influence of the 2 party system then a paraphrase of kunilou’s question from Page One becomes appropriate: what do you think about approval voting for POTUS resulting in a high chance of elections ending up being decided by Congress? (And in an even less proportional manner than in the electoral college itself.) Even if genuine multiparty democracy comes to America we’ll still need to address this albatross around our national neck.
It doesn’t really bother me.
So you were genuinely puzzled as to how the Rhode Island electorate could be safely Democratic even while most voters there don’t feel their needs are not being addressed? I’m confused.
Yes. Why would they be voting any party line in general if their needs, relative to the federal executive branch, weren’t being addressed? The two ideas seem contradictory to me, equivalent to the notion that people are knowingly voting against their own interests.
America has a 2 party system. I’m not sure how this has escaped your attention. But you don’t have to actually like what one party is doing to become a reliable voter for them. They only need to remain the lesser of 2 evils.
Just speaking in the general hypothetical here (I don’t know anything about the specifics of that state), the voters in the state generally favor D policies over R. They do so by a sufficient majority that the state is considered a “safe” D state. Thus they get relatively little attention during elections, etc. But this lack of attention comes from BOTH parties. It’s not like the Ds ignore them while the Rs are trying to meet their needs and being stymied, thus generating goodwill towards the Rs. But given that they generally support D policies, and the Ds generally try to enact those policies, they continue to support the Ds. To change that would require some kind of weird-ass statewide conspiracy where a fairly precise number of voters across the state pretended to convert from D to R, sufficient to generate the appearance of the state being in play, and they would need to carefully “rig” the voting so that the voting results kept up the facade, etc, etc, etc.
Basically, the two things are really not related at all.
So… their needs are being met?
There are just over a million Rhode Islanders. Lest there be any confusion, these are individual human beings and not the Borg. Again in the interest of clarity let me state that the point here is to demonstrate the foolishness of insinuating that (or even questioning if) these people are finding their needs met. Given that life is not absolutely perfect for some Rhode Islanders and the likelihood that the federal government, via the office of the POTUS, has some bearing on that then giving candidates for that office a reason to seek their votes would seem to be in the interest of this indeterminate number of Rhode Islanders whose needs are not being met to their satisfaction.
Well that’s all well and fine for the Rhode Islanders, but what about the Providence Plantationers?
When do you get to the “people voting against their own interests” part again?
2Sense: I guess I’ve kind of lost track of the point you’re trying to make.
So briefly to restate my position, which I’m now far from certain actually has anything to do with what I’m saying: I’m a democrat. I live in California. Because California is a safely blue state, no one pays any attention to us during presidential campaigns, which means there is presumably some amount of electoral-sucking-up that could be happening if I lived in Pennsylvania that is not happening.
But in no way do I blame the elected democrats for that state of affairs. Nothing about it would improve if I personally started supporting Republicans.
The electoral college system has obvious flaws, but it also has some advantages. For one thing, national results don’t depend directly on voter turnout by state, as they would in a popular vote system. States, or parties in states, can manipulate to increase turnout, e.g. by including ballot measures to ban gay marriage. Do we want to encourage a “race to the bottom” by manipulating turnouts? (There can also be turnout variations due to weather, etc.)
I recall a sci-fi story in which an “average voter” was located by computer, and asked to cast the sole ballot in an election! While that seems silly, since Ohio and Florida seem to represent “median voter sentiment” in a meaningful sense, is it really so bad to leave the election up to them? Given the huge inanity and expense of Presidential campaigns these days, I think confining campaign to two states rather than fifty is an argument for the electoral college. 
But all in all, in a discussion of Problems in the current American political system and their suggested solutions ranked by importance, the electoral college question wouldn’t make The Top Hundred List.
When will you begin to comprehend that when you have only 2 choices your options are limited?
Unsurprising given the slippery nature of the conversation.
Your position seems eminently sensible to me. There are a lot of Americans in California but the election for out president occurs elsewhere. I would expect Democratis and Republican residents alike to resent that fact.
So basically the argument is that we should give rural people more say/power over/than urban people because if we don’t they might get mad enough to violently rebel? I’m sorry if I don’t think that’s a valid argument. 1 person, 1 vote, and every vote should be literally (in the old definition) equal. Geography should not dictate power.
When will you begin to comprehend what I am taking exception to?
And only the rural people in states with low populations. The rural people in the states that produce the most food actually get the least-influential votes in state-based elections. (I mention this because I’ve heard it explained more than once that rural residents deserve an extra share of the vote as a reward for producing the food we eat.)
But so long as we’re willing to clutch on to the idea that states should be sovereign and equal in the era of airplanes, interstate highways, and railroads, this issue is never going to go away. Like it or not, a federation means that some people are going to get undue influence. Unless we’re willing to tackle the whole concept of federalism, we just have to deal with its consequences.
Never? Seriously I am at a complete loss. It seems to me you are seeing a Democratic leaning electorate as evidence that the Democratic Party is filling the needs of that electorate (ignoring for the moment that these are individuals). I don’t understand how anyone with much of an understanding of how American politics works could believe that.
But this does not mean that we cannot address the unbalanced way we elect our presidents. We will never completely level the playing field but there are things we can and should do to provide equality for our citizens.
What would you consider this fact (reliable party-leaning voting) to be indicative of? For instance, what theory would you propose which predicted voting behavior that this piece of evidence would corroborate or falsify? I don’t understand what you’re trying to convince me of. That people don’t vote sincerely?
Most people in Chicago vote Democrat because they’ve always voted that way, not because the Democrats are helping them or not.
If that’s true, then changing the voting system will not correct anything, unless we just force people to change party votes every year or something. Presumably that’s not actually open for discussion.