Since a 1.1:1 margin would win for the other party, does that mean that the other 1.9 will be wasting their votes? 
Rashak:
Requiring people to vote is simply antithetical to the American ethos. IMO, as an American, most of us would rather have a contested election once every 100 yrs or so than to force people to vote.
Well, this is the point. There are large blocks of people when you stop looking at states. There are urban voters, rural voters, Easterners, and Westerners. While these groups exist now, they are effectively split up state by state. The point being that you cannot simply apeal to one of these blocks no matter how large. Look at the 2000 election. Gore appealed almost exclusively to urban areas. Although he might have recieved a higher popular vote, he certainly did have “Broad appeal accross the whole nation”.
from the article:
Meanwhile, the article specifically mentions that voting power is less when the election is razor close. His point is that most elections are not this close.
I’m not sure where you got this. His examples are meant for elections in general. And he specifically says that for a given closeness of the vote districting does not help. It only helps in elections which are not extrememly close. (how close is a function of the size of the electorate).
He does say the other methods of districting could be devised, but then admits that dividing by states is pretty workable.
Well, I agree with your main point here, which is that people should vote. However, the Democratic party won elections in the South because at that time, it was the conservative party. (Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats ring a bell?) Nothing changed except that the conservatives hopped ship and moved to the Republican party during the political realignment of the civil rights era. The South has always voted conservatively. The South did, does, and shall forevermore live and breathe conservatism. Those of us with differing views stand little chance of having our voices heard in any election run with an electoral college system.
Pervert… the Serbia example is bad because we would be talking of different nationalities voting within the same Country. The US has “blocs” but no overbearing WHITE or LATINO organization. So what is wrong in giving the majority the right to chose the president ? Why break up the voting artificially into states ?
The examples given by the author are relevant only for a different context and different countries. They apply very little to the USA. The current system makes for some very distorted elections.
Do you think a system were candidates will give more attention to issues mainly in swinga states is balanced ? I think it gives power only to voters in select areas while giving people like the OP poster little incentive to participate in democracy.
Plus the 2000 election was pretty close...The best reason to vote:
- Think of all your beliefs about the way the world should be.
- Think of a guy who believes the exact opposite of your beliefs.
- He votes.
If you vote too, at least you cancel out his vote. But if you don’t, it’s like he voted twice.
Plus: it makes a difference to a politician whether he won by a hair or by a landslide. The guy who won by a hair has got to be on his toes, if he ever wants to be re-elected. Otherwise he’ll just assume everyone, including you, support him.
See, the problem with your argument is that it isn’t based on any principles. Expediency may work sometimes, but it isn’t much to base big decisions on. Particularly when you’re making it outcome-conditional to begin with. That’s like saying you shouldn’t steal only because you might get caught.
If a person decides instead that larger principles give life greater meaning, and that one should act according to those principles even when it isn’t expedient and you don’t know what the outcome is likely to be, well then I believe your choices are more likely to add up to something. My point is that it isn’t only about us, as individuals living in a specific place and time; it’s about giving embodiment to principles of honor and truth and freedom so that those ideals might continue to exist.
When you consider the effort it took to bring voting rights to every citizen, I don’t know how a person could set that aside lightly.
THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT! There are no large voting blocks with huge bureaurocratic organizations, because it is not effective in national elections. You have to win state by state. Not the few groups which add up to a majority. IOW you divide the contest into campaigns for geographic areas instead of ideological groups. So, just because you have some group with 51 or 52% of the voters, you cannot trample on the rights of the minority.
Besides the fact that individual voters have more power in smaller districts. Besides the fact that districting forces candidates to appeal to a larger portion of the population. Besides the fact that this larger appeal means winners cannot trample on the minority’s rights. Besides this right preservation leading to virtual non existence of military coups. And thus the preservation of our union. Other than these things, nothing at all.
The point is that all the states are “swing states”. You can’t win the presidency, or legislature for that matter, unless your platform appeals to a large portion of the population. Whats more, you cannot appeal mearely to the simple majority. You have to win a huge number of races accross large numbers of districts each with its unique issues and idiosyncracies. Even if I accept that particular candidates will win certain states without much trying, you have to realize that such a situation is only true because the candidate has convinced the majority in that state of his cause. Meaning that he cannot simply ignore them and concentrate on the issues in other states.
America was always a Republic rather than a Democracy. This was on purpose not an accident. Why is this districting so difficult to understand. Do you think congressmen from larger districts should have more votes in the house? Should Senetors have more votes if they come from larger states? Are the virtues of a republic as opposed to a democracy that hard to believe in?
Sorry for the shout. I got too excited. I appologize for that.
This is a link which make the argument in favor of the Electoral College more coherently than I did.
-
Vote so that you are immune to ad hominem arguments against you when you complain about who wins the election later.
-
Vote (and inform yourself) because it is the best way to maximize your civic virtue.
-
Vote because it would be good if everyone did it, and voting yourself gives you another angle (in rhetoric and by example) for convincing others to vote.
-
Vote because it gives you another oppurtunity to leave the house and possibly meet someone attractive, and comes with conversation topic attatched.
-
Vote because MTV has decreed that voting is cool and you want to be percieved as cool.
-C
Not so. Georgia went to Clinton in '92, and has until recently been pretty closely-divided between Democrats and Republicans.
Having said that, Georgia does seem to be shifting to the right, and will likely go to Bush in '04. I wouldn’t say it’s a sure thing, though. Certainly not as much so as in most other states in the Deep South. Economic problems, or a turn for the worse in the War on Terror[sup]TM[/sup] could conceivably move Georgia into the Democratic camp (and particularly so if Clark were to get the nomination). (Though I think Dean might do better in the South than some folks might think.)
Sampiro, here’s another reason to vote: Even if Bush wins Georgia in '04, it helps Georgia if it is a close race. States that are too close to call in Presidential elections are the ones that tend to get a lot of attention from national politicians. Otherwise, we may get taken for granted.
Vote, please.
I should also point out that Georgia very nearly went to Clinton again in 1996. Dole got 47% of the vote to Clinton’s 46%.
Bush did beat Gore pretty handily here in 2000, with 55% of the vote.
And one should be careful to ask oneself about why the Pubs won Georgia in '00. Was it because Bush was popular or was it because Gore was unpopular? The faces often matter as much, if not more, than the party.
But I’ll stick to my earlier statement-- if you’re too inellectually lazy to think about this sort of stuff, then it’s probably better that you don’t vote.
Well, what is important is that you tell people that you voted, not that you actually voted.
I had to chuckle at your earlier statement, John Mace. What he isn’t telling you, Sampiro, is that low voter turnout historically favors the incumbent party.
Another way to look at it is the way I’ve always tried to look at it. A non-vote is an automatic vote for the winner. You don’t like Bush? Stay home that day and you’re silently rubber-stamping his reelection.
Pervert… I understand the idea… I just don’t think its balanced the way it is. States are very big “districts” to work properly. Millions of votes aren’t cast due to the perceived uselessness of doing so.
The problem of creating smaller districts is who will draw the lines ? Otherwise something similar to what they are attempting to do in Texas will create newer in smaller scale distortions. (Or current districts could be used !) Much better than a whole state goes one way or another due to a few hundred votes.
Pervert... answer then the issues I raised about the relative ease the system creates for fraud or manipulation. Getting a few thousand votes through illegal methods can swing a whole state... this is way to easy for wanna be cheaters. A more mudane example: losing a single county's votes can change a national election !
You said: "There are no large voting blocks with huge bureaurocratic organizations"
-> If a national vote was made… what huge organizations might pop up ? What kind of large voting blocks you think might possibly dominate the presidential election ?
Well, that’s one reason. But I think the bigger reason is that people simply don’t bother. I a certain sense this is a testament to our success. People feel complacent because they are not worried that either candidate is going to do anything drastic to adversely affect them.
No, Its not. You see, the analysis mr Hively did was based on the idea that for a given area most ovters are leaning one way or another. Therefore, in order to designe the ideal districts you would have to change them as fast as the polling data changed. The problem is not who would decide, the problem is one of feasability. The congressional districts should not be used for the reasons indicated in the article. Gerrymandering has created large voting blocks in may districts. This would actually reduce the power of these blocks. Look again at the example of the Latino vote (I detest these kind of group generalizations, so I have to note that I only mean voters who self identify as latino and vote based on issues that they also self identify as latino). This population makes up a sizeable portion of California and Florida. But a very small minority indeed of the US as a whole. Therefore, while they do not dominate national politics, they are certainly listened to by presidential hopefuls. Now imagine that instead of states we used congressional districts. And imagind that in several states we created heavily latino districts. These groups would have LESS power in a national ellection. The number of such districts would be quite small and candidates would feel very little need to listen to their concerns.
You see, the point is not whether the majority should rule, or this or that minority. The point is that noone whould rule in that sense of rule. Every person, every group should be as free as possible no matter who is in office. A constitutional Republic sets up such a system. Dividing the responsibilities of government into 3 branches, the many states, and finally into the people themselves is a good check and balance system to ensure that it continues. The electoral college is one of these checks. It provides a check against the mob of the majority.
Ah, but which county. Think of it this way. The only way to steal a presidential election is the same way you would steal the Senate. That is you would have to steal enough seperate state elections to give you a majority. Much more difficult IMHO than rigging one single election (even if that election is very large).
**
[/QUOTE]
-> If a national vote was made… what huge organizations might pop up ? What kind of large voting blocks you think might possibly dominate the presidential election ? **
[/QUOTE]
Its not that blocs would dominate the presidential election, its that other blocs would be completly disenfranchised. Look again at the latino example I created above. What would these people do after decades and decades of neglect by the political machines? What kind of radical policies might they suggest to get some power?