Constitution of the United States of America

Remove all ads!

It's a bit of a catch-22, really:

- a fully popular vote means large population centers get more focus and attention as it's more efficient to campaign in just places like NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. etc. That then marginalizes the 'rural' areas and "smaller states" - look at America's northern neighbour; Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are all any Canadian federal politicians focus on.

- a 'territory-based' vote akin to the Electoral College means each state gets more equal influence on the election. As stated, this then has the opposite effect of putting more focus on the 'three vote states' and subsequently marginalizing the high population states (you always hear about New Hampshire & Iowa setting trends...not California, New York, Texas or Illinois ).

Looking over the different options, my opinion is that the path chosen is the one of lesser evil.


Given the Electoral College as it stands now:

-If one were to just work from the largest-elector states down, you'd need 11 (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina & New Jersey) to reach the 270 vote majority needed, and that comes to 56.35% of the population.

-If you went for the 'sparse' states and worked up, you'd need all the states but the *ten* most populous (see above list except New Jersey) to get over the 270 majority threshold, and that comes out to 46.52% of the population.

(anyone notice that New Jersey is on both lists? Maybe the Mafia DOES control the govern-
>PUM< -thud- )

The mean between these two numbers is 51.435%, still pretty representative of a majority, seeing as the most 'undemocratic' one can go is less than 3.5%.

It's a little funky, but the Electoral College does serve its purpose of trying to keep balance between the will of the populace and the will of the member-state governments.

Hey, if you really think this sort of this is 'unfair' to The People, you can always abolish the State-level governments altogether...

 

I have mixed feelings at the moment. It does seem to me unfair that it is a winner take all. And it means that it is highly unlikely that a third party or independent candidate would get any Electoral votes.

IMO the two party system no longer serves our very diverse country.

 

While the campaigns would focus on mostly those areas, yes, no campaign manager would be stupid enough to ignore the rest of the people in the country. Each person's vote would be equal, regardless, so it would benefit the candidate equally to campaign everywhere, even if it would be more efficient in large cities. Even so, I would rather have everyone's votes be equal and have the candidates focus on specific areas than have everyone's votes be unequal and have the candidates focus on specific areas (Swing States).

I would disagree. In my above post, I gave some statistics on how with the extra two votes completely change the vote proportionally. California has 4 fewer electoral college votes than the 16 least populous states while having nearly double the population... shouldn't it have twice as many if it has twice the population?

 

Now that is the difference between a fair compromise and a fair result.

 

The substance of that statement is correct but not the specifics: It's hardly ever "Alexander Hamiton said..." It's the "Founding Fathers said...." Mostly they lump them all together, as if they were all lock-and-step in their belief of how America should be governed, which of course, THEY WERE NOT.

Often, I feel like screaming that from the treeetops to all those "dimwits" who constantly over simplify the Founding vision of America, and could not explain what made Hamilton's vision of America different from that of Jefferson's - and that's just the most basic stuff. It becomes much more complicated than that for those of us who are willing to spend half of our lifetimes studying them and their accomplishemnts, while at the same time understanding them as people rather than marble statues that adorn our gilded memorials.

Yet, all that would require a suspension of belief upon those who would wield the name of the "Founding Fathers" like a Holy Sword for "the Cause." Whatever that is supposed to be....

[ May 28, 2007, 15:46: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos,

Heh, that reminds me of how I feel when I meet these people saying 'Bush sucks, no blood for oil!' They are vaguely right on the issue but woefully short on substance. Alas. At least they do care.

[ May 28, 2007, 08:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Sorry, I should have phrased that line a little better, Ragusa. I did an edit.

 

Ahhhhh...now that's a slightly different issue that I can heartily agree with you on!

And yet...

In a system where there really are only two political parties, and any new addition to the system gets a little attention to the extent of "What? Oh, you. So anyway, as I was saying-" it does seem to marginalize any issue that neither of the Big Two devote their attention to.

But at the same time, would not a myriad of specific-issue/social group parties bog down any sort of progress in legislature?

How many would be TOO many, and - more importantly - where do you draw the line?

Phooey. I was decided and resolved on this topic, but then I had to go and *think*...stupid second thought...

 

Not to nitpick, but I didn't think that was the arguement being used against Nader. It's not that Nader took electoral votes away from Gore (as he didn't win any electoral votes). It was my understanding that the reasoning was if Nader had not run, most of the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. In Florida, Gore would then have received more of the popular vote than Bush, and as a result received Florida's electoral votes, thus giving him the majority of electoral votes, and the election.

The only state that it had an impact was Florida - there were no other states in which the Nader vote would have made a difference in who won the state. Unfortunately, with the way the rest of the country worked out, whoever won Florida won the election, which is why people say that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election.

 

We are not a democracy, we are a republic. The men who met in Philadelphia to create a new government intentionally set checks and balances so that the minority would not suffer from laws passed by the majority. The Constitution is a compromise between the powers of the States (Federal) and the powers of the people. Up until the Constitution was ratified the States were 13 independent and sovereign states.

Using the term united to describe them was wishful thinking.
======================================

I'll ask again: Who was the first President of the United States of American? I really would like to know what people think and why.

 

I find it quite hilarious that sometimes quoting a founding father is a good thing (i.e., when Hillary does it ) and is sometimes a bad thing (shows lack of original thought). I guess quoting a founding father is acceptable in a candidate that you like and unacceptable in a candidate you don't like.

Nakia -- very simple. George Washington. He was the first president with the authority granted by the Constitution.

 

True, T2Bruno, but was he the first president of the United States? I know we are taught in school that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America.

Naturally if I really like a candidate what they do is fine. . Hopefully if I like a candidate it is because he/she is intelligent and able to express himself and of course would only quote a specific Founder because it fit the subject.

 

Before the Constitution there was the President of the Congress of the United States (I believe Hancock was the first) -- but there was no executive branch. The President of Congress had very limited power compared to the power Washington held.

 

What I find even more "hilarious" is people who have problems with reading comprehension. And on the second point, you guessed wrong again. Sometimes it's better to know something rather than just "guess." I don't recall metioning a single candidate by name on this thread who has quoted a "Founder."

Edit - Before the Constitution there was the Articles of Confederation, which proved to be too weak to hold the states together. And the first President of the Continental Congress was Peyton Randalf (sometimes he is thought of as the first president). John Hancock was president of the Second Continental Congress, the one which voted for independence from England and directed the Revolution. George Washington was the first president under the Constitution we have now. But he was not a native born American, none of the Founders were, since many of them were born as Englishmen.

The American system of government is neither a republic nor is it a democracy - it is a Constitutional democratic-republic. It began as a republic, but Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson decided a healthy dose of democracy, injected into a Constitutional republic, was a good thing.

But of all the Founders, Ben Franklin became perhaps the most democratic, IMO. His plan for the projceted government of PA included only one House of representatives, and no central figure (such as one governor), but instead two elected officials who would share power jointly. Ben is often viewed by scholars as the "first American" and a study of his amazing life, may prove that to be the case.

[ May 30, 2007, 16:58: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

And yet we laud our democracy like we are the only ones who have it. We are "making the world safe for democracy," we start or enter wars just to make places democratic. We aren't a democracy, but we think we are. So if our leaders want to claim we are the most powerful democratic nation, they better let us be democratic.

 

Uh oh. Did I ruffle someone's feathers?

 

Nope. But if it makes you happy to believe so...

In some ways America IS a democracy, despite all the denial. One of the interesting aspects of the definition of political words is how it is interpreted by the ideology of the person/persons fashioning the meaning. In fact, a large part of the nature of the conflict in politics is exactly that - a conflict over definitions and the meaning of words.

[ June 01, 2007, 06:09: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Ah, that is what I meant by stealing votes. He received votes that could have gone to Gore (i.e taking votes, i.e. stealing votes), and according to some people, that changed the outcome because he lost by 537 votes and Nader received... err, I forget, but more than the difference Bush 'won' by.

 

@Saber - so are we saying the same thing then? I don't remember how many votes Nader got either, but it was in thousands - so there were several times the number of votes. It's not like there was just a little more than Bush won by, so it's not like Gore would have needed a vast majority of the Nader voters.

 

It always cracks me up how people blame Nader for Bush, but always forget that we got Clinton twice because of Perot.