Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Osmosis Jones]

Posting to watch, like I often do with these US political threads. Your political system is insane, (I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, just that it seems to often work counter to it's stated goals, and is thus either deceptive or delusional) but damn me if it doesn't make an entertaining case study.
That said, anything is more interesting than modern Australian politics; it basically comes down to minimal corruption, fair bit of backroom politicking, absolute shit-tons of boredom.

Earlier comments on this thread about electoral reform caught my eye though; what exactly would be required to transition the system from electoral college to direct representation? It seems to me that that might go a long way to restoring some confidence in the system with ordinary voters... at the very least, it would increase the transparency of the system to a slight degree.

[ECrownofFire]

Rick Santorum actually had one of the most prescient descriptions of how people will view the Iowa Caucus results, right before he suddenly exploded in daily tracking (if you'll pardon the entendre).

Link? All I get is Urban Dictionary, and you know for what.

I just looked at Iowacausus.biz, and holy shit those polls. Is Ron Paul winning?

You're a bit late there. Ron Paul has not only been winning in the past month, but his lead has actually expanded.

By the way, why do people like Gary Johnson but not Paul? They have almost exactly the same views.

Ron Paul wants to systematically destroy the FDA and EPA, which would wreak havoc with so many basic safeties.  He also wishes to erode away safety nets and further reduce the standard of living of the already shrinking middle class.  On top of that, deregulating corporations and letting them do whatever they want, while weakening federal oversights.  It's almost literally a roadmap to turn the United States into a 3rd world country.

Because corporations have zero power at all right now. Yeah, they definitely don't have the power to influence anything like SOPA.

And you know, it's not like you could just not buy from the fucking corporations.

[Heron TSG]

I've been without internet for a while. When I left it was Newt.

Earlier comments on this thread about electoral reform caught my eye though; what exactly would be required to transition the system from electoral college to direct representation? It seems to me that that might go a long way to restoring some confidence in the system with ordinary voters... at the very least, it would increase the transparency of the system to a slight degree.

Constitutional amendment. I believe 2/3rds of all the states would have to ratify it. It's not common, but it can be done. Here's how it can be done:

2/3rd of the House and Senate would have to draft it, and then it goes out to the states for possible ratification, requiring 3/4ths.
2/3rds of the State legislatures get together to make one, and then it goes to Congress for a 3/4ths ratification in both divisions.

The States have never called an amendment convention, IIRC.

[ECrownofFire]

I've been without internet for a while. When I left it was Newt.

Earlier comments on this thread about electoral reform caught my eye though; what exactly would be required to transition the system from electoral college to direct representation? It seems to me that that might go a long way to restoring some confidence in the system with ordinary voters... at the very least, it would increase the transparency of the system to a slight degree.

Constitutional amendment. I believe 2/3rds of all the states would have to ratify it. It's not common, but it can be done. Here's how it can be done:

2/3rd of the House and Senate would have to draft it, and then it goes out to the states for possible ratification, requiring 3/4ths.
2/3rds of the State legislatures get together to make one, and then it goes to Congress for a 3/4ths ratification in both divisions.

The States have never called an amendment convention, IIRC.

There's also this, which is an interstate compact.

And individual states can choose to go proportional for the electoral college. 2 states have adapted something vaguely proportional (Maine/Nebraska).

[GlyphGryph]

By the way, why do people like Gary Johnson but not Paul? They have almost exactly the same views.

Because the few views they have that differ are really rather major, and Paul has shown either a severe racist+homophobic streak OR he's shown an inability to delegate to responsible people (interpret his newsletters however you wish, no reasonable interpretation reflects well on his abilities as president.

Paul has also made it quite clear he's willing to overrule the supreme court on any issue near and dear to his heart, and he's obsessed with getting back on the gold stadard.

So, I'm going to turn this around:
How can people support Paul when Gary Johnson has practically the same views but without the worst parts of them?

[Dutchling]

Posting to watch this as well. Seems like the lack of actual political parties doesn't mean you have a lack of people to vote on.

[Osmosis Jones]

Constitutional amendment. I believe 2/3rds of all the states would have to ratify it. It's not common, but it can be done. Here's how it can be done:

2/3rd of the House and Senate would have to draft it, and then it goes out to the states for possible ratification, requiring 3/4ths.
2/3rds of the State legislatures get together to make one, and then it goes to Congress for a 3/4ths ratification in both divisions.

The States have never called an amendment convention, IIRC.

There's also this, which is an interstate compact.

And individual states can choose to go proportional for the electoral college. 2 states have adapted something vaguely proportional (Maine/Nebraska).

Hmm, so given the difficulties of achieving a nationwide change, you would be better suited to lobby your state's... senate(?... Whatever the state-level governing body is called) to change to a proportional method, and aim to update the system piecewise. To all you apathetic types, here's something you can work on without having to vote for anyone, while still doing your bit to help the country.

[Dutchling]

Wikipedia is a bit vague about it. What exactly is the practical difference between electoral college and 'normal' elections?
I remember something about a US president who had less vote than his adversary but still won. Is this because of electoral college?

[Bdthemag]

Basically the more people in congress a state has, the more electoral votes they have. Usually those electoral votes will go towards whoever won the popular vote in that state, although I believe there are a few states which don't have to do that.

Bigger states have more electoral votes, so that's why you'll see presidential candidates only going to the bigger states. And yes, when Al Gore was going against George W. Bush, Al Gore got the popular vote but George W. Bush got more electoral votes.

[Osmosis Jones]

To build on Bdthemag's summation, from earlier in the thread, Barbarossa and Mego's posts give a pretty good rundown of the effects.

Once. Gore won the first time.

Explain.

Gore had more of the popular vote, meaning he had more numerical votes, meaning that the populace chose him. The Supreme Court decided to stop the recounts when Bush was declared 'ahead'. It went to the Supreme Court because of the system of the 'Electoral College', an outmoded system giving states a 'point value' based on the number of senators (2) and representatives (1 or more, based on population) in the state. Bush had more of the Electoral College, and Gore had the popular vote. The Supreme Court (then primarily Republican) pretty much chose Bush on their own accord.

You just became my new favorite person to talk to about politics. Not that I like Gore more than Bush, or vice-versa, but I dislike the Electoral College in its very principle, for 3 reasons:

Spoiler: Electoral College Rant (warning: contains math) (click to show/hide)

1. The electoral votes from a state are given 99% of the time on a winner-take-all basis, the only exception in the history of the country being Nebraska in the 2008 election. That means, if 51% of California votes for Obama in the next election, he gets all 55 of the votes. That's over 10% of the total electoral votes won by a margin of about 280,000 votes (assuming 100% voting turnout, with a population of about 28 million eligible to vote according to the 2010 census). Expanding on this by taking the top 11 states with the most electorates (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Caroline, and Virginia), 50% of the electoral votes (249 out of 538) can be won with just 1% margins in each state. 1.3 million people have the opportunity to swing the presidential election, provided they live in the right states. That's under 0.5%. Compare that to the 2% necessary to swing an election by direct vote.

2. The Electoral College was part of the 3/5ths Compromise that was reached during the drafting of the Constitution. It was created because, if the presidential election went by popular vote, the North could easily out-vote the South, due to slaves not being able to vote. Instead, with the 3/5ths Compromise, Southern states gained 3 population for every 5 slaves in the state, which meant increases in representation in the House of Representatives, which meant more electoral votes. The compromise balanced the North and South in terms of voting power. There is one glaring flaw with the Electoral College's continued existence. That's right, slavery has been illegal for 145 years. The Electoral College, for no reason whatsoever, is the only part of the 3/5ths Compromise that was kept after the 13th Amendment. Slavery is no longer an issue in the United States. Every citizen 18 years of age or older has the right to vote. Direct election is possible now without one ideological group overpowering its opposition by an unfair margin due to unbalanced numbers of eligible voters.

3. Americans WANT direct election. According to a 2001 Gallup poll, a majority of Americans supported direct election of the president. A 2004 Gallup poll showed that there was still a majority in favor of direct election. If you went and took a poll today, there would STILL be a majority. This change has been desired by a majority for at least 10 years. If the Senate and House could get 67% approval, then the 75% of state legislatures would be no problem. But, what Congress has done for the past 10 years instead of listening to what Americans want in this matter is a whole different discussion.

You thought I would accidentally the Rick Perry on #3, didn't you?

[Frumple]

Yeah. Basically, the practical difference is that with the electoral college, whoever wins the state wins all the votes. If it's a 51/49 split, because of the way that college bit tends to work, that 49% goes toward supporting whatever the 51% voted for.

Gets me frankly riled up some days, because it can mean that not only is your vote not counting for what you wanted it to, it's actually counting against your intent.

Also ninja'd, of course. More detail above

[Bdthemag]

Yeah, the Electoral college is pretty stupid. Hell, most people I know don't even know what it is.

[Dutchling]

Thanks for the explanations.
Any reason why it hasn't been changed yet? Besides the fact that change is scary and evil and communist.

[palsch]

Thanks for the explanations.
Any reason why it hasn't been changed yet? Besides the fact that change is scary and evil and communist.

Broadly? This.

Because EC votes are assigned by your congressional delegation and the smallest possible delegation is 3 people (2 senators, 1 representative) even a state with a tiny population get a voice. Wyoming there only accounted for 0.17% of the US population in the 2004 election. They sent 0.55% of the electoral votes.

The argument is without the EC allowing even low population states to have a voice like this, presidential candidates would only need to campaign in or appeal to major population centres and metropolitan areas.

It also keeps a lot of authority over elections within the state. Methods, recounts, etc. are all within the purview of state government. Moving to a popular vote system would require standardisation and probably federal oversight.

And then there is the fact that it props up the two party system. Hard to abolish the thing that keeps those in charge of abolishing it in power.

[Karlito]

As it is, presidential candidates only need to campaign in states where the electorate is closely split, i.e. "battleground states". California is basically guaranteed to vote Democrat, so it's much more important to campaign in states like Ohio and Nevada.