Analyzing the Electoral College

cft_128 writes "David S. Bennahum of has an article that breaks down the numbers in the electoral college, backing up his original 'One Voter One Vote' talk (listen to the mp4). In summary, a vote in Wyoming (has the smallest number of voters per elector) is worth 2.6 votes in Pennsylvania (has the largest number of voters per elector). He has some PDFs of charts, an outline of the talk and a spreadsheet."

Comments

Not the best way to look at it

[jbarr]

While this information may be "true", there still remains a misunderstanding about just how a U.S. President is elected. The point of the Electoral College is not to give individual votes different "weights" (though that may be the effect) but to provide a method of giving States fair representation. The general public needs to understand that U.S. Presidents are NOT elected (or defeated) by majority popular vote but that they are voting for Electors who, in turn, cast THEIR votes for the President at the State level. And to further complicate matters, States have different laws governing how electors are assigned and selected.

This is not to say that the Electoral College is the best system, but we need to remember that if switch to a strict popular vote, then Smalltown, USA or Smallstate, USA would never get fair representation.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Planesdragon]

This is not to say that the Electoral College is the best system, but we need to remember that if switch to a strict popular vote, then Smalltown, USA or Smallstate, USA would never get fair representation.

Sure they would. Smalltown gets a house rep, Smallstate gets two senators. And both of THOSE are elected by popular votes.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

The point of the Electoral College is not to give individual votes different "weights" (though that may be the effect) but to provide a method of giving States fair representation.

True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

Back when the Constitution was proposed, it was seeking approval from each state, so it's understandable that a compromise was made to attract smaller states. But just because we know there was a pragmatic reason for it once, doesn't mean it's the best thing to continue with.

The general public needs to understand that U.S. Presidents are NOT elected (or defeated) by majority popular vote

Everyone (besides a scattering of idiots) knows this. That's not the question. He's not asking how things are now, but how they should be. Imagine you were building a semi-democratic nation from a blank slate (hmm, that's a hobby of President Bush...). Would you try to make each citizen's vote equally powerful, or give extra-weight to the residents of certain areas?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[KilobyteKnight]

True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

You fail to mention one of the main reasons the states choose the President. The Federal government is meant to govern the states, not the people. The states are partially autonomous. The reason for that is to get the direct governance closer to the people, where the people have more control over the government directly affecting them.

The US Civil War shifted more power to the federal government; contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't just about slavery. Yet the laws and the Constitution did not change. The years since the Civil War have shown an increasing level of power grabs from the federal government.

The fact that control of the government has been slipping away from the local level is not, I believe, a good reason to say that more control should be shifted that direction.

In contrast to you opinion, I believe the people are better represented by moving the power back down to the State, County, and local level. Let them decide what is best for their State, and the State will represent them Federally.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[barawn]

True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

No.

For one, it avoids tyranny of the majority - something that's very, very difficult to deal with. For two, it allows a more even distribution of resources, and allows the country to utilize its resources efficiently.

The problem is pretty simple - people in communities tend to vote similarly, because they have the same concerns. People in California are less likely to be concerned about farmers in Iowa, for instance. Equal voting would mean that California would far, far outrank Iowa (more than it does). But that would also imply that Iowa's not important - and it is. Neglecting Iowa at the expense of California would mean that you'd essentially create a mecca of civilization, surrounded by an expanse of decaying towns.

This is exactly the case in a lot of other countries - specifically, Argentina, where Buenos Aires is akin to a first-world country, and everywhere else might as well be a third world country.

(Point of note: it only ensures fairness among states in that it gives two votes per state, and has a minimum number of representatives of one. Other than that, population reigns. Hence the reason why Wyoming ranks so high - because the population's nothing.)

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[jbarr]

Sure they would. Smalltown gets a house rep, Smallstate gets two senators. And both of THOSE are elected by popular votes.

Yes, they get House and Senate representation, but I was refering to representation in the Presidential election. If it is left to a strict popular vote in the Presidential election, then more populous cities and states would probably become the sole targets of campaigns because the smaller, less populous cities and states could become proportionatly and statistically irrelevent to the election, which is exactly what the Electoral College was designed to prevent.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

Back when the Constitution was proposed, it was seeking approval from each state, so it's understandable that a compromise was made to attract smaller states. But just because we know there was a pragmatic reason for it once, doesn't mean it's the best thing to continue with.

Well at least you know why it was done, not consider the consiquences of undoing it. You are essentially breaking the contract which forms this nation and every small state would wonder why join whatever replaces it?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

For one, it avoids tyranny of the majority

Funny thing is that the Electoral College system creates tyranny of the majority- within each state.

Let's use Texas as an example (although something similar happens in most states). There are a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats. When they vote for President, however, ALL the electoral votes go to Bush, instead of the Democrats sending their 30% to Kerry.

But that would also imply that Iowa's not important - and it is.

If Iowa was really important, then the voters in California would see that (especially when they start paying those farmers for food).

Let's think of some other cases where something important is represented by only a minority of the population...

You know what? I think that the USA is unfairly biased towards the uneducated. Equal voting means that high-school graduates far, far outrank PhDs. But that implies that learned people aren't important- and they are. Neglecting collegians in favor of ignoramuses would mean creating a blanket of idiocy, sinking the country towards the lowest common denominator. So I suggest multipling each person's vote by the number of diploma's she's recieved.

Also, CEOs and entrepeneurs are the drivers of economic growth- they push the creation of wealth that benefits everyone. Let's give business owners one extra vote per $250,000 annual income.

How can you attack my proposals, while defending your own? They have the same basis- a person deserves more power, because he's got more of something- real estate, or education, or money, or whatever.

Neglecting Iowa at the expense of California would mean that you'd essentially create a mecca of civilization, surrounded by an expanse of decaying towns.

If that's where fairness leads, then so be it. If equal voting power and equal ability to participate in the free market aren't enough to give those towns viability, then let them die.

PS. The use of the word "expense" in your post was completely nonsensical. In that sentence, "at the expense" should've been "in favor".

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Aaargh.

If 1 vote in New York counted exactly the same as 1 vote in North Dakota, I guarantee you there would still be campaigning going on in ND as well as NY, because reaching voters is a hell of a lot cheaper in rural areas than in urban ones. You could, at a guess, buy advertising that would blanket both Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming for days at the same price as a single ad running on a network channel in NYC in primetime. Tell me that wouldn't make a difference.

Actually, of course, the way things are right now, 1 ND vote does count exactly the same as 1 NY vote: both of them count for exactly zero. The EC system does not provide greater representation to voters in small states. It disenfranchises all voters who don't live in swing states. (And big swing states at that; remember that the vote in 2000 was just as close in NM as in FL ... but nobody cared, because NM wasn't going to decide the election, and everyone knew it.)

Take a look at an electoral college map (i.e., a list of states with electoral votes per state.) It's frightening to realize just how badly a candidate could lose overall, but still take the White House with a few key victories in large swing states.

The EC was a decent compromise two centuries ago. Right now, in the modern political map of the US, it does not work.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

AC: every small state would wonder why join whatever replaces it?

States don't have brains, they can't "wonder" anything. By contrast, citizens do have brains, and many of them are wondering why they should continue to respect a national political system that is unfairly biased against their desires.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

I believe the people are better represented by moving the power back down to the State, County, and local level. Let them decide what is best for their State, and the State will represent them Federally.

That viewpoint supposes (or desires) that the national President is fairly weak. But that isn't the case- he's very powerful, and can make decisions that tremendously influence the people of each state.

When Bush pushes the nation into an Iraqi war, the effort and sacrifice is borne not by the states, but by the people. Does Montana share a bigger proportion of the costs of national-level action than California does? No. Treasure and blood comes from the population as a whole.

If the Presidency were a weak, mostly ceremonial post, then the per-capita unfairness of his selection would be less troublesome.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[jbarr]

Imagine you were building a semi-democratic nation from a blank slate (hmm, that's a hobby of President Bush...) Would you try to make each citizen's vote equally powerful, or give extra-weight to the residents of certain areas?

I think we can all agree that everyone's vote should count equally in an election. However, in this new blank-slate nation, what happens when Campaigns and the Media target only the largest, statistically relevent areas and ignore the less populated and statistically less relevent areas? The individual's votes would count either more or less depending on where they live. If you live in a statistically irrelevent area, then your vote certainly wouldn't count as much as others. A system like the Electoral College tries to remove the statistical irrelevence of smaller populations.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[RealProgrammer]

But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

Our republic is built on a principle called "balance of power". There is a balance of power between the People, the States, and the Federal government. The People stand no chance against a corrupt Federal government without the States. The Federal government defends the rights of the people against the individual State goverments. The People elect the officials in the government (and make up the armed militia, just in case the officials forget who's boss).

It is the States, not the People, who elect the President. The Electoral College compromises between giving each State a vote and allowing the aggregate popular vote to determine the winner.

The Electoral College effectively protects the smaller States from the tyrrany of the larger ones. Without it, a candidate could campaign only in the coastal states, where most of the people are, and ignore the inland areas.

Suppose a candidate did that. He or she could promise water and electricity to California, and ignore Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico (where the water and electricity would originate). The interests of Midwestern farmers would be ignored.

The Electoral College is a wise system, and I think the best system. It pools voters by region, so that the interests of all the people in a region are given all of the weight of that region. You and your neighbors all vote; your collective decision speaks with the authority of all of you.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[lynx_user_abroad]

But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

It's not just tradition here, it's history.

Back in 1776, it was the Colonies collectively declaring Independence from England rather than the U.S.A. declaring it. Back then, we had a situation rather similar(ish) to how the individual nations in Europe today are forming the European Union. The States were to be granted a wide range of liberty in establishing customs, laws, etc. Only those things which had to be done at a Federal level for structural reasons (such as a common monetary unit for commerce reasons, and full-faith-and-credit for legislative reasons, etc) were granted to the Federal Government.

Up through the Civil War, individuals thought of themselves as citizens of a State more than citizens of a country called the U.S.A.

This is what the Civil War was fought for, not slavery. It was a disagreement over whether the States should be allowed more complete control over their own affairs (on the Confederacy side, the Southern States) or whether the Federal Government should have more power (on the Union side, or the Northern States.) It's just that Slavery was one of those issues that had to go one way or the other.

It was only after the Civil War that people began to talk about themselves as citizens of The United States of America.

So it made sense prior to the Civil War to have the leader of the Federal Government elected by the States (Electorial College) because a private citizen's life was much more closely influenced by their own particular State Governor than by the President.

Back then, the Federal Government didn't have the power to tax Individual Incomes.

So, if we wanted to speculate, we could extrapolate this out in the logical directions. Would it make sense to have the head of the United Nations elected by popular vote, and to grant that organization the power to tax individuals in order to solve it's perpetual finance problems? Do we want to enforce a world where popular cultural beliefs of the majority become the law of the land for all?

History shows us that our forefathers asked these same questions, explored many answers (including some incredibly stupid, costly, and eventually discarded ones) and reached the (not quite perfect yet) answers we have today.

This is reflected in our Constitution as well: the First Amendment bans Congress from establishing a Religion, but does not ban the States from doing that. The Second bans everyone from making laws about who can keep and bear arms.

Times have changed, and our laws and culture have evolved as well. Have they kept in step? Are we headed the right direction? My opinion is no more correct than anyone elses.

Unless they don't study history and don't vote. In which case they don't have an opinion.

Would you try to make each citizen's vote equally powerful, or give extra-weight to the residents of certain areas?

There has been considerable discussion about a plan to break Iraq (or allow Iraq to break itself) into three seperate political regions (or States): Sunni Arab, Shi'ite, and Kurd. It seems to me, if we were really concerned about people, fairness, and cultural respect, this is what we should be heading for. Instead, we're concerned about Oil, political power, and maintaining control so this will never happen.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

switch to a strict popular vote, then Smalltown, USA or Smallstate, USA would never get fair representation.

At best, that's a circular argument- it hinges on non-standard definition of fair. In a dictionary, "fair" means "free from favoritism or preference". You are claiming that giving them voting power based only on the number of people would be "unfair"- but that is actually expressing favoritism right there. Looked at objectively, 3 votes beating 5 votes is plainly less fair than the alternative.

Even defenders of the system must agree that it's unfair- but they claim the unfairness is justified by other factors, and that Smalltown deserves the bias.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[SPIDER_UK]

"Imagine you were building a semi-democratic nation from a blank slate (hmm, that's a hobby of President Bush...). Would you try to make each citizen's vote equally powerful, or give extra-weight to the residents of certain areas?" Well I'd secure the agreement of those I could then I'd take a gun and point it at the rest and say join me or else.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

The Electoral College effectively protects the smaller States from the tyrrany of the larger ones. Without it, a candidate could campaign only in the coastal states, where most of the people are, and ignore the inland areas.

No. Even with the current Electoral College, anyone who wins both coasts wins the presidency. Coastal states have more than 270 electoral votes, which is enough to defeat all inland places. (If you counted the Great Lakes as coastline, it'd be even more lopsided)

It is the States, not the People, who elect the President.

The people doing the voting don't much like that idea. If they really wanted it left to the State, they'd leave it in the hands of their governor or legislature, instead of going through the big expense of a wide-scale election.

ignore Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico (where the water and electricity would originate).

We've got a system to allow for the providers of a good or service to be compensated- it's called money.

The interests of Midwestern farmers would be ignored.

They are a small minority- why should they be disproportionately powerful? Let's play word replacement:

The EC protects the sexual perverts from the tyranny of the mainstream. Without it, a candidate could campaign only to heterosexuals, which most of the people are, and ignore the gay community. Suppose a candidate did that. He could promise marriage and tax breaks to heteros, and ignore gays. The interests of gays would be ignored.

(There are many less-silly examples I could've chosen. Bear in mind that as technology progresses, it becomes increasingly likely that a community with a common need will be geographically disperesed)

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Romothecus]

In contrast to you opinion, I believe the people are better represented by moving the power back down to the State, County, and local level. Let them decide what is best for their State, and the State will represent them Federally.

Except that is not what happens. My congressional district has 90% chance of going Democratic this election, like in all recent elections. However, most other districts in my state are usually Republican. So the state will give all of its electoral votes to a candidate, even though significant groups and communities want it the other way around. Sovreignty ultimately lies with the people, so the States should at least be required to represent the interests of their citizens as accurately as possible. Besides apportioning electoral votes according to district, this should also include subtracting 2 votes from every state - sovreignty doesn't reside in the State, it resides in the people. I don't see anything wrong with virtual representation in general, as long as it is conducted accurately and fairly. Which right now it is not.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[ChristTrekker]

Funny thing is that the Electoral College system creates tyranny of the majority- within each state. [...] There are a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats. When they vote for President, however, ALL the electoral votes go to Bush, instead of the Democrats sending their 30% to Kerry.

This is not the fault of the EC itself. This is a fault at the state level, because each state decides how to assign the EC votes. Nebraska and Maine divvy the votes proportionally to the popular vote. Colorado is considering it.

So petition your state legislature! It's easier to make a change at the state level than at the federal. That is, in fact, the primary reason for federalism (as opposed to nationalism) - it's supposed to keep more power at the state and local levels rather than centralizing it.

If equal voting power and equal ability to participate in the free market aren't enough to give those towns viability, then let them die.

Fine, if California (and the other big states) will let Iowa (and the other small states) secede when they start getting screwed. That was the original idea with a federal system, too. States (especially New England) threatened secession often in the first half century of the union. I bet if they tried today, CA/NY/TX/etc would suddenly feel that those states are important enough to keep them in the union, by force if necessary.

You can't just completely ignore people's concerns because they're a minority. You're arguing for tyranny of the majority, the primary reason that pure democracy doesn't work!

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[ChristTrekker]

Or swing districts in Maine and Nebraska.

The EC is fine as it is. It helps avoid tyranny of the majority by giving some votes to each state by virtue of population, and some by virtue of being an independent state. (How else do you combine the ideals of House/Senate representation into a singular office?) If it were pure popular vote, rural areas would be completely ignored. As a resident of a rural state, I'd protest this change most strongly. And since you need an amendment to change this, which must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, it's not going to happen.

The only change I'd make in the EC is convincing more states to divvy votes by popular vote.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[MindStalker]

When someone joins the military they effectivly become a member of the federal government. An remember its a voluntary military, just because people signed up thinking they wouldn't go anywhere is no excuse. Hell by now a large amount of our military signed up post 9/11 and have no excuse to say they didn't know. Either way if there was a draft I would agree with your statement, but there isn't these people left their states voluntarily.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Scott Wood]

Nebraska and Maine divvy the votes proportionally to the popular vote.

No, they don't; they just push the winner-takes-all scheme down to the individual congressional district level. If both of Maine's districts vote 51% for Kerry, Kerry will get all 4 votes. Likewise, Nebraska's 5 votes will all go to Bush, even if 20-30% vote for Kerry, because Bush will win each district.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Petrox]

The US Civil War shifted more power to the federal government; contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't just about slavery. Yet the laws and the Constitution did not change. The years since the Civil War have shown an increasing level of power grabs from the federal government.

Except that the laws and the Constitution did change: as a condition for re-entry into the Union after the Civil War, the southern states were required to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution. The 14th amendment in particular starts with the some of the most important language directed at states (rather than the federal govt.):

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Before this was added to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other amendments were thought to apply only to the federal government and not to the states. Since then, this amendment has been the primary impetus for 'incorporating' the other amendments so as to apply to the states.

(IANAL, but I will be soon! ; ) )

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Drakon]

Tyranny of the Majority is the best statement about a democracy I've EVER heard.
Or a democratic republic.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Which is interesting, because Tyranny of the Majority is a stupid concept to begin with invented by an upper class minority bent on abusing the majority.

Chances are- it's the tyranny of the plurality that would win in a true democracy- for no one minority has more than 50% representation.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That is, in fact, the primary reason for federalism (as opposed to nationalism) - it's supposed to keep more power at the state and local levels rather than centralizing it.

If so- federalism has been a miserable failure. Never at any other time in history has the central government had more power over our lives. And the central government is controlled by the same people who decide what franchises get to put stores in your local mall.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

Hell by now a large amount of our military signed up post 9/11 and have no excuse to say they didn't know.

Signing up then implies you desired or expected to go to Afganistan, or someplace else where international Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists might hide. But Iraq isn't one of those places. (Yes, there are terrorists in Iraq... now. And yes, they're "international" in some way. But the kinds of guys who can work an insurgency in the desert are completely different from the type of people that could sneak bombs into USA cities)

Either way if there was a draft I would agree with your statement,

It's not just the people, but also the money spent on the war. It comes from federal income taxes. Montana gets a relatively larger amount of control of how those taxes are spent, without needing to increase the amount they pay in.

That's a minor form of taxation without representation.

but there isn't these people left their states voluntarily

No they didn't- at least not all of them. The National Guard, for example, probably only thought they would respond to emergencies inside the USA, and not go off to guard fuel lines in Iraq. The military population in general signed up long before an Iraq occupation was evident, and they had no chance to change their minds later.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

This is not the fault of the EC itself. This is a fault at the state level, because each state decides how to assign the EC votes.

No, it's the nearly inevitable result of the EC. Given that states are controlled by humans, and all humans want power, then states will choose the method that gives them the most power. Winner-Takes-All allocation does this. Texas is controlled by Republicans, therefore the assignment of Electoral Votes is entirely up to them. Will they give all 34 to Bush, or send 11 to Kerry out of regard for the 30% vote he gets in the state? Hmm... tough question.

So petition your state legislature! It's easier to make a change at the state level than at the federal.

For many things, that's true. But looking at the details, this time isn't one them.

The only reasonable approach is a widespread campaign for public support, followed by a national amendment to impose one allocation regime on all states. It's a case of "Ok, I'll lower my gun, if you put yours down at the same time"

You can't just completely ignore people's concerns because they're a minority.

"Power in proportion to your population" is somewhat different from "completely ignore"

the primary reason that pure democracy doesn't work!

No. The prime reason is that it's overly time-consuming to hold a nationwide election each time we need to tow a parked car.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it ironic that many people angry about the electoral college are the same people that call for protections for minorities in our population -- be they minorities of ethnicity or sexuality.

If you feel that the potential of the majority in urban areas to walk all over the minority in rural areas, with no protection for the minority group, then shouldnt you agree that minorities in general should be walked all over? They aren't the majority after all, so shouldn't they be less important?

just a thought.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[RealProgrammer]

With the EC, winning all of the coastal states is one way to play it; without the EC, it would be the only thing that mattered.

>The people doing the voting don't much like that idea.

The people are not always right. Popular will swings back and forth, moving this way and that, sometimes tending to the extreme. The EC system tends to minimize the tyranny of the majority, which you obviously agree is something to minimize.

Your argument about the EC and protecting homosexuals is an obvious red herring; we are talking only about geography, not any other factor distinguishing one person from another. The EC doesn't have anything to do with differences between people, just between regions. The individuals vote, but the groups decide.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[b-baggins]

The biggest erosion of States' rights occurred when the consitution was amended to allow Senators to be picked by direct election instead of being appointed by state legislatures.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[ChristTrekker]

Thank Abraham Lincoln for invading the CSA when they wanted to peacefully secede. The passage of the 17th Amendment pretty much cemented the death of federalism. Federalism worked quite well before this point. Far more concern went into local and state politics than far-off Washington.

Federalism works very well as a concept, it's just that it's been destroyed in the US. We're now a federal republic in name only.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[eglamkowski]

Take a look at an electoral college map (i.e., a list of states with electoral votes per state.) It's frightening to realize just how badly a candidate could lose overall, but still take the White House with a few key victories in large swing states.

I did this analysis already:
http://slashdot.org/~eglamkowski/journal/66227

Presidential candidates currently only need to target roughly 30% of the voters as it is. The real number may be smaller depending on actual percentages of people who vote - I assumed it was the same percentage everywhere which clearly isn't the case.

Without the electoral college, candidates would have to focus on even less than 30% of the voters.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

Which is interesting, because Tyranny of the Majority is a stupid concept to begin with invented by an upper class minority bent on abusing the majority.

Really? The majority of Americans are for school prayer and against Gay marrage. I guess we should let the mob rule eh?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[ChristTrekker]

OK, I wrote that a little sloppy as my thoughts were getting ahead of my fingers. The EC votes are granted by district, not proportionally.

One of my suggested refinements to the districted allocation system is to use the 2 state-at-large votes to tweak the results closer to true proportionality. Thus if Bush carries all 3 districts and Kerry only gets 20% in the popular vote, he'd still get one of those 2 EC votes.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

With the EC, winning all of the coastal states is one way to play it; without the EC, it would be the only thing that mattered.

False. Without it, you could win one coast and not the other, for example. Just like you could today- 2 votes added to every state just isn't enough of a difference to make any major pattern succeed or fail. Nobody can ever win without serious coastal support, and Bush gets everything from Virgina southward.

I've done the math, and even if we removed the "Senator bonus" within the next week, it still wouldn't push Kerry over the top. (That would make it 179-247, instead of 207-317, which is the current projection)

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[eglamkowski]

The proper approach is to eliminate popular election of electors. It wasn't the intended method of choosing electors in the first place.

While we're at it, toss the 17th and once again give the state governments a say in the federal government!

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

That viewpoint supposes (or desires) that the national President is fairly weak. But that isn't the case- he's very powerful, and can make decisions that tremendously influence the people of each state.

Really? and what exactly can the president do to which congress can not say no?

When Bush pushes the nation into an Iraqi war, the effort and sacrifice is borne not by the states, but by the people. Does Montana share a bigger proportion of the costs of national-level action than California does? No. Treasure and blood comes from the population as a whole.

A war congress had to authorize, the president can not declare or start a war, congress has to ok it.

If the Presidency were a weak, mostly ceremonial post, then the per-capita unfairness of his selection would be less troublesome.

Why do you confuse weak with ceremonial? Are cabinate positions weak? (Yes they cant act w/o presidents ok), are they ceremonial (No they actually do alot of work).

The president cant act without congress.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

Without the electoral college, candidates would have to focus on even less than 30% of the voters.

How do you figure??

By your own calculation, the EC allows someone controlling the correct 30% of voters to cement a win. Without the EC, you're only assured of victory after reaching 51% votes.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[ChristTrekker]

For many things, that's true. But looking at the details, this time isn't one them.

That's why it's important to elect ppl to your legislature that are more concerned with doing the right thing than doing the selfish thing. Finding ppl like that, who won't be swayed with the power once they get in office, are hard to find.

"Power in proportion to your population" is somewhat different from "completely ignore"

Often it amounts to the same. If "your side" can carry only 40% of the vote, do you think you get 40% of your agenda enacted? No. Not if the other 60% wants to do something completely different. They can safely ignore you while they vote for what they want. There have to be safeguards built into the system, such as requiring supermajorities on some votes or building a system that requires "equality" in more than one way of looking at it, to counteract this.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[eglamkowski]

Er, brain fart.

Never mind that part of the comment!

Move along here, nothing to see!

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[ChristTrekker]

Following my own post, I know, but I wanted to be clear.

The only change I'd make in the EC is convincing more states to divvy votes by popular vote.

I think the districted approach is good because it follows the idea that Representatives are for districts. The statewide votes could be used to lean this result toward popular proportionality, since those are the "Senate" votes that are for the entire state.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually, I'd say we've grown into the name- the federal republic has gained control over everything, just like the anti-federalists warned.

The more I read about Abraham Lincoln- the more I see even his anti-slavery movement as a fascist cheap-labor movement in reality. It's been pointed out before, by better men than I am, that the modern minimum wage actually allows the upper class to be even less responsible for the welfare of the working class than slavery was. At least a slave owner had to provide food, clothing, and shelter- and if he wanted to protect his investment, medical care as well.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[ElForesto]

If you don't like how the electors are assigned, I would recommend going to your state legislature. They are responsible for how those votes are assigned. I personally like the Maine system whereby all but two of the votes are assigned to the winners of each of the Congressional districts with the overall winner of the state picking up the last two.

The electoral college does exactly what it was meant to do: it keeps larger states from steamrolling smaller states. That was the same idea behind the US Senate. I've found a lot of those protections built-in to the Constitution, and I would be loathe to get rid of them.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Against the minority trying to rule everybody else? You bet! I'm personally fine with school prayer- even if the teacher is a Satanist- because it at least teaches tolerance of other points of view. I'm fine with being against gay marriage from a cultural evolutionary standpoint- that way leads to a dead end that does not help the species survive. In both of these, the majority is much more wise than our current leadership.

Mob rule is just another FUD like the Tyranny of the Majority. In reality, there is no true majority anywhere in the United States. It would end up being a Coallition of the Plurality at best.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[RealProgrammer]

Without the EC, you don't get 100% of any one state. You only get the votes you get. There are lots and lots more votes to be had on the coasts, so that's where the candidates would stay (unless, e.g., there were some event of national interest taking place inland).

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Really? and what exactly can the president do to which congress can not say no?

Apparently fight a war- since the Iraq war was supposed to happen only under certain circumstances that were not fullfilled.

Some would say that in fact there was no true authorization for War in Iraq since the President failed to:
1. Go back to the UN and get consensus before we acted.
2. Actually verify the rumors of an Iraqi Nuclear or Biological Warfare Program.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

Ah, by replacing it with the tyranny of the minority?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

I'm personally fine with school prayer- even if the teacher is a Satanist- because it at least teaches tolerance of other points of view

Yes at the point of a gun, gret tolerance

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes at the point of a gun, gret tolerance

Not as long as public opinion *also* runs 75% against guns in schools- these things do even themselves out somewhat. Heck- most founder-worshipers are also worshipers of the Free Market God- and that's mob rule also. Why not let the all-knowing *market* decide? How can you support the market telling us what to manufacture, but not who is elected?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

Apparently fight a war- since the Iraq war was supposed to happen only under certain circumstances that were not fullfilled.

Really? wow can you point the the part of the authority they gave him in which they said you must meet these conditions? Can you point to how he did not meet those conditions.

Congress (the peoples represenatives) really messed up, I would never give a blanket 'authorization' you either say yes were going to war or no were not. This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it.

Some would say that in fact there was no true authorization for War in Iraq since the President failed to:
1. Go back to the UN and get consensus before we acted.
2. Actually verify the rumors of an Iraqi Nuclear or Biological Warfare Program.

I have seen many senators and congressmen say this is what they meant but I have never seen it in writing *within* the actual autorization.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

How can you support the market telling us what to manufacture, but not who is elected?

The market does, even in the "free market" there are rules (you cant legally price gouge). And in the "market" of us politics there are also rules, one of which is that a state gets a number of EV's and that number is constituionally fixed to its size.

Not as long as public opinion *also* runs 75% against guns in schools

Just so you know the point of a gun was refering to the Government forcing prayer in the schools *of any religion*. The governmnets power is in the end excersized by the forceful arrest and detainment of those who do not obey the law. If no sending your kid to school is considered a crime, and you cant afford to select your school and the local public school has mostly baptist teaching you are forcing (in the literal sense of the word) a religion on sombody elses kid.

That is *NOT* the job of the government and no mob has the right to make it the job of the government. This nation was founded on the belief that we have inalienable rights, that are not protected by the government, they are protected *from* the government.

Heck- most founder-worshipers are also worshipers of the Free Market God- and that's mob rule also.

Not in the way you are implying, I believe in the free market but I dont think you should be ablle to sell led tainted milk..

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[barawn]

Funny thing is that the Electoral College system creates tyranny of the majority- within each state.

Depends on how the state wants to distribute its votes. The Constitution leaves that open to the states to decide.

It's less worrying to have state's decisions be driven by the majority than it is to have the country's decisions be driven by the majority. States are at least geographically close. One can't expect the worries of the population of Maine to correspond with the worries of the population of Hawaii, but it's reasonable to expect the concerns of the population of San Francisco to correspond to the concerns of the population of Los Angeles.


Let's use Texas as an example (although something similar happens in most states). There are a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats. When they vote for President, however, ALL the electoral votes go to Bush, instead of the Democrats sending their 30% to Kerry.

This is not a fault of the Electoral College. It is a fault of Texas, which decided that all of its electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Other states do it differently. I won't argue if you try to say that states should do a better job at breaking up electoral votes, possibly by district. But that just redefines what "community" is, that's all.

If Iowa was really important, then the voters in California would see that (especially when they start paying those farmers for food).

In a perfect world, the sun would shine every day and I could pluck money from the money tree. And in that world, what you say would be true, and no one would have to worry about the tyranny of the majority, because the tyranny of the majority really would be the will of the people.

We don't live in a perfect world, and the tyranny of the majority is real.

PS. The use of the word "expense" in your post was completely nonsensical. In that sentence, "at the expense" should've been "in favor".

And you mean "complete nonsense", not "completely nonsensical", which is poor grammar. :) But yah, it was a typo.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[barawn]

"Power in proportion to your population" is somewhat different from "completely ignore"

If everyone in California thought independently, I'd agree with you.

However, the simple fact that distinct mindsets exist in certain areas (why does Bush always win certain states? because the population in that area has concerns/beliefs that mirror his. The area drives the mindset) indicates that this isn't true.

followed by a national amendment to impose one allocation regime on all states

What if one community doesn't want to have that kind of voting? What if people want to live in California because California is a "winner take all" kind of state?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

So, does that mean we should get rid of the Senate and just have the House of Representatives?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Really? wow can you point the the part of the authority they gave him in which they said you must meet these conditions? Can you point to how he did not meet those conditions.

Yes, but why should I? It's all on Kerry's website- in his rather detailed response to why he voted FOR authority.

Congress (the peoples represenatives) really messed up, I would never give a blanket 'authorization' you either say yes were going to war or no were not. This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it.

Congress gave a true blanket authorization for Afghanistan- but not one for Iraq. Some say that the one for Afghanistan was for any country that harbored terrorists (and it was) the problem is that Iraq NEVER HARBORED TERRORISTS. Saddam prefered to be far more open.

I have seen many senators and congressmen say this is what they meant but I have never seen it in writing *within* the actual autorization.

Some would say that the *resolution* to give the president this authority itself is even unconstitutional: http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/declaration_of_war. html, and that to fullfill the resolution, he had to go BACK to Congress and present his evidence, which never happened. Right-wing bloggers like to quote only the first paragraph of the resolution, thus cutting out the conditions, but one can't escape the fact that for the fifth time in the last century, Article 1 of the constitution was overlooked.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The market does, even in the "free market" there are rules (you cant legally price gouge). And in the "market" of us politics there are also rules, one of which is that a state gets a number of EV's and that number is constituionally fixed to its size.

Actually, in a truly free market, you CAN price gouge- but it's likely that your competition will take the opportunity to steal some of your market share. One cannot be truly for a free market, laisez faire, and then turn around and be for the regulation of politics.

Just so you know the point of a gun was refering to the Government forcing prayer in the schools *of any religion*. The governmnets power is in the end excersized by the forceful arrest and detainment of those who do not obey the law. If no sending your kid to school is considered a crime, and you cant afford to select your school and the local public school has mostly baptist teaching you are forcing (in the literal sense of the word) a religion on sombody elses kid.

Ah, but you see- the current prayer in schools people aren't against the first Amendment- they just want their own kids, and the teachers who take care of them, to freely be able to pray as their own religion demands. And request that the government follow it's own rules- in that Congress shall make no law preventing the free exercise of religion.

That is *NOT* the job of the government and no mob has the right to make it the job of the government. This nation was founded on the belief that we have inalienable rights, that are not protected by the government, they are protected *from* the government.

Too bad a small minority is forcing atheism on the schools then- by your own argument the current situation of *no* prayer in schools is forcing a religious belief on children.

Not in the way you are implying, I believe in the free market but I dont think you should be ablle to sell led tainted milk..

Then you don't truly believe in the free market ideal- which states that no law is necessary to prevent the selling of lead tainted milk- any such provider will go out of business rather quickly from a lack of customers, losing market share to those who sell a better quality of milk.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[barawn]

That's a minor form of taxation without representation.

Montana doesn't provide a fraction of a President. They vote for one.

They don't have any control over how those taxes are spent. They have an equal say in who decides how the government's laws are executed, but that's because the state bears similar risk with California. They have a complicated say in how those taxes are spent (via Congress).

Keep in mind that each state is a semiautonomous entity with its own laws, police, and bureaucracy. If you think about it in terms of costs, while Ohio has a population of 10 million, and New York has a population of 20 million, New York's operating costs are likely not twice that of Ohio, because the bureaucracy itself has an initial overhead cost, and then some scaling cost with population.

Of course, that's exactly what the Electoral College works as - an initial "overhead vote" of 2 people, and then a scaling cost with population (1 vote per so many people, with a minimum of 1 vote).

The only way to make the Electoral College consistent with the way the rest of the US works would be to abolish the existence of states entirely, which is counter to what the US was founded upon.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

Yes, but why should I? It's all on Kerry's website- in his rather detailed response to why he voted FOR authority.

No Kerry has said, "what I thought" not "what signed".

Some would say that the *resolution* to give the president this authority itself is even unconstitutional

And I would be one of those people, the act congress took was unconstitutional. They never specifically requested evidance, or international support (no in the measure itself).

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

Actually, in a truly free market, you CAN price gouge- but it's likely that your competition will take the opportunity to steal some of your market share. One cannot be truly for a free market, laisez faire, and then turn around and be for the regulation of politics.

Agreed I am for slight regulation in both areas.

Ah, but you see- the current prayer in schools people aren't against the first Amendment- they just want their own kids, and the teachers who take care of them, to freely be able to pray as their own religion demands. And request that the government follow it's own rules- in that Congress shall make no law preventing the free exercise of religion.

Untrue, many people want the teachers to say a prayer at the begining of the school day. Many do just wnt the kids to have the right if they choose (not led or prompted by a teacher) to pray and I agree with them

Too bad a small minority is forcing atheism on the schools then- by your own argument the current situation of *no* prayer in schools is forcing a religious belief on children.

Kids are free to close their eyes and pray whenever they want. atheism is not forced on anyone in the schools.

Then you don't truly believe in the free market ideal- which states that no law is necessary to prevent the selling of lead tainted milk- any such provider will go out of business rather quickly from a lack of customers, losing market share to those who sell a better quality of milk.

I think your are confusing the free market with laisez faire, while there are many similarities they are not one in the same thing. I have always maintained a little regulation goes a long way.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And I would be one of those people, the act congress took was unconstitutional. They never specifically requested evidance, or international support (no in the measure itself).

But more damning against Bush- they never actually declared war against the Ba'athists. Thus the entire war becomes unconstitutional.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[aurum42]

I don't know what sort of substance you're smoking, but that has to be the most ignorant comment I've come across, in a forum packed with 'em. Do you know anything at all about slavery, and the conditions under which slaves were forced to work under? Have you heard of the underground railroad, whereby slaves escaped to the North? Of forced feeding of slaves who tried to starve themselves to death in order to escape the daily horror of existence (habitual rape, beatings, mutilation as a deterrent)? I suggest you stop pontificating from your armchair, and rectify your ignorance. Human dignity calls for more than mere survival.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Agreed I am for slight regulation in both areas.

And thus- your arguments against mob rule are born out of Tyranny of the Minority- a small body protecting itself from direct democracy through regulation.

Untrue, many people want the teachers to say a prayer at the begining of the school day.

And what would be so bad about a teacher asking a divine power for the ability to teach?

Kids are free to close their eyes and pray whenever they want. atheism is not forced on anyone in the schools.

Publically, athiesm is- a kid praying aloud will get suspended at the least and sued at the worst.

I think your are confusing the free market with laisez faire, while there are many similarities they are not one in the same thing. I have always maintained a little regulation goes a long way.

They are one and the same- what you're for is a regulated market and likewise, in politics, Tyranny of the Minority.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Do you know anything at all about slavery, and the conditions under which slaves were forced to work under?

Yes, I do- I also know about Wal*Mart and the conditions they force their workers to work under as well.

Have you heard of the underground railroad, whereby slaves escaped to the North?

Yes- too bad when they got here their descendants ended up with $2.13/hr minimum wage, with tips.

Of forced feeding of slaves who tried to starve themselves to death in order to escape the daily horror of existence (habitual rape, beatings, mutilation as a deterrent)?

And this is different from locking minimum wage employees in a non-OSHA approved warehouse so that they can't get medical attention when crates fall on them exactly how?

Human dignity calls for more than mere survival.

And yet- when survival is denied, dignity is impossible as well. To a large extent, that's where the working poor in America are today- the new slave class, just under a different name because they get paid less than it costs to keep a slave.

I suggest that before you criticize, next time try to figure out what the other person is actually trying to say.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

No they gave him authority, and yes it it just *as* dammning. It was also damn stupid of him not to request a specific document for Iraq.

Im sorry I think you have me confused with a Bush supporter...

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

And thus- your arguments against mob rule are born out of Tyranny of the Minority

No they are born out of the fact I have rights, not rights given to me by the government but rights that the government can *not* take away. In Germany during ww2 the majority commited aweful offences against a minority of people. The will of the majority must *never* interfere with our inalienable rights. The will of the majority should however be given voice when it does not do so.

And what would be so bad about a teacher asking a divine power for the ability to teach?

Quietly before kids get to the classroom *nothing* but when the kids are in the classroom she is an agent of the state.

Publically, athiesm is- a kid praying aloud will get suspended at the least and sued at the worst.

Evidance?

They are one and the same- what you're for is a regulated market and likewise, in politics, Tyranny of the Minority.

Than the true free market is impossible, and thus so is the true democratic system. So why all the crying about the EC?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

Actually, I'd say we've grown into the name- the federal republic has gained control over everything, just like the anti-federalists warned.

But bear in mind the "anti-federalits" were not against the ferderal republic, they were against giving it undue power.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Im sorry I think you have me confused with a Bush supporter...

I am too- but it doesn't change the fact:

No they gave him authority, and yes it it just *as* dammning. It was also damn stupid of him not to request a specific document for Iraq.

BTW, thank you for forcing me to research this- I never knew *why* the Constitutional Party had a problem with this. It turns out that this is an authority that Congress can't delegate- to have troops involved in war for more than a specific amount of time, Congress MUST reconvine and declare war officially- and they haven't. They didn't for Korea, they didn't for Vietnam, they didn't for any of Reagan's wars (though he was carefull to keep them under the limit), Gulf War I, Afghanistan, or Gulf War II. NONE of them have been constitutionally approved wars. A resolution isn't good enough. Damn- and I spent a lot of time arguing the other way just a few days ago.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No they are born out of the fact I have rights, not rights given to me by the government but rights that the government can *not* take away. In Germany during ww2 the majority commited aweful offences against a minority of people. The will of the majority must *never* interfere with our inalienable rights. The will of the majority should however be given voice when it does not do so.

I'd cry Godwin's Law, but I think I brought it on myself. I'll just point out that Nazis never were a numerical majority in Germany- people voted for them out of fear.

Quietly before kids get to the classroom *nothing* but when the kids are in the classroom she is an agent of the state.

Funny, I know of no state that requires teachers take an oath before getting a license to practice. Plus, the First Ammendment says nothing about *agents of the state*- only *Congress*.

Evidance?

Most recent one I heard about was a couple of years back- a football team in a middle school in some southern state which had a tradition of the captain of the football team (not the coach, but one of the kids) praying before every game over the loudspeaker. Until the school got sued by the ACLU, of course.

More recent actions in my home town (Portland, OR metro area) have included Boy Scouts wearing their uniforms to school (because the Boy Scout Oath makes a reference to God), the pledge of allegiance, a kid who blasphemied (come on- all kids swear and curse at some point, it's not a formal prayer!), and of course, the US Army recruiters.

Alll related to this issue of restricting speech to protect people who apparently not able to tolerate the free speech of others.

Than the true free market is impossible, and thus so is the true democratic system.

Neither are impossible now- they were in the past but not now. You see, the main problem in the past was never tyranny of a minority or a majority- it was the speed with which decisions could be made.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

It turns out that this is an authority that Congress can't delegate- to have troops involved in war for more than a specific amount of time, Congress MUST reconvine and declare war officially- and they haven't.

Actually we are also not supposed to have a standing army (the constitution does allow for a Navy. Were we in the first gulf war long enough for it to be illeal?

The point is its congress asleep at the wheel, and thats really dangerous! I would rather have the pres not doing his job than not have congress not doing theirs (because they represent the people not the states).

I like the Republic as it is writtein in the Constitution I plan to vote for the constitution party this time around and am even volunteering for them. So many of the problems we have with the power of government is peoples desire for a nanny state, give me SS, Edu$, Free Drugs, ....

The kind of things people demand from the fed creates a concentration of money which can not help but suck the power from the states. I could never understand why my state taxes are so much lower than the fed. I go to school in the state, the police and fire are from the state, 95% of the roads I drive on are state roads, .... (NOTE I DO NOT WANT MY STATE TAXES HIGHER so get away you wallet snatching libs)

The fed takes money and redistributes it so that things can be 'fair'..

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

Most recent one I heard about was a couple of years back- a football team in a middle school in some southern state which had a tradition of the captain of the football team (not the coach, but one of the kids) praying before every game over the loudspeaker. Until the school got sued by the ACLU, of course.

Thats somewhat different than a kid just praying aloud to himself. The school and the teachers (yes they are certified by their respective states, thats a license) were putting religious prayer over a loud speaker. Heck it was not even just the kids in the locker room, or a group of kids who decided it was a good Idea. It was a team event, this was pushing it IMHO.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[neurojab]

> (If you counted the Great Lakes as coastline, it'd be even more lopsided)

Absolutely. Anybody who's been to Duluth in mid-winter knows why the beachfront property there is so expensive.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[milkman_matt]

I'm not sure whether or not this is the right post to reply to, but I think I got the thread right ;)

I think mob rule is just fine, so long as it doesn't conflict with the constitutional rights of others.

As far as the forcing prayer in schools, it should be a non-issue, they shouldn't even be allowed to vote on it due to that line about seperation of church and state. Schools are funded by taxes collected by the govt, so if someone says "I vote we put prayer in schools" the govt should step in and say, "too bad, you can't have THAT even if you DO want it, but if you want to send your kid to a privately funded school that accepts religion, feel free!"

As for the gay rights thing, they should have the same rights as anybody else due to anti-descrimination. Whether that would include marraige or not, I'm not sure...

Not to stray too far off topic -- Is marraige a 'binding contract between two people under the eyes of the govt'? or is it 'a joining of two people under god'? I think we need to solve that one before we can decide whether or not gay marraige should be acceptable. I'm all for it, I don't think we should descriminate about anyone.. but the religious zealots who see marraige as a 'joining of two people under god'? are going to disagree...

-matt

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[ChristTrekker]

That's what I was going to say. We've grown into the name national republic - federalism still means composed of several parts.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But bear in mind the "anti-federalits" were not against the ferderal republic, they were against giving it undue power.

Right- and since the federal government has indeed gained undue power- they were RIGHT.

The Confederated Colonies before that had more freedom, as far as the people were concerned. But that was bad for the rich landowners- the small minority that wished to opress the majority.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[ChristTrekker]

That's essentially what "political correctness" gives us. Gotta be careful not to "offend" anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[OreoCookie]

If that's where fairness leads, then so be it. If equal voting power and equal ability to participate in the free market aren't enough to give those towns viability, then let them die.

Wow! That's just the most short sighted statement I have ever heard. Whose gonna make your Corn Flakes Bunkie? Not a lot of corn fields in LA. Fortunately the founding fathers forsaw that there would be people with your attitude and they made it very difficult to change the constitution.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[milkman_matt]

I agree with the parent here...

"Kids are free to close their eyes and pray whenever they want"

And I believe that Publically they should be able to as well. They should be able to pray to themselves, pray aloud, pray into a bullhorn if they want. But nobody should be forced to pray by a 'teacher saying a prayer at the begining fo the school day' A teacher asking a divine power for the ability to teach is fine, but if he/she is leading the class in a prayer such as they did for us using the pledge of alegience before every school day -- then I am TOTALLY against that. What if you're a different religion? What if you're agnostic, athiest, buddhist, islamic? You should NOT be forced to pray to a god that you do not believe in. That's not right.

-matt

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually we are also not supposed to have a standing army (the constitution does allow for a Navy. Were we in the first gulf war long enough for it to be illeal?

I'm not sure- but it did take more than 72 hours, which seemed to be Reagan's limit before recalling the troops.

The kind of things people demand from the fed creates a concentration of money which can not help but suck the power from the states. I could never understand why my state taxes are so much lower than the fed. I go to school in the state, the police and fire are from the state, 95% of the roads I drive on are state roads, .... (NOTE I DO NOT WANT MY STATE TAXES HIGHER so get away you wallet snatching libs)

You're obviously not in Oregon then- our state taxes are higher than the fed when you take all of them into account (actually, most states are likewise- hidden gas sales taxes pay for the roads, hidden sin taxes to pay for police and fire and medical, etc). I work for State Government- in the Department of Transportation, I know where our funding comes from.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

As far as the forcing prayer in schools, it should be a non-issue, they shouldn't even be allowed to vote on it due to that line about seperation of church and state.

So is the electoral college system.

they should have the same rights as anybody else due to anti-descrimination.

Technically they do any gay man can marry any woman I can marry. This is the problem with mob rule..

Is marraige a 'binding contract between two people under the eyes of the govt'? or is it 'a joining of two people under god'?

Personally I think it should be done away with as a legal institution.. Because marrage is a spiritual bond..

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Is that why the ACLU is so against the pledge of allegiance?

Seriously though- if we're trying to teach the kids tolerance for others in the culture, then shouldn't they have to learn to listen to such things, even if they don't join in?

An example: the Baptist Church down the street recently sponsored a block party. Like most Baptists, they believe in a theological concept called Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). OSAS believers say that if you pray the sinner's prayer, you're saved. So like most events put on by OSAS, they had public prayer- in a public park- across the street from my house. I'm Catholic. I don't believe in OSAS- but I believe in constant conversion, it was just a matter of changing a few words here and there in my mind to an Act of Contrition.

All Gods are really one, when you get into comparative religion, it's just different views of the same God. The athiest material god of science is just another view of the Christian God. It'd be a good thing for children to learn to respect all Gods.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[milkman_matt]

Agreed on all counts.

-matt

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

Keep in mind there are also hidden federal taxes (phone bill, gas, cigerette, ....)

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

True enough- though in my state, the state taxes on similar items outdistance these 2:1. It's part of the complaint that brought us to the mess Oregon is in right now- anti-tax activists, tired of the hidden taxes, reduced Orgon basically down to a one-legged stool for major taxes (no sales tax, minimal state property tax, major state income tax) and ignored the user taxes- thus the user taxes had to go up to make up the difference. Unfunded federal mandates like No Child Left Behind just make the problem worse.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

OSAS believers say that if you pray the sinner's prayer, you're saved.

Namu Amida Butsu.

It'd be a good thing for children to learn to respect all Gods.

Oh yeah!

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

wow can you point the the part of the authority they gave him in which they said you must meet these conditions?

It took me a while, but yes I can- http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf is the PDF of the actual resolution. I reference for you the following section:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.--The President is authorized to use theArmed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessaryand appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States againstthe continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Councilresolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIALDETERMINATION.--In connection with theexercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use forcethe President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafteras may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercisingsuch authority, make available to the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate hisdetermination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomaticor other peaceful means alone either
(A) will not adequatelyprotect the national security of the United States against thecontinuing threat posed by Iraq or
(B) is not likely to leadto enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Councilresolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistentwith the United States and other countries continuing to takethe necessary actions against international terrorist and ter-rorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, orpersons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the ter-rorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WARPOWERSRESOLUTIONREQUIREMENTS.--
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.--Consistent withsection 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congressdeclares that this section is intended to constitute specific statu-tory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of theWar Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.--Nothing inthis joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the WarPowers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days,submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this jointresolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise ofauthority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for effortsthat are expected to be required after such actions are completed,including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq LiberationAct of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)PUBLIC LAW 107-243--OCT. 16, 2002LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.
(b) SINGLECONSOLIDATEDREPORT.--To the extent that thesubmission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides withthe submission of any other report on matters relevant to thisjoint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congresspursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolu-tion (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted asa single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OFCONSTRUCTION.--To the extent that the informationrequired by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of MilitaryForce Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included inthe report required by this section, such report shall be consideredas meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Now some would say that taking the President's word for these reports being completed properly is, at best, naive. And while the reports have come through- they haven't exactly fit Section 3's requirements.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[node 3]

For one, it avoids tyranny of the majority

Sorry, but that's one of the most foolish arguments against Democracy out there. What's the alternative? The tyranny of the minority?

Strictly by the numbers, more people want Kerry than Bush. More people wanted Gore than Bush. But Bush "won" anyway, and he might just win again (sic).

Now, if you're in the minority that prefers Bush, you might think that it's good that the minority has won in this case, but you can't escape the fact that you've just supported swapping out the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the minority. At least with the tyranny of the majority you can say we deserve what we get.

In order to keep a Democratic system from self-destruction, make the dangerous actions harder to accomplish (like changing the Constitution). Two other things important for a Democracy are a healthy media and a strong educational system--both of which are supported by a vast majority of Americans, but which a small minority in America oppose (sucessfully).

Yes, Democracy is vulnerable to tyranny, but the answer is not to just jump right into tyranny!

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Namu Amida Butsu.

Yep- that's the Buddhist form- doesn't change much even in non xtian religions, does it?

Oh yeah!

One should never seek to ridicule the true believer- no mater how ridiculous their beliefs seem to you.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

Really? wow can you point the the part of the authority they gave him in which they said you must meet these conditions? Can you point to how he did not meet those conditions.

Sure. Just read Bush's own speech when he asked Congress for that vote. It's the 4th paragraph from the end:

1. Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.

Did the UN Security Council demand an invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

At least a slave owner had to provide food, clothing, and shelter- and if he wanted to protect his investment, medical care as well.

No he didn't. He could decide to starve or directly kill the slave at any time. Sure, if he's economically rational, he'll want to keep some of them alive- a concern Wal-Mart shares.

Yes- too bad when they got here their descendants ended up with $2.13/hr minimum wage, with tips.

And the ability to quit if you don't like it, and a lot fewer people beating on you with horsewhips.

the new slave class, just under a different name because they get paid less than it costs to keep a slave.

False. If slavery were legal today, the daily cost would be between $0.90 (young female) and $2.50 (adult male).

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

This is not a fault of the Electoral College. It is a fault of Texas, which decided that all of its electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote.

No, it's the EC's fault. Given that the EC exists, and people want their votes to be effective, statewise allocation is inevitable.

Other states do it differently.

Only states too small to have meaningful influence under any voting regime.

And you mean "complete nonsense", not "completely nonsensical",

No. "Nonsensical" was exactly the word I wanted. The grammar of both phrases is fine, but the connotation of the words is somewhat different. "Nonsense" would mean it doesn't fit there at all, while "nonsensical" means it can fit, but it was silly of you to select it. If you'd said "my bannanas keep spinning", that would've been nonsense.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

Does a speech have the force of law? face it congress (and John Kerry) dropped the ball..

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

One cannot be truly for a free market, laisez faire, and then turn around and be for the regulation of politics.

Sure you can. In fact, that's the only way a free market can survive. Any free market will eventually tend to accumulate power towards a minority of the investors (typically people who capitalize on a natural monopoly). Once that happens, the market is no longer free- the monopolist can control it by fiat, just like a king or dictator. Only a force outside the market (whether an armed revolution, or just federal trust-busters) can bring it back towards freedom.

In the same vein, an anarchal government cannot provide personal freedom (for very long).

to freely be able to pray as their own religion demands

I suppose there are some religions which demand that, but none based on the Christian New Testament. It forbids public prayer.

Too bad a small minority is forcing atheism on the schools then- by your own argument the current situation of *no* prayer in schools is forcing a religious belief on children.

Statements like that further underscore that you don't even know what "religious" means. Of course, since you said that one religion is about as good as another, we already knew that.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No he didn't. He could decide to starve or directly kill the slave at any time. Sure, if he's economically rational, he'll want to keep some of them alive- a concern Wal-Mart shares.

Wal*Mart has no up-front investment- most of their jobs are low- or no-skill, and take about 3 minutes worth of training time. Given a federal government that works very hard at keeping the unemployment rate above 4%, it's far simpler to replace minimum wage workers than it was for a southern plantation owner to visit the slave auction.

And the ability to quit if you don't like it, and a lot fewer people beating on you with horsewhips.

That's one of the big improvements of the low-wage movement over slavery from the point of view of the owners- hiring overseers is cheaper and easier as well. Plus, Starvation, Homelessness, and Bankruptcy work far better for workplace retention than a horsewhip ever did.

False. If slavery were legal today, the daily cost would be between $0.90 (young female) and $2.50 (adult male).

Really? Then how come the poor can't survive on, gee, about 8x that ammount, requiring charity instead? I'm sorry- that figure just doesn't fit costs in the United States for basic surival needs (food, clothing, shelter, medical care). Heck- $2.50/day comes to about $912.50 annually; shelter alone in my town is more than that monthly. So no- that figure is incorrect.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[cft_128]

Does a speech have the force of law? face it congress (and John Kerry) dropped the ball.

So you are saying that congress dropped the ball by not stopping Bush from going into Iraq, and that somehow excuses Bush? Is he some little kid that needs constant watching over? (Wait, don't answer that) How is he absolved from responsibility but congress is not?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

When have I excused bush?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

I'd cry Godwin's Law, but I think I brought it on myself. I'll just point out that Nazis never were a numerical majority in Germany- people voted for them out of fear.

Sure, card-carrying Nazis were a minority... but the massacres of Jews and Gypsies was supported by a large majority of the German public.

In fact, there were many anti-Nazi groups that decided to temporarily hold back from critizing Hitler until the Jewish Problem was eliminated.

The line about "Oh, I'm a good man, if I ever voted for the Nazis it was out of fear for my life" was concocted out of reasonable fear of persecution, but that doesn't mean it's true.

nothing about *agents of the state*- only *Congress*.

Normal public schools are agents of the federal Congress.

Most recent one I heard about was a couple of years back- a football team in a middle school in some southern state which had a tradition of the captain of the football team (not the coach, but one of the kids) praying before every game

That anecdote only undermines your position.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[cft_128]

When have I excused bush?

In a post above you had said "This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it.", that really seems like you are saying it is not Bush's war, and he is not to blame, therefor excused. That, combined with your comments on Kerry made me believe you had excused Bush and were blaming congress/Kerry. Sorry if that is a mistake.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[TykeClone]

Keep in mind that each state is a semiautonomous entity with its own laws, police, and bureaucracy. If you think about it in terms of costs, while Ohio has a population of 10 million, and New York has a population of 20 million, New York's operating costs are likely not twice that of Ohio, because the bureaucracy itself has an initial overhead cost, and then some scaling cost with population.

When dealing with government bureaucracies, though, the economies of scale are inversely related to the size of the government and the population of the governed. If one state is twice the size of another state in terms of population, chances are that the state government is at least twice as big.

To put it another way - all government is overhead - you should just try to get by with the least amount possible.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

"This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it."

Yes congress gave the authority for war, stupid on their part, I have also said that bush should have went to congress for a specific declariation of war.

I believe that Kerry is just as bad as bush..

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep hearing this "Smalltown" argument and I'm sorry but I just don't get it. Who cares if Smalltown is underrepresented? I thought the whole point of a popular vote was for all votes to count equaly everywhere in the US.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[aggiefalcon01]

Another way of saying it, simply, is if it was strict popular vote, the candidates would campaign in (and only care about) the 10 or so largest cities (not states, but cities) in the country, and the hell with the rest. Were it not for the current system, they'd likely not give a damn what happens in Wyoming.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

Plus, Starvation, Homelessness, and Bankruptcy work far better for workplace retention than a horsewhip ever did.

Statements like that don't even deserve refutation.

basic surival needs (food, clothing, shelter, medical care)

Food is all they get. Clothing is an annual $20 expense. Medical care- that's a joke, right? You assign one slave to help the others. Anyone with a major condition that needs real treatment (asthma, etc)- let him die. They'll probably keep their teeth for a while, because one meal/day doesn't allow much bacteria to build up.

Heck- $2.50/day comes to about $912.50 annually; shelter alone in my town is more than that monthly

What "town" do you live in? The most expensive town in the USA is White Plains, where $700/month will rent you a 15x10 walk-in closet. I could house 4 slaves in that space, and I'm not especially brutal.

So no- that figure is incorrect.

You're assuming that the slave somehow gets shelter comprable to what free Americans accept. Slaves don't get that choice- you can put them in places worse than homeless shelters, worse than max-security prisons. You could even chain them to a pipe on the side of the factory floor, and add responsibility to cleaning up as one more of their forced duties.

The most blatant flaw of your argument is that you claim that slavery is economically untenable- that even an evil, greedy industrialist wouldn't use slaves, because free workers would be cheaper. But the fact that slavery still exists today contradicts you- or why do you think USA manufacturers are so happy to outsource?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[True Grit]

wow can you point the the part of the authority they gave him in which they said you must meet these conditions?

If you're being honest look up what the final UN resolution actually said, in its last paragraph. It was clear from that the intent of all those countries who voted for it (except the US and maybe UK) was for the question of war to come back to the UNSC for a final up-or-down vote. Obviously, Bush never bothered to bring it back to the UN. His PR folk just started yelling "this gives us authoriztion!", and they kept on yelling that until most everyone in the US started to believe it. The Big Lie.

I would never give a blanket 'authorization' you either say yes were going to war or no were not. This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it.

Except of course that the Congress was controlled by the Reps, so they ensured no amendments to the war authorization bill were possible, and since the original bill was written by the White House.......

have never seen it in writing *within* the actual autorization.

Naturally, since the authorization was written by the White House, and no changes to it were allowed.

There are a number of disturbing things going on in the Congress now, especially the House, that make me wonder if we really have reached the point of Tyranny of the Majority. After controlling Congress for 20 of 28 years, the Reps have made changes to operational rules and such that have effectivelly rendered the minority in the House absolutely powerless. Yes, Dems have done some similar things when they were in power, but not to the extreme that the Reps have done in the House, partly because the Reps have managed lock-step discipline within their ranks (by threatening to defund any of their own people that don't vote the party line on all major bills) in a way the Dems have never accomplished before.

And once the Reps manage to take away the filibuster from the Dems in the Senate (I heard they were working on that through some procedural scheme) then there will be no breaks on the majority in the Senate either. And considering the enforced discipline the Reps use, every single Rep in Congress simply becomes an extension of a Republican POTUS's will on major issues. Bush isn't just the President anymore, he's also the House and Senate Majority Leaders. That is scary (this kind of lock-step discipline within a party controlled by just one person is part of why a lot of early Americans including Washington were suspicious of political parties).

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

If you're being honest look up what the final UN resolution actually said, in its last paragraph. It was clear from that the intent of all those countries who voted for it

YN resolutions are *not* law.

His PR folk just started yelling "this gives us authoriztion!"

No, his authorization was from the US senate..

Except of course that the Congress was controlled by the Reps

And democrats could have filibustered the measure, have the majority means squat unless its a super majority. Look at how many of bushes federal apeals court judges have been passed.

that make me wonder if we really have reached the point of Tyranny of the Majority

There are enough Dems to stop any measure by filibuster.

After controlling Congress for 20 of 28 years, the Reps have made changes to operational rules and such that have effectivelly rendered the minority in the House absolutely powerless.

Not at all but the democrats have fialed to use their power, that does not make the minority useless.

Bush isn't just the President anymore, he's also the House and Senate Majority Leaders.

No more than Clinton was in 1993/1994

That is scary (this kind of lock-step discipline within a party controlled by just one person is part of why a lot of early Americans including Washington were suspicious of political parties).

Agreed, the lack of action by the democrats (nearly half of them voted to authorize the war in Iraq), the lack of princaple by congressional Republicans, and the abuse of power by the last two presidents is down right scary.

What is even scarier is how a Conservative/ Liberal/ can honestly believe they are better off with either party..

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Normal public schools are agents of the federal Congress.

Now that's the most rediculous statement I've ever heard. Public schools in Oregon are paid for by local property taxes. School Boards do the hiring. Federal Congress never enters into the decision of who to hire and who to fire.

That anecdote only undermines your position.

Only because you're predesposed to removing the free speech rights of other people just so you don't have to be tollerant of their beliefs.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[True Grit]

face it congress (and John Kerry) dropped the ball..

Congress is controlled by Bush's party, Kerry isn't part of that party, so you can't blame Kerry individually (well you can, but anyone who knows how Congress is being run now, knows its not true).

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[N3WBI3]

Congress is controlled by Bush's party, Kerry isn't part of that party, so you can't blame Kerry individually (well you can, but anyone who knows how Congress is being run now, knows its not true).

Really Kerry had no problem voting against the 87 Billion supplimental spending, why did he not vote againt the authorization?

And with this wonderful controll how come bush cant get a conservative judge through the the federal appeals court? having a one vote majority in the senate is not a free pass..

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[True Grit]

Of forced feeding of slaves who tried to starve themselves to death in order to escape the daily horror of existence (habitual rape, beatings, mutilation as a deterrent)?

And this is different from locking minimum wage employees in a non-OSHA approved warehouse so that they can't get medical attention when crates fall on them exactly how?

Oh, I don't know, how about the former being legal and common practice then and the later being illegal now? I mean just the reference of a "non-OSHA approved" building tells you something is much better today than 2 centuries ago.

To some degree I tend to agree with you (minimum wage employees being "cheaper" than slave labor so in economic terms the poor are even more exploited now), but please don't try to additionally make the argument that people today are suffering the same kind of physical abuse at the same frequency that slaves suffered in the 19th century, because it simply isn't true, and ends up detracting from the rest of your argument.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What "town" do you live in? The most expensive town in the USA is White Plains, where $700/month will rent you a 15x10 walk-in closet. I could house 4 slaves in that space, and I'm not especially brutal.

Portland, OR, a similar closet will cost you $600/month here.

Let's crunch those numbers, shall we? $912.50x4=$3650 for your budget for four slaves. $700x12 means you'll spend $8400 in RENT alone. So where I'm wrong in saying it isn't one month's rent- it ain't four slaves worth on your budget either. So let's do a real budget. $8400/year for rent. Say $25/month for food per slave, that's an additional $1200/year for food for our four slaves. I'll grant you that you can "get by" with $80 worth of clothing, IF the weather isn't too extreme- in most of the US though you'd have to double that for summer and winter weight uniforms, to $160/year. Thus food, clothing, and shelter ALONE are worth $9760/year (I begin to see why the poverty line is double that- at $18,000 per year for a family of four). Break it back down- $2440/year for a slave, or $6.67/day for food, clothing, and shelter alone. But that's for a REALLY stupid slave holder- one who doesn't want to see his "Herd" of slaves increase with children, one who's willing to let a $1000 investment (the price of a slave today in Sudan) go down the drain due to illness. So we add in another $1200/year for a cheap HMO. We're now back up to $3640/year. Now I don't want to pay $11,500/year to hire a free overseer to make this slave work- so other benefits are needed. Trasnportation costs an additional $20/month at today's energy prices if you use public transit. That's $240/year- we're now up to $3880/year in the US. Now taxes on all this value added stuff- you can bet the state's going to want a part of the profits from legalizing slavery, very likely an additional 50%, we're now up to $5820. Now add a family of four- what you're going to need just to keep your initial capital investment of $2000 in a male and a female slave, because eventually they're going to die and need replacing. That quadruples our cost, to $23280/year, or $63.79/day, or $3.98/hr/slave. Now remember, any service person in the United States who *may* recieve tips is only required, at minimum wage, to be paid $2.13/hr. Suddenly- slaves as servants (or even McDonald's hamburger flippers) no longer make economic sense.

But the fact that slavery still exists today contradicts you- or why do you think USA manufacturers are so happy to outsource?

Because the cost of living is so much cheaper elsewhere- but this discussion was originally talking about Lincoln freeing the slaves in the south. In the United States, so other countries are outside of the discussion.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Oh, I don't know, how about the former being legal and common practice then and the later being illegal now? I mean just the reference of a "non-OSHA approved" building tells you something is much better today than 2 centuries ago.

When the punishment is only a fine, it's not illegal, it's a valid business decision based on costs and benefits. But you're right to a certain extent- at least there's a government oversight committee telling us which businesses should be charged more to do business.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[True Grit]

why does Bush always win certain states? because the population in that area has concerns/beliefs that mirror his.

Typically, only 51% to 60% of the population in a given area shares his beliefs. So, the other 40% to 49% simply don't exist? Under Winner-Takes-All, they certainly aren't represented at all.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[True Grit]

A system like the Electoral College tries to remove the statistical irrelevence of smaller populations.

NO. It merely *reverses* the unfairness, making smaller populated areas have more power than the larger populated areas. It isn't correcting a wrong, merely replacing one wrong with another.

The question now is, given the state of our country today versus in the 18th century, which wrong hurts us more?

Given that we are now a mainly urbanized nation, EC for the post of President of the entire nation just doesn't make sense any more.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing is that the Electoral College system creates tyranny of the majority- within each state. Let's use Texas as an example (although something similar happens in most states). There are a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats. When they vote for President, however, ALL the electoral votes go to Bush, instead of the Democrats sending their 30% to Kerry.

This is a problem to be dealt with by the States, not by the Federal government. States are free to determine how electors are chosen. Maine and Nebraska have solved this problem, Colorado looks like it is next.

Assigning electors per congressional district (and giving the majority winner among congressional districts the 2 senatorial votes) is an excellent way to reduce the power of the two leading parties, more accurately reflect the will of the people, and reduce the effects of a recount (only 1 or 3* of Florida's electors will be up in the air if only 1 congressional district has voting problems).

*if victory in the contested district decides who wins the majority of the congressional districts in that state then there is a potential of earning 3 votes for that district.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[m3talsling3r]

>>Is marraige a 'binding contract between two people under the eyes of the govt'? or is it 'a joining of two people under god'?

>Personally I think it should be done away with as a legal institution.. Because marrage is a spiritual bond..

Take this further... Marriage is a contractual bond. In many countries and throughout history that is how it was. It is not a legal state provided by the government (or it shouldn't be rather), it is a legal state provided between individuals.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[barawn]

Typically, only 51% to 60% of the population in a given area shares his beliefs. So, the other 40% to 49% simply don't exist? Under Winner-Takes-All, they certainly aren't represented at all.

If those 40-49% really felt strongly about it, they could push their state government to change it. State governments tend to favor minorities (as does the federal government).

As I said, it's certainly possible that those states would prefer to have the Winner Takes All system - because it gives their state a larger voice.

In other words, the 40-49% are happy because they knew if they got another 2-10% of the vote, they'd get all of the electoral votes, not just some.

As Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) discovered, there is no way to make voting fair (all the other voting methods - instant runoff, and the various Condorcet schemes - have weaknesses as well). The best way is to make sure that everyone knows the rules.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

Portland, OR, a similar closet will cost you $600/month here.

No. You must be using a hyperbolic definition of closet, when I mean an actual 12x10 room. And go aways from the city, accept substandard construction in the corner of another property, and it comes down to $6/month. Considering that the slaves can live right in their workplace, it drops to zero. (The employer needed to rent a workplace anyhow)

Now I don't want to pay $11,500/year to hire a free overseer to make this slave work

No. An overseer is the most cost-effective way. You'd really need 2 fulltime overseers, and to make that cost-effective, you'd need 30+ slaves. But that's no problem (even though the overseers should get more than $12k/yr).

Trasnportation costs an additional $20/month at today's energy prices if you use public transit.

Hahaha! Transportation for slaves? Ha ha ha. Good one. Part of "slavery" is "no freedom", which means you can't go anywhere.

That quadruples our cost, to $23280/year, or $63.79/day, or $3.98/hr/slave.

You assumed slaves work 16 hour days 7 days per week. It'd be more efficient to go 12/6, to preserve health.

However, all this math of yours avoids looking at undeniable ground level facts. Do you deny that USA employers are occasionally punished for operating "sweatshops"? Slavery would be like a legalized sweatshop, only moreso.

Now remember, any service person in the United States who *may* recieve tips is only required, at minimum wage, to be paid $2.13/hr.

Slaves wouldn't be appropriate for tippable jobs. You want them on farms and factories, not anyplace where they can interact with customers. The only slaves that'd work in foodservice would be personal maids, who don't get tips. (And that'd be a job for female slaves only, starting at age 12)

So, the wage they're competing against is actually $6/hr. And by your own computation, slaves are cheaper than that. (I disagree with the $3.98 figure- I would've said rent & food is less expensive, but assumed fewer total hours worked)

Because the cost of living is so much cheaper elsewhere

Because the standard of living is so much higher in the USA. Slaves would not get the lifestyle that free people demand.

Look, do you know that close to 1 million illegal immigrants work in the USA, for less than minimum wage?

They do this willingly, and find that it's not only enough to survive, but even to wire some cash home to Mama. If your argument was correct, then there would be no illegal imigrant labourers in the USA.

Many USA employers like to pick illegal workers when possible, because they know those people are unwilling to complain to the police about bad treatment (either unsafe conditions, or violations of minimum wage or workweek laws, or whatever). If slavery was legal, slaves would be even more exploitable than those guys.

• Free, legal workers: $6/hour legal minimum.
• Unauthorized immigrant laborors: $2.00/hour accepted minimum (often more, sometimes less). Workers unlikely to report unsafe / unfair conditions, and survive on a squalid standard of living. Low levels of skill and trust makes them unsuitable for many jobs.
• Slaves: No wage required, but needs must be provided. Even if slaves report unsafe/unsanitary/violent conditions, police have no obligation to respond. Even less usable for complex or self-directed tasks, but there's still a lot they can be put to.

There is an economic argument that slaves are unprofitable or obselete, although it's not based on competition with free workers- but with industrial automation.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

Public schools in Oregon are paid for by local property taxes.

I don't know Oregon, but are you saying they really don't accept ANY federal funding? And that to secure that funding, they don't attempt to match federally-imposed standards of operation?

I think that if Oregon was defying NCLB, I'd have heard about it.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No. You must be using a hyperbolic definition of closet, when I mean an actual 12x10 room. And go aways from the city, accept substandard construction in the corner of another property, and it comes down to $6/month. Considering that the slaves can live right in their workplace, it drops to zero. (The employer needed to rent a workplace anyhow)

In Oregon, land use zoning prevents such uses- the only way to do that would be with illegal aliens, not slaves.

No. An overseer is the most cost-effective way. You'd really need 2 fulltime overseers, and to make that cost-effective, you'd need 30+ slaves. But that's no problem (even though the overseers should get more than $12k/yr).

Why would we pay overseers any more than minimum wage, if the whole point is to lower our labor costs? They'd be the lowest paid people on the totem pole, wouldn't they?

Hahaha! Transportation for slaves? Ha ha ha. Good one. Part of "slavery" is "no freedom", which means you can't go anywhere.

Depends on what they're doing- you've got to get the slaves to the work somehow- even if that means hauling them to the fields.

You assumed slaves work 16 hour days 7 days per week. It'd be more efficient to go 12/6, to preserve health.

I thought your argument was that slave owners didn't care about the health of the slaves...but fine, 72 hour workweek, that comes to $6.22/hr- MORE expensive than factory minimum wage. Let's also take out the transportation cost, and it's still more than $5.35/hr.



However, all this math of yours avoids looking at undeniable ground level facts. Do you deny that USA employers are occasionally punished for operating "sweatshops"? Slavery would be like a legalized sweatshop, only moreso.

The punishment today for operating a sweatshop is barely token- a very small percentage of the business advantage for operating a sweatshop. And enforcement is minimal. That's where the whole term "working poor" comes from.

And illegal labor is supported by tax dollars- they can survive because none of the welfare forms check for citizenship, only residency. Yet another way that the corporations shift their DUTY to their WORKERS off onto general society.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No- but NCLB didn't help on funding, it hurt- it costs extra to do that testing and ended up closing schools early. Federal mandates are usually a burden to local school boards, not a help.

But the point is- teacher salary doesn't come out of federal funds ANYWHERE- it comes out of local taxes. NOTHING in the federal mandates even requires states to license teachers.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

In Oregon, land use zoning prevents such uses-

No. Livestock can be kept on the same farms they're worked at. That's all slaves are.

I thought your argument was that slave owners didn't care about the health of the slaves...but fine, 72 hour workweek, that comes to $6.22/hr-

No, because your numbers for rent and food are hugely inflated. However, even if it was $6.22/hour, that still beats minimum wage, because the price goes up for hours beyond 8.

And illegal labor is supported by tax dollars-

Slavery is also supported by taxation. You don't need to spend as much on well-armed, redundant overseers, because in the event of a major discipline problem, the police will come protect you from angry slaves.

they can survive because none of the welfare forms check for citizenship, only residenc

You really think the government hands out welfare to sturdy 22 year-old unattached males?

It's worse than that.

[0x0d0a]

Actually, because of the winner-take-all nature of the elections, an individual vote in Wyoming has essentially no chance of counting (since the state isn't a swing state), but in Pennsylvania it has a far greater chance of counting.

Re:It's worse than that.

[dario_moreno]

that is, depending on the whim of the Diebold machine operator, of course.

one of the points of the electoral college

[mzs]

The smaller more rural states were concerned about being dominated by the larger states with cities in the national arena. It was seen that the interests of the rural and city populations would be different. The scheme of the Senate with two votes per state regardless of population and the two to three bonus (there are no fractional electors after-all, consider this as round-off error depending on where the state falls in relation to other states in the last census) electors for smaller states was devised in part because of that concern.

David is from NY, a state with a number of large cities and he feels underrepresented, but consider the point of view of farmers and ranchers. We can have raging debates ad nausea for example about whether the federal government does too much or too little to assist farmers and ranchers, but the fact of the matter is that if it were not for the systems in place to grant disproportionate weight to rural areas, there would indeed be less aid.

Also, is there really a surprise that cities tend Democratic and rural areas Republican? Again this seems to be sour grapes from David based on his comments.

Re:one of the points of the electoral college

[Minna Kirai]

the fact of the matter is that if it were not for the systems in place to grant disproportionate weight to rural areas, there would indeed be less aid.

The nation is full of minority groups that could potentially get more aid if only they had a disproportionate voting weight.

Race, religion, gender, education, employment, income- we don't allow any of those categorizations to change the strength of someone's vote. Why should rural residents be special?

Re:one of the points of the electoral college

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, is there really a surprise that cities tend Democratic and rural areas Republican?

Really, I am surprised that practically anybody votes for the republican party. Many rural voters consider themselves 'conservative'. What's so conservative about a huge budget deficit. Most farmers don't live on dividends or cap gains, but now those are at 15%, which is much less than anybody who actually produces something for a living. Typically most conservities are against involvement in foriegn wars, free trade, imports. About the only conservative value that the Republicans carry on their adgenda is the 'Guns for fetuses' issue. Other than that there is some wording about "Family Values" (you know like shipping daddy's job to India) and how 'Marriage' is so weak that allowing Gays to marry will destroy the institution.

Re:one of the points of the electoral college

[mzs]

we don't allow any of those categorizations to change the strength of someone's vote. Why should rural residents be special?

Because there was a desire for the states to unite. In order to unite the more populous states had to reach a compromise with the less populous (and more rural) states, so that the union would even be a possibility. Consider this in the same light as the northern states that allowed the 3/5 compromise so that the southern states would be willing to join the union.

Re:one of the points of the electoral college

[jfruhlinger]

David is from NY, a state with a number of large cities and he feels underrepresented, but consider the point of view of farmers and ranchers. We can have raging debates ad nausea for example about whether the federal government does too much or too little to assist farmers and ranchers, but the fact of the matter is that if it were not for the systems in place to grant disproportionate weight to rural areas, there would indeed be less aid.

Actually, there are a lot of rural areas on New York State. California, another state probably thought of as "urban" by people who haven't lived there, has one of the largest agricultural industries in the U.S. The EC effectively disenfranchises these rural areas because they happen to be in the same state as large cities; thus, unlike, say, Iowa, rural interests don't have a majority in that state. Is that fair, in your model?

You can talk about rural-vs.-urban or small-state-vs.-large-state all you want, but the elephant in the living room of the electoral college is that the current shape and populations of U.S. states is the result of historic accident, not logical planning. It's not like all the farmers are in one state and all the city-dwellers in another. You can discuss general categories of "farming states" or "manufacturing states", but the truth is that every state has at least a little of every category; as a result, any model where you try to break influence down into actual social categories breaks down because of all the exceptions, and you just end up with the truth, which is that certain particular states have more voting power than certain other particular states.

Under a one-person-one-vote system, farmers in California and Wyoming have equal voting power. City-dwellers in Texas and D.C. have equal voting power. Period.

Also, is there really a surprise that cities tend Democratic and rural areas Republican? Again this seems to be sour grapes from David based on his comments.

Gosh, and I don't suppose any Republican is really supporting the EC for this exact same reason, do you?

jf

Re:one of the points of the electoral college

[Minna Kirai]

The EC effectively disenfranchises these rural areas because they happen to be in the same state as large cities

Very true- the Chinatown effect.

You can talk about rural-vs.-urban or small-state-vs.-large-state all you want, but the elephant in the living room of the electoral college is that the current shape and populations of U.S. states is the result of historic accident, not logical planning.

True. The best example of this is to count the number of West Coast states (3) versus East Coast (15). That's 24 extra Electoral (and Senatorial) votes to the original colonies, just because they happen to be older and smaller.

I propose that to correct this unfairness, each Senator should be assigned a voting power multiplier proportional to the square miles of land in his home state. Similarly, the Electoral Votes for each state should be equal to (X * population + Y * acreage), instead of (X * population + 2) as it is today.

At least, it would be entertaining to see a spreadsheet of how those results played out. Alaska would suddenly have some swagger!!

Gosh, and I don't suppose any Republican is really supporting the EC for this exact same reason, do you?

I'd like to see a Republican propose dividing Montana into 25 new states, each with the land area of Rhode Island.

Re:one of the points of the electoral college

[mzs]

Coming from a person who lived more than twenty years in Illinois and California I see exactly your points. Both states have large agricultural areas but tend to be dominated by large urban areas in national and statewide elections. (Well now I was generalizing, it IS more sophisticated than that in practice.) I agree it is in fact bad in many states for the rural areas where the more densely populated centers tend to dominate politics, the very issue that the Connecticut compromise addressed so long ago. Yet in Illinois there is enough population (and agribusiness) outside of the Chicagoland area that to a large extent the interests of the farming areas are represented better than they would be otherwise. (At least in the issues directly related to farming, other issues such as schools and roads are a constant source of contention between the two areas.)

I was looking at the issue from a historical perspective and noting that by ignoring it completely this would hurt rural areas because they would be out numbered by the more populous centers and I completely missed the issue that by now there are many states where the old distinction between city and rural has become problematic. Thanks for pointing that out to me. The problem is that I still believe that it IS important to somehow protect the interests of farmers (I grew-up with too many corn, soybean, and dairy farmer friends to ignore this) otherwise the interests of rural areas would be largely ignored. Simply adopting a majority system would not address this at all.

Maybe someone has an idea of how to address this. How could any fair system be adopted when it means that those states that currently have 'too much' influence would lose that? Possibly there is a way to still protect the rural areas from the city centers but have it reflect the current boundaries?

Re:one of the points of the electoral college

[cft_128]

Because there was a desire for the states to unite. In order to unite the more populous states had to reach a compromise with the less populous (and more rural) states, so that the union would even be a possibility. Consider this in the same light as the northern states that allowed the 3/5 compromise so that the southern states would be willing to join the union.

Well fine, so then lets get rid of the EC then. The 3/5 compromise was removed.

Re:one of the points of the electoral college

[node 3]

Your justification for weighting the vote towards the farmer is flawed. I can imagine any number of groups to favor. Why not give blacks 1.5 votes per person to make up for their lesser numbers in the population? Or gays 3 votes? Or cancer victims 2.5 votes? It doesn't make any sense.

There will always be justification for giving one group power over another. You could even come up with a reason to allow insane people two votes (maybe a vote for each personality, or as a reason to compel sane people to vote, or because an insane person is half as likely to vote, etc). That's the problem with tyranny--it's always accompanied with justifications.

The only equitable answer is to aspire for true Democracy. If you educate the people well enough, and report the situation accurately enough, the farmers will get the aid they need--it is in the city-dwellers best interest that the farm community is healthy.

Right now, farmers are paid to not produce milk, while at the same time they are injecting their cows with rBGH to produce more milk. So we're paying more for milk so we can get more milk that's not as healthy. Super...

Re:one of the points of the electoral college

[Minna Kirai]

because an insane person is half as likely to vote, etc

That's untrue. In the USA, the clinically insane have a much above-average voting rate. (Apparently because their nurses want any excuse for a field trip)

Re:one of the points of the electoral college

[Minna Kirai]

Well fine, so then lets get rid of the EC then. The 3/5 compromise was removed.

One could argue it was never really removed. For all practical purposes, it's still in effect, and states recieve a population bonus equal to 3/5s of every slave. Thing is, there's not enough slaves to really make it noticable.

Yet another Mobocrat

[CodeWanker]

The electoral college is designed to defend our Federal system: a nation made up of separate states. Saying that the electoral college is not fair is like saying the bicameral legislature is not fair: after all, why don't we trust the house of representatives to make laws free from the interference of the inordinately powerful votes of the small states' senators?

The argument this guy is making ignores the fact that our system is based on one of the most successful compromises in history: many disparate states sacrificing some aspects of sovereignty to form a single nation. Our constitution is set up so that the states choose the president, not the undifferentiated mass of the people. That means that there is intrinsic power in being a state, no matter how small. Article 2 section 1 clause 2 of the united states constitution determines how members of the electoral college are chosen: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

So you see, the number is driven primarily by the population of the state (as the number of the representatives of the lower house of congress is) with a guaranteed minimum of votes to make sure each state gets a say in the process.

Arguing for a number driven entirely by popular vote ignores the realities of separate states in our Federation, and invites secession and the possible dissolution of our nation.

For the slower folks out there, I'll put the punchline here: the dissolution of the United States of America would be so bad for the stability, prosperity, and standard of living for the people of Earth that there aren't words strong enough to convey it.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[joebellis]

Excellent comments - One additional thought regarding the appointment of electors, the state legislatures should adopt the model used by Nebraska and Maine and have the elector tried to the congressional district, with to at-large electors that would represent the senate seats. Using this model would allow every voter the exact same representation - three electoral votes. In order for this to occur the other 48 states would have to eliminate their "winner take all" model.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[Minna Kirai]

The electoral college is designed to defend our Federal system: a nation made up of separate states.

Yeah, because citizens today really have a greater loyalty to Georgia than the USA.

That means that there is intrinsic power in being a state, no matter how small

Stating the obvious doesn't prove it is good, only that it is.

Arguing for a number driven entirely by popular vote ignores the realities of separate states in our Federation, and invites secession and the possible dissolution of our nation.

Right. That non-popular vote sure has done a good job at preventing secession.

the dissolution of the United States of America would be so bad for the stability, prosperity, and standard of living for the people of Earth that there aren't words strong enough to convey it.

If that's as obviously true as you say, then nobody will vote for secession, even in a popular election.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[Minna Kirai]

One additional thought regarding the appointment of electors, the state legislatures should adopt the model used by Nebraska and Maine and have the elector tried to the congressional district,

Sure, they should do that, but they won't. There are a lot of people who've got an unfair amount of power, and they should willingly give it up for the sake of everyone else, but don't hold your breath waiting.

The only reasonable way to change the allocation of electoral votes is a constitutional amendment. Leaving it up to the states won't work, because the people of those state's will not voluntarily reduce their influence in presidential elections.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with your comment for the most part, I just want to throw in this.

Your parent post said this...

the dissolution of the United States of America would be so bad for the stability, prosperity, and standard of living for the people of Earth that there aren't words strong enough to convey it.

You said this...

If that's as obviously true as you say, then nobody will vote for secession, even in a popular election.

Voting for Bush harms our stability, prosperity, and Standard of Living for not only us but the people of the world, yet there are people who will vote for him.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[N3WBI3]

Yeah, because citizens today really have a greater loyalty to Georgia than the USA.

Not the point, someone in WY has different needs than someone in Atlanta should they be ignored because Atlanta is bigger?

Right. That non-popular vote sure has done a good job at preventing secession.

Umm he did not say that keeping it prevents the issue, what he says is that getting rid of it encourages the act.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[MobyDisk]

Saying that the electoral college is not fair is like saying the bicameral legislature is not fair: after all, why don't we trust the house of representatives to make laws free from the interference of the inordinately powerful votes of the small states' senators?

No, it's not. The bicameral legislature is a compromise that is functioning as it was designed. The electoral college is not, due to mathematical mistakes. The system was fine when it was created, but it didn't scale.

The electoral college system introduces various forms of round-off error into the system. As the range of populations amongst states became more varied, and as the number of states increased, the various sources of round-off error became more significant. For example, most states chose all their votes to go to one candidate. The means that if a state is split 49% to 51%, that 49% of the votes are thrown out. The article points-out that the methods for determining the number of electors is not accurate, which introduces more error.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[Minna Kirai]

The bicameral legislature is a compromise that is functioning as it was designed. The electoral college is not, due to mathematical mistakes.

I don't really see what's that different between the 2 Senators and the 2 Electoral votes each state recieves regardless of population. Both are an intentional shifting of power to less populous states.

The only real difference between them is that it's possible for a state's 2 senators to be of different parties, while the electoral votes (aside from 2 minor exceptions) always go to just one party.

I suppose that avoids the biggest unfairness, because a 49%-48% D-R split won't go completely Democrat, but it's a rather minor difference.

Currently 13 of the 50 states have Senators of different parties. In the big picture, Senators' role in lawmaking is tremendously more influential than the 2 Electoral Votes attached to them.

PS. For a point of accuracy, the bicarmeral system has 2 different desired effects, but only one relates to this discussion: giving a boost to less populated states. The other is to impair the federal government's ability to make rapid changes, by requiring all new laws to be passed twice. Hopefully the other house will notice any stupid oversights from the first time a bill was approved. However, that function could be performed even if the senate was also assigned by population.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[eglamkowski]

The problem is not that the system didn't scale, but that the system was used in a manner for which it was never intended in the first place.

It wasn't until 1860 that all states finally allowed for popular election of electors, and we all know what happened shortly thereafter :-p

It's been all downhill ever since.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[Robert The Coward]

That is the best system but it has to go thought politcal partys 1st. In the state of Maryland the EC goes Dem. most of the time. Althought half or our congressmen are rep. but the areas that go Dem. go with such a majorty that our Sentors and Gov. all almost alwas Dem. If they moved from a winner take all to the system that Maine uses then the Dem. would lost almost 4 or 5 EC votes for this state because of this the party in control of the state wont let that change. If I lived in a state that goes most rep. I would want that change either as I would lose EC votes. I agree that it is the fairiest system and would make it more fair overall without make massive changes to the constion.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Umm he did not say that keeping it prevents the issue, what he says is that getting rid of it encourages the act.

Which would be a damned good thing at this point, I would think. Now that the neo-whatever feds have sold all of our sovereignity to the WTO for a few shiny Euros- we might as well tell them to go fuck themselves.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[cft_128]

Not the point, someone in WY has different needs than someone in Atlanta should they be ignored because Atlanta is bigger?

Should my vote count less simply because my state has a large population?

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[Politburo]

Yeah, because citizens today really have a greater loyalty to Georgia than the USA.

Actually, based on the actions of their governments, I would say I have a far greater loyalty to New Jersey than to the USA. My state Executive and Legislature have legalized State funded stem-cell research, provided equal rights laws for gays, and kept the economy and budget on track. The national Executive and Legislature seem to be going in the exact opposite direction.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[OreoCookie]

You sir are entirely too well educated to be posting on Slashdot. You will be as appreciated here as a straight-A's curve buster is in a high school classroom.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[node 3]

The argument this guy is making ignores the fact that our system is based on one of the most successful compromises in history: many disparate states sacrificing some aspects of sovereignty to form a single nation.

The argument you're making ignores the fact that it's the people, not the states, that should have the power. The President rules over the people of the US, not just the states.

The electoral college is less of a problem...

[0x0d0a]

The electoral college is less of a problem than the fact that we have one vote, one choice. We can't preferentially vote, there's no instant run-off, and so our incentive is always to use our sole vote for the first candidate or the second candidate.

I mean, there are issues with the electoral college, sure, but nothing really compares to the "single choice" model -- *that* is just screwed up.

A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[stankulp]

Democracy is exactly what the founders sought to avoid when they framed the Constitution.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

A democracy is eternally threatened by the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Our form of government is a "representative republic," in which all of the citizens choose a few of their fellow citizens to represent them in the legislature. These representatives are able to make more informed decisions than the mob rule that is democracy.

The name of our country is the "United States." When the United States was formed from the original thirteen colonies, each of these colonies intended to maintain their own autonomy and internal governments.

Each state in the union was intended to be a sovereign governmental entity. The centralized powers of the common federal government binding these united states was intended to be limited to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

In other words, the citizens of the United States federal government are the individual states. It is they who are voting for a President, not the individual citizens of the federation.

That's why most states have a "winner take all" policy for their electoral votes.

The last thing on earth the founders intended was "one voter, one vote," because that is democratic mob rule.

Re:A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[N3WBI3]

Bloody great post!

Except this part

That's why most states have a "winner take all" policy for their electoral votes.

It would be more accurate to say thats why each state can decide their electors as they see fit..

Re:A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that always stikes me as strange when reading about this is that a lot of americans speak as though the founders were more than just men and that they could somehow see ahead in time. They were great men, but it would be a stretch to say that they could have seen how the future would turn out.

Just because their intentions at a certain point in time were justified and important does not mean that they have to be held up today.

I have always felt that politics suffers from too much history and unwillingness to break with the past. I am Canadian and this could be no more evident here than anywhere else, where we still have a governor general (the queen's representative) who has certain powers but is essentially useless. (Not to mention the queen herself, although the one thing that does provide, in my opinion, is way off topic - basically it insulates us from the idea that the prime minister (president equivalent) is somehow above everyone else. The Bush admin in particular has cultivated this by pretty much calling any hard questions asked to the president disrepectful. i.e. Irish interview a while back.)

Political systems need to evolve just like anything else. I bet if the founders were around today they would call for a scrapping of many of the existing structures, just like they did back then.

Re:A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[cft_128]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
A democracy is eternally threatened by the power of stupid people in large numbers.

When has the EC ever saved us from making stupid choices?

Re:A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

A democracy is eternally threatened by the power of stupid people in large numbers.

And yet, FoxNews thrives on it...

Our form of government is a "representative republic," in which all of the citizens choose a few of their fellow citizens to represent them in the legislature. These representatives are able to make more informed decisions than the mob rule that is democracy.

So, instead of a large mob of the people deciding what idiotic direction the country is going in, you've got a much smaller, but "representative", mob of Republicans and Democrats whose "informed decisions" are colored green by all the money special interests pump down their respective ratholes. Guess your founders never thought of that one.

Re:A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[node 3]

Democracy is exactly what the founders sought to avoid when they framed the Constitution.

What type of government did you give us? (asked of Benjamin Franklin)

"A Democracy--if you can keep it," he replied.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

A Republic is two wolves and 98 sheep voting on what to have for dinner, where only the two wolves get to vote.

A democracy is eternally threatened by ... people in large numbers.

Yes, it's "eternally threatened". So? Are you such a chickin-shit that you'd rather just give in and be ruled by an elite class? Your alternative is to eternally subject the people to the greed of people in small numbers.

I can't believe the stupidity of a sheep who would willingly follow a wolf.

Re:A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[stankulp]

Just because their intentions at a certain point in time were justified and important does not mean that they have to be held up today... Just because their intentions at a certain point in time were justified and important does not mean that they have to be held up today.

Evolution is one thing, rigging the rules in your favor is another.

The situation is as follows: the political party that ran this country for forty years but is now on the losing side wants to change the rules so they can win.

The political part that is now on the winning side lived by the old rules all the years it was out of power without trying to change them.

I don't want a party of whining crybabies back in charge. I don't want the rules changed just because the other side wants to rig the game in their favor.

HOW GEORGE BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION

"Al, this is David Boies. I apologize for calling so late, but this won't wait."

"Look, I know you've already conceded, but I've been talking to some folks in Florida and they think they can find enough extra votes down there to give you the state in a recount."

"Just a recount in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties, though."

"If it goes statewide our people will be spread too thin to keep things under control."

"Do you want to give it a try? At this point you've got nothing to lose."

"That's great, Al. I'll give 'em a call and we'll get this show on the road."

"Call Bush right away to let him know you've changed your mind."

"On second thought, call a press conference first."

"Talk to you later, Mr. President."

Re:A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, FoxNews thrives on it...

People with more thant two brain cells in a row actively seek Fox news.

Drooling vegetables tune in Dan Rather and believe any forged documents he throws at them.

Re:A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you such a chickin-shit that you'd rather just give in and be ruled by an elite class?

Your ignorance and class-envy are showing.

No wonder you will be a wage-slave all of your life, hating the people who employ you because they are "rich," when in actuality the vast majority of jobs in this country are provided by small businesses whose owners mortgaged their lives away to create a job for sniveling, ungrateful children like you.

Re:A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not my country I know, but:

The founders also excluded the majority of the population from the vote and held a large number of people in bondage. Because the founders did something, it doesn't mean it is right?

The founders also introduced a treason act within a few years that effectively changed the terms of government. In other words the founders changed their minds too - the constitution is not a sacred text but the work of ordinary humans.

The reason there is an electoral college is because the Virginian slave owners who founded the republic wanted to keep as much power in their hands as possible - so they excluded ordinary people from electing the president and instead forced them to elect oligarchs who would in turn select a president.

Wrong, in at least two ways

[swillden]

The author of the article needs to do some research in both the history and the mathematics of the electoral college.

From the historical perspective, what the author claims is a problem is *exactly* what was intended by the founding fathers. They were afraid that large, populous states would dominate small states so they made an explicit attempt to counter that large-state dominance.

From a mathematical perspective, Bennahaum is wrong about the effect of the electoral college, and so were the founders. The reason he's wrong is that the method he's using for analyzing the power of a vote -- calculating each voter's "share" of an electoral vote -- is inadequate and fails to account for the fact that most states (all but Vermont, I think) allocate their electoral votes as a bloc.

A better measure of voting power is the Bahnzaf Power Index, which defines the power of a vote as the probability that that vote will "swing" the election. In the case of the electoral college that means you have to do a two-level analysis. For each state, you have to calculate the probability that a single vote in that state will swing that state's electoral votes from one candidate to another. Then, for each state you have to calculate the probability that that state's electoral votes will swing the election.

What comes out of this analysis is the discovery that the voters in the smallest states have far *less* power than the voters in large states. We saw evidence of this in 2000: Florida was not the only state with a very tight election but no one bothered fighting (much) about the others because they were smaller states and didn't matter. Whichever way Florida's 25 votes would win, regardless of the other outcomes.

That said, more recent statistical analysis (which I can't find right now, but there are some papers on the web) that takes into account the current structure of political power in the United States shows that, in fact, the net effect of the electoral college is pretty close to zero. Beyond the math, history shows this pretty clearly as well: There have only been three presidential elections in the 200-year history of the US where the electoral college produced a different result than a purely popular vote would have.

In my opinion, the founders were right about the need for something to shift power to smaller states, because as a resident of a smaller state it's quite clear that our voices are completely irrelevant. So, if you want to fix the electoral college, you should just modify it so that states allocate their electoral votes proportionally, based on the votes cast in that state. That will (mostly) eliminate the bloc voting effect while retaining the balancing feature that has, unfortunately, never worked.

States vs Fed

[dpilot]

Mod parent up, please.

It's worth reading, whether you agree, or not.

As a comment on the parent, it's much easier to tear down and replace a state government by voting than it is the federal. The more power that can be pushed down to the states, the more you can directly effect change with your vote.

Keep in mind that a ??AA "takeover" of California mostly affects California, but ??AA "takeover" of the US government affects the rest of us. I know "takeover" is a bit strong, but essentially the various industries *are* attempting to take over those aspects of the federal government that affect their business. In the case of the ??AA, they *have* taken over copyright, and those aspects of IP enforcement that pertain.

Re:States vs Fed

[lynx_user_abroad]

Keep in mind that a ??AA "takeover" of California mostly affects California, but ??AA "takeover" of the US government affects the rest of us.

Except that a ??AA "takeover" would likely be based on Copyright law.

Copyright Law, since the inception of the Constitution, has been Federal. It's the same for all states precisely to prevent someone from getting around a ??AA "takeover" of California by hopping a flight to Nevada.

It get's worse. There is a huge push today to standardize copyright law Globally (to keep people from escaping the wrath of the ??AA by hopping a flight to Hong Kong.

Not advocating, just educating.

Re:States vs Fed

[dpilot]

I wasn't thinking so much of copyright itself, as the enforcement perversions being layered on top of it. Those could be implemented federally or state-by-state.

Electoral College Protects Un-hyphenated Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

The electoral college has an additional function that will come into play in the future when Hispanics (of whom most are derived from illegal aliens) overwhelm the United States of America.

In the past and in the present, the majority of people is descended from the Europeans. Although prejudice and racism exist among these people, they are nowhere near as bad as the prejudice and racism that exist among Hispanics, Indians, and Chinese. Whenever the dying Ku Klux Klan hold a demonstration, plenty of Americans of European ancestry hold counter demonstrations.

I have never heard anyone talking about the greatness of "White Culture". I have heard of people talking about the greatness of "Western Culture". Here, "Western" is a cultural term, and anyone can be Western (including Hispanics and Chinese) although most Hispanics and Chinese reject being Western.

Now, consider Hispanics. They often talk about "Hispanic Culture" and "Chinese Culture". These bigots use "Hispanic" and "Chinese" in the sense of genetics. An American of Vietnamese ancestry is not welcome in these other cultures because, according to Hispanics, a Vietnamese cannot be Hispanic or Chinese.

The Hispanics pride themselves on racist organizations like La Raza, the Hispanic equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan. To understand the nature of La Raza, I offer the following quote from a speech by Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor at the University of Texas at Arlington and founder of La Raza (short for La Raza Unida Party). He gave the speech at UC Riverside in 1/1995.

The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot - we will not- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population.

You can also listen to the an actual audio clip of the quote above. There is an important web site with other quotes and audio clips.

Is anyone shocked by La Raza and the Hispanics who support La Raza? La Raza is the Hispanic equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan.

I am extremely concerned that La Raza will become the "one party" that controls America in 2025. Our refusal to control our borders has led to an explosive political dynamic that will be hostile to anyone who is not Hispanic.

How will the electoral college come into play? Consider the scenario where Hispanics (and Indians and Chinese) dominate the scene in the USA. For example, suppose that the people who consider themselves un-hyphenated Americans are now isolated as simply majorities in North Dakota, Washington, and Michigan. The rest of the country is dominated by hyphenated Americans like the Hispanics (and Indians and Chinese). Well, with the electoral college, the un-hyphenated Americans have a chance to protect (e.g. filibuster in the Senate) their rights in Congress. Without the electoral college, the Chinese would just rape un-hyphenated Americans.

Just look at the "Politics" discussion forum to understand how Hispanics, Indians, and Chinese act. Too many moderators mod an article based on the viewpoint in the article. For example, if there is an article condemning the Chinese for occupying Tibet, then you can be sure that someone will mod that article down as a "Troll" or "Flamebait". The phenomenon also occurs when you write an article

What would it take to scrap it?

[jfruhlinger]

Here's an interesting question for you all. What do you think it would take to get enough political willpower in the U.S. to scrap this system?

Four years ago, I would have said "Have someone lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote." Obviously I was wrong. But 2000 was a special case -- all the controversy swirling around Florida meant that by the time things were finally settled, no one wanted to think or hear about presidential elections anymore. In fact, there are any number of both Bush and Gore supporters from 2000 who probably don't even know, or quickly forgot, that Gore came in first in the popular vote overall.

So, what if this year the same thing happens, but the parties reverse -- Kerry wins the Electoral College (and the presidency), Bush wins the popular vote? Would the two parties see the last two elections as enough impetus to change or scrap the EC? Even if the national parties agreed, could they enforce party discipline on the state level to push the necessary constitutional changes through the state legislatures?

For my personal opinion -- I say scrap it, or at least modify it so that the whole country does a proportional or by-congressional-district apportionment like Maine and Nebraska. I know all the arguments about federalism -- I just don't find them that persuasive or relevant. The bottom line is that the Presidency and the U.S. central government are now so powerful, and so intrusive in people's lives, that to give some U.S. citizens extra voting power just because of where they happen to live extremely undemocratic. And yes, with modern American mobility, it *is* a matter of "where they happen to live" -- people move across state lines all the time, and I don't think loyalty to one's home state is anywhere near what it used to be.

In addition, several of the founding concepts of the system seem to be to flawed or no longer relevant. States of a similar size don't necessarily have similar interestes -- compare D.C. and Wyoming (3 EVs), Maryland and Arizona (10 EVs), New York and Texas (31-34 EVs). And states don't necessarily have monolithic interests -- New York and California both contains regions with wildly different demographic and political profiles.

jf

Re:What would it take to scrap it?

[elijahao]

This is exactly the point of the Constitution's separation of the Federal Government and the States' Government. The other 49 States don't have a right to tell 1 State what to do with it's electoral votes. It is supremely up to the State and ONLY the State to determine how it will cast it's votes in the Presidential Election.

The solution to this problem is not to take away more State's power, but to begin to restore it by breaking down the powers of the Federal Government. As a citizen of Missouri, I should have absolutely *NO* say about what the citizens of Kansas can and cannot do.

In another post, another person brought up the secession of Georgia. The problem they cited thoroughly in that document was the arrogance and corruption of the Northern States that refused to follow Constitutional laws and statutes because of their own determined ideals. It should not matter how many people in New York and California decide that people that live by the Ocean should get a new car, the people of Missouri should not be coerced into paying for it. (or Any OTHER State)

The United STATES of America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The Sovreign States should not be required to change their methods of sending representatives to the Federal Government. That should be left to their own governments to decide.

My post on his blog -- look at it statistically.

[Randolpho]

I am very much in favor of the Electoral College, although I agree that certain tweaks are necessary, specifically the winner-take-all system that nearly all of the States have adopted.

Mr. Bennahum, you appear to be statistically oriented.... try applying those statistics to the inherit error involved in a nation-wide direct-vote Presidential election. Be sure to factor in electoral problems like the ones in New Mexico and Florida in the 2000 election.

Pretty high, isn't it? That's right it is.

Not only does the Electoral College ensure that a Presidential Candidate be palatable to most of the States in the country (as Luke White mentioned), it also ensures a final vote that has zero statistic error. Although whether or not a particular vote should have been one way or the other could come in to question, the vote itself, once cast, is solid and undeniable. There is zero doubt about the legitimacy of the Presidency in such as system.

Invariably, whenever there is a close race, somebody calls for the abolishment of the Electoral College. The thing is... close races are when the Electoral College goes to *work*, not when it gets in the way.

Fix the Electoral College, don't remove it.

EC isn't where the problem is at.

[Shivetya]

The problem is in the Congress. The Presidential elections are probably the only elections at the Federal level that the public has ANY chance to truly affect.

House of Representatives? Not really. A large number run unopposed, nearly 3/4s win their district by 60%+, and in 2002 only 4 of them lost their seats!

The Senate is nearly as bad. I don't have the statistics at hand (being at work) but the turnover in the Senate is near the House levels and worse the parties are not above using shennagins to protect seats.

(on the previous post, NY and CA do not have wildy different political profiles, especially when you factor in the abundant influences of their cities - which is what the article author is aiming for - giving population centers more influence)

Re:EC isn't where the problem is at.

[jfruhlinger]

(on the previous post, NY and CA do not have wildy different political profiles, especially when you factor in the abundant influences of their cities - which is what the article author is aiming for - giving population centers more influence)

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. NY and CA as currently constituted do have similar political profiles. I meant that regions *within* each state have very different profiles from one another. Many people outside of CA think of liberal, urban SF and LA as the epitome of the state's political culture, but there's also convservative urban areas (Orange County) and conservative rural areas (San Joaquin Valley). Ditto New York -- Liberal NYC and conservative rural/suburban upstate and western NY areas are very different. The fact that Rochester and Westchester, or San Francisco and San Diego, share a state is a result of a decisions made centuries ago. It makes no moden sense to lump them together in a voting block for the president.

jf

Re:EC isn't where the problem is at.

[Minna Kirai]

The problem is in the Congress.

True, although you don't mention why this is: it's because the Congressmen themselves are allowed to modify their district boundaries, carefully working to maintain a majority of their own supporters. A household not voting for you? Push it into another district!

If districts were laid down by a preset mathmatical formula that only went by head-count and no other factors, then the Congressional stagnation wouldn't happen. Allowing Congressmen to pick who gets to vote for them means they'll almost never be voted out. The word of the day is gerrymandering!

That goes a long ways towards explaining...

[read-only slashdot]

how we got a guy like Cheney running the country.

Re:That goes a long ways towards explaining...

[ex_poser]

More like: that helps explain why Dick Cheney [WY] is calling the shots and Tom Ridge [PA] is doing all the worrying.

Re:That goes a long ways towards explaining...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude with normal happy life:
I like Cheney.

Liberal Underworld:
Hiss hiss !!! spit growl!!!

Re:That goes a long ways towards explaining...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude with normal happy life:
I like Cheney.

Liberal Underworld:
Hiss hiss !!! spit growl!!!


Nah, you just like Dick...
But who doesn't? He's just like us!

Re:That goes a long ways towards explaining...

[Politburo]

Cheney only listed his residence as Wyoming because he couldn't list Texas. The Constitution prohibits the President and Vice-President to be from the same state.

Re:My post on his blog -- look at it statistically

[Minna Kirai]

it also ensures a final vote that has zero statistic error.

It does no such thing!

There is zero doubt about the legitimacy of the Presidency in such as system.

Just because the final addition is too simple for any math errors to creep in, it absolutely doesn't protect the result from doubt about legitimacy. Or haven't you noticed the bumper stickers with "Let's not elect him in 2004 either" ?

Mathmatically, error propagates throughout expressions. If term B isn't believed to be correct, then A+B+C isn't believable either. Someone who thinks (for whatever reason) that Florida was counted wrong won't agree that Bush really won.

Re:My post on his blog -- look at it statistically

[eglamkowski]

The problem with the electoral college is the popular election of electors. The problems associated with slates of electors and first-past-the-post occur ONLY because electors are popularly elected.

Ultimately, it's up to the state legislatures to decide how electors are choosen, so it doesn't make sense to talk about the inequity of the situation. The system was never meant to work by way of popular voting, and anyways it was intentionally never meant to be equitable even between states (ignoring the popular vote issue for a moment) - that's the whole point as you note in reply - to give smaller states a little bit more leverage over the larger ones, so that politicians wouldn't ignore the smaller states.

So all that statistical analysis is nice and dandy and all, but it COMPLETELY ignores the fundamental reason of why the system was created the way it was in the first place.

People should get a clue as to why it is the way it is before they rush off insisting it be changed.

Further, they might well consider why it wasn't setup from the start to use popular election of electors, and it wasn't just because of issues of communication and transportation...

Horseshit.

[Fished]

Really, I am surprised that practically anybody votes for the republican party. Many rural voters consider themselves 'conservative'. What's so conservative about a huge budget deficit.

You might start by realizing that most conservatives are very troubled by the deficit (Rush's rants notwithstanding). However, they recognize that this might eb a short term problem, caused by a weak economy (which got weak under clinton) and terrorist attacks (which were planned and set in place and could only have been prevented under clinton.)

Most farmers don't live on dividends or cap gains, but now those are at 15%, which is much less than anybody who actually produces something for a living.

I actually wonder whether you've ever even been on a real, working farm long enough to understnad the economics involved.

Farming is a capital intensive business, and most farmers who are actually making a living at it have very large capital assets - that is, their farms, their farm equipment. Some of that equipment depreciates, but a lot of it (buildings, silo's, etc.) appreciates. I'm not sure, but I believe livestock transactions can also count as capital gains (i.e. buy a little cow, grow it, and sell it.)

You're forgetting another huge deal for farmers: environmental laws. Liberals tend to be entirely focused on mediapathic factories belching smoke when they pass these things, without realizing that agricultural runoff is the biggest source of water polution, with agricultural operations also being potentially a major source of air polution. Ever smell a pig farm? Farmers deal with environmental regulations all year long, and it's not surprising that they would prefer not to have too many of them.

As for tax rates, you need to start reading a newspaper and stop reading JohnKerry.com. The bottom marginal tax rate is 10% - a cut from 15% pushed through by Bush. What with tax credits and all, most working Americans who woul d pay the 10% rate actually have a negative tax rate - they got more money back than they paid.

Typically most conservities are against involvement in foriegn wars, free trade, imports.

s/conservatives/libertarians/

You'd do well not to confuse the two.

About the only conservative value that the Republicans carry on their adgenda is the 'Guns for fetuses' issue. Other than that there is some wording about "Family Values" (you know like shipping daddy's job to India) and how 'Marriage' is so weak that allowing Gays to marry will destroy the institution.

That's really not the argument among any conservative with half a brain. The argument is that we give special and exceptional protections to marriage since it results in children, who must be protected. "Gay marriage" furthers the incorrect progressive notion that marriage is about personal gratification rather than social cooperation.

Re:Horseshit.

[Politburo]

which were planned and set in place and could only have been prevented under clinton.

I don't fault Bush for 9/11, but this statement is inane. There are many things that could have been done to prevent the attacks in the 7 months between Bush's inauguration and the attacks.

Minority rights

[GCP]

Imagine you were building a semi-democratic nation from a blank slate ... Would you try to make each citizen's vote equally powerful, or give extra-weight to the residents of certain areas?

Probably some version of the latter. I think people misunderstand that the USA (which was originally spelled with a lowercase 'u' in united) was intended to be better than a democracy because it included numerous checks and balances against the potential tyranny of pure democracies.

The electoral voting system, combined with putting almost all important laws at the state and not federal level, was one of those checks designed to protect minority rights. You could voluntarily associate with any state you felt matched your personal "culture" and the more numerous people who didn't match you would have a harder time voting to confiscate your possessions, enforcing their lifestyle preferences on you, and so on.

It was designed as a protection of diversity, and any form of protection of minority rights against a majority must, by definition, end up giving extra weight to some votes over others in at least some circumstances.

It seems to me that if you are going to do this, the fairest system is one that is attached to physical locations and not personal traits such as race. Instead of being born with inalienable extra rights relative to others, you can gain them or lose them by moving elsewhere, which all are free to do.

I'm not saying, though, that the electoral system currently in use is the best way, just that it is not the bogeyman that simple-minded analysis often portrays.

Re:Minority rights

[True Grit]

combined with putting almost all important laws at the state and not federal level,

Except Federalism lost and Nationalism won, and now the status is reversed. Federal laws have more effect on the average citizen than State laws. Federal power now trumps State power in almost every meaningful way. All of the Federal legislative and judicial power grabs since the end of the Civil War have completely reversed the field, which is why I, for one, don't see the rationale for the EC system to be used for selecting our national leader anymore. The national leader now has (potentially) a much more profound effect on the average citizen than his State's governor, thus every citizen's vote should count equally in deciding the national leader.

It seems to me a lot of the people arguing for the EC in this thread aren't taking into account that the country our Founding Father's created DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

It made sense when we were a largely rural, agrarian, lightly-populated federal republic, with a very restrained central government and strong provinces, but we are now a largely urbanized, industrialized and heavily-populated country with a powerful central government and weak provinces. The shoe just don't fit no more, folks.

Re:Minority rights

[GCP]

Despite the best efforts of some people to wipe it out, a lot of our founding fathers' country does still exist, and it seems that what you are encountering is resistance to your suggestion that we give up and surrender the rest. Sorry, not interested.

Was the EC created to shift power to small states?

[cft_128]

In my opinion, the founders were right about the need for something to shift power to smaller states, because as a resident of a smaller state it's quite clear that our voices are completely irrelevant. So, if you want to fix the electoral college, you should just modify it so that states allocate their electoral votes proportionally, based on the votes cast in that state. That will (mostly) eliminate the bloc voting effect while retaining the balancing feature that has, unfortunately, never worked.

There are some good arguments out there that say that shifting power to the smaller states was not what they really wanted. This is from the linked article:

The second (partially) wrong explanation: the electoral college was designed to protect the small states from dominance by the large. This is the explanation the respected commentator, Daniel Schorr, gave recently on National Public Radio. In all the debates over the executive at the Constitutional Convention, this issue never came up. Indeed, the opposite argument was more important. At one point the Convention considered allowing the state governors to choose the president but backed away from this in part because it would allow the small states to chose one of their own.

The correct explanation: to understand the origin of the electoral college we first must see the various methods of picking a president that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention considered. Initially, the president was to be elected by the Congress and serve for seven years. Some delegates wanted a single term for the president, but the majority were opposed to term limits -- they believed the best leaders should serve as long as the people wanted them to serve.

[...]

Thus, the delegates had to find another method of electing the president. On July 19, 1787 Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut proposed "electors" appointed by the state legislatures. Under Ellsworth's plan these would be apportioned on the basis of population, and thus the small states would have no special advantage.

At this point James Madison, a slaveholder from Virginia, weighed in. The most influential delegate, Madison argued that "the people at large" were "the fittest" to choose the president. But "one difficulty...of a serious nature" made election by the people impossible. Madison noted that the "right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes." In order to guarantee that the nonvoting slaves could nevertheless influence the presidential election, Madison favored the creation of the electoral college. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina was more open about the reasons for southern opposition to election by popular vote. He noted that under a direct election of the president, Virginia would not be able to elect her leaders president because "her slaves will have no suffrage." The same of course would be true for the rest of the South.

The 3/5 compromise gave white land owners in southern states, especially Virginia, much more power in choosing president than the smaller northern states. In the 1800 election between John Adams (not a slave owner) and Thomas Jefferson (slave owner from virginia) John Adams would have won if the 3/5 compromise had not been in place.

Couldn't have said it better myself

[mosb1000]

Why do people think that State and Local governments are so unimportant. I hear a lot of complaints about the effect of Bush's domestic policies. Every time someone complains about them, they should bear in mind that when Clinton was in office, people in conservative states were disadvantaged by his more liberal domestic policy. The problem is not that Clinton and Bush have/had Liberal and Conservative domestic polities, but that the federal government itself has too much power. Despite what people often seem to believe, values differ drastically from state to state. It doesn't make any sense to have the same rules and regulations applied across the entire country.

Re:Couldn't have said it better myself

[Minna Kirai]

when Clinton was in office, people in conservative states were disadvantaged by his more liberal domestic policy.

False! Clinton's domestic policy was a lot more conservative than either the Bush before or after him. It was Reagan who shifted the Republican party away from conservatism.

Re:Couldn't have said it better myself

[mosb1000]

Then why are ranchers in Utah taking pot shots a the BLM?

Statistical analysis

[dhilvert]

"That said, more recent statistical analysis (which I can't find right now, but there are some papers on the web) that takes into account the current structure of political power in the United States shows that, in fact, the net effect of the electoral college is pretty close to zero."

A working paper by Katz, Gelman, and King comes to mind. (Also, another analysis of voting power under the Electoral College system by Gelman and Katz, as well as a critique of the applicability of the Banzhaf index in this case.)

Re:Statistical analysis

[swillden]

A working paper by Katz, Gelman, and King comes to mind.

That's the one I was thinking of, thanks.

as well as a critique of the applicability of the Banzhaf index in this case.

That one is fascinating. Thanks even more!

Non-electoral college system problems

[johnmoe]

If we had a national popular vote system, would we also need to have elections run by the Federal government? For example wouldn't it benefit a state (with a clear majority) to say have no minimum age on voting? At the current time, voting age is determined by the state. It would seem like a good idea to let ANYONE vote and allow their parents to help them.

NY, CA pay up!

[4of12]

IIRC, there was a correlation someone did once comparing, state by state, the federal tax revenues received and federal spending applied - the sparsely-populated states did much better, as you might expect with Senate representation being independent of population.

Re: What the Founding Fathers wanted

[aggiefalcon01]

From the historical perspective, what the author claims is a problem is *exactly* what was intended by the founding fathers. They were afraid that large, populous states would dominate small states so they made an explicit attempt to counter that large-state dominance.

So many people claim to know what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Why don't we settle it: Have John Edwards "channel" the founders just like he "channeled" the spirit of the deceaced girl he represented in court.

That should settle it.

Math should be a tool.

[rrsipov]

See: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is _n11_v17/ai_18762289 or: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6009993/ While any system will have problems; one of the major pluses for the Electoral College is to do something to even out the fact that politics is local and force the national canidates to address issues from more than one region of the country.