Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Direct election of the President would eliminate Republican-favoured bias.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
patriotvoice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 03:19 PM
Original message
Direct election of the President would eliminate Republican-favoured bias.
"Why not just elect the president by popular vote? The reason this system has never changed is simple: politics. States with many buffalo and few people, like Wyoming, benefit from it and are not keen on changing it. Since every state gets at least three electors, low-population states have proportionally far more political power than they would have in a direct election system. The number of voters per elector is about four times smaller in the three-elector states than in the most-populous states, as shown in this table. The fact that nearly all the low-population states are heavily Republican adds to the difficulties of changing the system. Direct election of the president would eliminate the current bias in favor of the Republicans."

http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.ht...

No shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GainesT1958 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've felt that way ever since eighth grade...
And, needless to say, the 2000 Selection has only strengthened my resolve for that belief! :D

B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree a popular vote would make many repubs loose their jobs
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. We need IRV and direct elections
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. If not IRV, than some other preference voting method, plus
Edited on Tue Jun-29-04 03:38 PM by GreenPartyVoter
the other suggestions on my site.

I am partial to condorcet or modified borda/cumulative. I like the idea of ranking candidates and assigning the rankings a value. That way to get the benefits of both ranked voting and approval voting all in one fell swoop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. No No No NO!
IRV is BAD. Worse than plurality voting. Gives the illusion of creating a multi-party democracy; if a third party were ever to be equal in strength to the main two, the system would be chaotic.

Condorcet is the superior system - it actually takes into account the entirety of voter preference, it doesn't have strategic voting issues, and it is one of the best systems for picking the Ideal Democratic Winner (the person that results in the highest 'happiness' in the population).

For more information, go to:
http://www.bolson.org/voting /
http://www.electionmethods.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. That's so true that in Oregon, some of the Republicanites
were proposing that the governor be elected by giving each county a certain number of electoral votes. Since most of the counties have more cattle or trees than people, this would definitely help them.

Them guldarn Democrats predominate in the counties that actually have people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. i like the table at the link
Another argument that appeared in McPaper a couple weeks ago in favor of the electoral college was that following: Elections in cities are prone to corruption, so we should support the winner-take-all electoral college system because it marginalizes the largest cities.

(e.g. New York is considered a safe state for Kerry, so it doesn't matter if there are irregularities in NYC since Kerry will win anyway.)

And there's the argument that the current system forces the candidates to visit small states instead of just the population centers. But... if it's a population center isn't it completely reasonable that candidates would spend lots of time there?

We all know here that the electoral college system makes some votes worth more than others. The extent to which one is bothered by that indisputable fact is the extent to which one will be dissatisfied with the present system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leyton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. delete
Edited on Tue Jun-29-04 03:48 PM by leyton
delete
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leyton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. I think they should just take away 2 EV's from each state.
So that the college would reflect the House of Representatives, not the entire Congress. This is more proportional (if still a bit uneven) than the current system.

The reason I propose this is because if it is simply a direct election, then it becomes not a race to the middle but just a race for each candidate to turn out his base in high numbers. The Republicans move to the right, trying to motivate the Religious Right, while the Democrats move to the left, trying to motivate solid Democrats. I'd rather not see George Bush doing everything he can to motivate the radical right - as it stands, their influence has a ceiling because there are only so many EV's in the South.

By this token, the 2000 outcome would have been Gore 226, Bush 211: more reflective of the popular vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 16th 2018, 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC