Politics

[Irish Houstonian]

One point that bears addressing is that the EC lags about 10 years behind demographic trends, because of the census. Nat'l vote obviously doesn't have this problem.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's because California will always be Democrat just as Texas will always be Republican. They're talking about states that are a possible win by either candidate.

I understand the concept of battleground states. I'm saying big states wouldn't agree with your suggestion no matter their political affiliation.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Yes, the strategy would defintely be different. (Btw, Romney was in Houston and Obama was in LA, just for fundraising and not vote-getting).

Right. Which means that Gore's argument is, in part, a bit odd. They were both playing for the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Now, the recount in Florida...that's another issue...

 

[Irish Houstonian]

It is not just the poor who might not have a drivers license. The notion of a "free" photo ID is a fallacy. There is a cost ...That "fiscal conservatives" are the most vocal advocates of something that will only add unnecessary spending is telling to me.

If the RNC were willing to foot the bill for everyone's ID, would that change your mind? I'd chip in. And not just vbucks.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Say there is an issue that only affects people who live on the coast, but has little impact on those who live inland. That issue would be addressed every time -- resources would be thrown at it -- because the nation's largest populations are on the coasts. The "coasties" would dominate political policy if it was just simply a popular vote.

So how do you feel about 1 vote per state?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It is not just the poor who might not have a drivers license. The notion of a "free" photo ID is a fallacy. There is a cost – whether borne by each and every individual or all through taxes. There is a cost to print forms. There is a cost for the salaries of those who review and process the forms. There is a cost for equipment and materials to take the photos and produce a physical identification card. There is a cost to mail the card should that be necessary. Why incur additional expense for something that has not been shown to be a problem?

As the saying goes, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Barriers to the most basic American right of voting are abominable. That "the majority of voters see no problem with" any given law only illustrates what Alexis de Tocqueville termed "the tyranny of democracy." There may be safety in numbers, but numbers alone do not make something right. There are examples enough of that in American history. A number of those are referable to just who was allowed to vote and who was not.

That "fiscal conservatives" are the most vocal advocates of something that will only add unnecessary spending is telling to me.

So, I'm guessing you voted "no" today? I hope you did twice.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So how do you feel about 1 vote per state?

Not a fan. I'm sorry...the 34 people who live in Montana shouldn't have as much say as California.

 

[GoIrish41]

So how do you feel about 1 vote per state?

again, the most populous states would have the least political say per capita that the least populous ones. This is the same example where I used California and Texas as the example of unified, nonpartisan agreement that this is a bad idea.

 

[IrishInFl]

I agree with you, with the caveat if the polling is correct. We've talked over and over about the assumptions that are used in regards to turnout and composition of the voters that drive the polling. Heck, even exit polls (which should be the most accurate of all) have been known to be off.

If Obama can get turnout similar to 2008 he will probably win. If there is a material drop in turnout, then Romney will win. The problem is nobody knows what the turnout will be. They can all give their best guesses, based upon sound reasoning, but in the end nobody knows. There are enough polls that are close enough that it could end up in a landslide for either candidate, or it could be a virtual tie.

Exit polls are pure garbage. Don't put any stock in them at all.

 

[RDU Irish]

Small states aren't as important as big states. Not the people who live in them, but the states themselves. I've never understood State's rights, they're not people. 1 person 1 vote. So, in the end, I agree with you, electoral college should go and it should be a popular vote.

Well if we were a Democracy, I would agree. Since we are a Democratic Republic, I really appreciate what the electoral college does to keep big states from donkey punching small states. I would rather see proportionate allocation of electors versus all or nothing on the state level, however all states have their say in how they are determined.

Look at Nebraska and I think Maine for examples of how to splice our electoral votes.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Not a fan. I'm sorry...the 34 people who live in Montana shouldn't have as much say as California.

Why not? It would solve the issue you have with popular vote and it would solve my issue with telling California and Texas that they're more important than the entire Midwest.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Why not? It would solve the issue you have with popular vote and it would solve my issue with telling California and Texas that they're more important than the entire Midwest.

Too far out of proportion to the actual population, in my opinion.

 

[GoIrish41]

So how do you feel about 1 vote per state?

Look I get what you are feeling here. The electoral college may not feel right -- especially when your guy might win the election but get fewer popular votes -- but it was devised and agreed upon by all the states to protect the smaller states from the bigger states and to prevent the smaller states from gaining way too much political power. It is really a pretty clever system.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Why not? It would solve the issue you have with popular vote and it would solve my issue with telling California and Texas that they're more important than the entire Midwest.

One thing is it would start a war over statehood -- the Democrats would go bath salts crazy into admitting DC, and the Republicans would start breaking up Texas.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

again, the most populous states would have the least political say per capita that the least populous ones. This is the same example where I used California and Texas as the example of unified, nonpartisan agreement that this is a bad idea.

It has nothing to do with more or less political say; it should be equal say. My state relies on farmland therefore we don't "have room" for more people. That shouldn't mean that our vote should carry any less weight than say, New York, because it's packed tighter than a sardine can.

 

[RDU Irish]

Look I get what you are feeling here. The electoral college may not feel right -- especially when your guy might win the election but get fewer popular votes -- but it was devised and agreed upon by all the states to protect the smaller states from the bigger states and to prevent the smaller states from gaining way too much political power. It is really a pretty clever system.

Something we can agree on. Reps GoIrish.

 

[GoIrish41]

Something we can agree on. Reps GoIrish.

I knew we couldn't go on forever without agreeing on something.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I knew we couldn't go on forever without agreeing on something.

Knock it off, guys. Mortal Kombat!

 

[GoIrish41]

It has nothing to do with more or less political say; it should be equal say. My state relies on farmland therefore we don't "have room" for more people. That shouldn't mean that our vote should carry any less weight than say, New York, because it's packed tighter than a sardine can.

Sure it should. Way, way, way more people live there. The electoral college gives your state relavance in elections that it wouldn't otherwise have. Nothing against your state, but that is just the way it works.

 

[IrishLax]

Looks like really good (anecdotal) turnout based on some places reporting running out of ballots. No joke.

There was never less than a 100+ person line all day at my local polling place.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

So you clearly believe that New York is more important than Iowa when it comes to elections. What would you tell the Democrat who lives in Texas or the Republican that lives in California? "Sorry, sir/ma'am... your vote just isn't important. Don't bother standing in line because your vote won't count."

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So you clearly believe that New York is more important than Iowa when it comes to elections. What would you tell the Democrat who lives in Texas or the Republican that lives in California? "Sorry, sir/ma'am... your vote just isn't important. Don't bother standing in line because your vote won't count."

It's not that...it's that more voters are more important than fewer voters.

Also, those people still wouldn't have a say in the one vote per state model. If I'm a dem in Texas, your state still wouldn't have a chance to go blue.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Those people still wouldn't have a say in the one vote per state model. If I'm a dem in Texas, your state still wouldn't have a chance to go blue.

You'd have to go back several posts to see that I believe we should go by popular vote.

 

[IrishLax]

Needs to go to pure popular vote. The end. Sick of my TV in Virginia being inundated with the same nonstop political commercials while people in non-battleground states get to watch the normal crappy car/Bud Light commercials.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

You'd have to go back several posts to see that I believe we should go by popular vote.

Okay...I can see the logic in that. But, as I said before, what do you do in a scenario like 2000? Nation-wide recount?

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Okay...I can see the logic in that. But, as I said before, what do you do in a scenario like 2000? Nation-wide recount?

Why not? It's extremely important and it's not like the president takes office the next day. Plenty of time.

 

[IrishLax]

Okay...I can see the logic in that. But, as I said before, what do you do in a scenario like 2000? Nation-wide recount?

Co-presidents. Duh.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't change that much. Candidates would still go to Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia in huge numbers because the population is there.

The electoral college is pretty fun too, although I feel like my presidential vote this year didn't matter. Still voted though.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Co-presidents. Duh.

Haha. Would they share the Master Bedroom, too?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't change that much. Candidates would still go to Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia in huge numbers because the population is there.

The electoral college is pretty fun too, although I feel like my presidential vote this year didn't matter. Still voted though.

They'd probably totally avoid Iowa.