presidential election in USA - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-26-2004, 09:08 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 12:59 AM
Yeah, so Nevada would have less voting power than California. Same like now, isn´t it?

How is the number of electoral votes of a state calcuted? Isn´t it proportional to the population?
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 09:44 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:59 PM
Actually some people want to abolish the Electoral College. If I had my way in the matter the Electoral College would be history. Personally, I would prefer that the President be elected by the popular vote. However, some people think the smaller or more sparsely populated states, like Wyoming, for example, would get screwed if they were not guaranteed at least three electoral votes, thus, the Electoral College still exists. It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Americans are cautious voters and don't vote to approve many constitutional amendments. The prevailing mentality about the Electoral College is "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Of course we all hope, regardless of our preference, that the horror of 2000 isn't repeated. I want a winner on Election Night and I'm sure all of the other Americans here do also.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 09:57 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Direct democracy probably works best when you have a smaller, cohesive populous. In a larger, regionally diverse country, direct democracy could leave areas of the country with smaller populations without a voice.

Are you serious?

Any state where the election is 8-10 points in one direction has no voice.


90% of this country has been written off.

The candidates are only contesting 5-7 states.

Why should your vote count less than someone's vote in Colorado or West Virginia.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 11:39 AM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:59 PM
I don't much like it that my vote for Kerry isn't going to count. I live in a solid Bush state. I'm telling you, if Bush carries one state on Election Day, it will be my state. But, a significant number of Americans disagrees with me and wants to protect the sparsely-populated states from being underrepresented on Election Day.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 12:05 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 12:59 AM
Surely there are other ways to ensure that the sparsely-populated states are represented properly.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 01:02 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
I don't much like it that my vote for Kerry isn't going to count. I live in a solid Bush state.
Along this line of thinking, the only votes that "count" are in extremely contested states.

I doubt we will ever be happy with any voting system, because nowadays, candidates analyze what it takes to technically win - not carry the clear and convincing message.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 01:20 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:59 PM
Hello,

A great site for more info about the US voting process is Electoral Vote: http://www.electoral-vote
(and especially http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/e...l-college.html )

And here's another FAQ, this time from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...toral_college/

C ya!

Marty (couldn't quickly find the story how the Electoral College was almost abolished in the late Sixties)
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 01:31 PM   #23
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 04:59 PM
Don't worry about being confused, AcrobatMan. I doubt too many of us Americans could clearly tell you how the system works. Very simply, each state (plus DC) has a certain number of electoral votes, roughly proportional to their population. Most states (but not all!) now have laws that their electoral votes are awarded to the winner of that state's popular vote. Whoever gets 270 of the 538 electoral votes wins.

To answer one of your other questions, the public typically doesn't know beforehand who the Cabinet Secretaries will be. But he can't appoint just anyone, as they need to be confirmed by the Senate.

Sadly, most of the time Senate approval is merely a rubber stamp, as serious opposition to any pick is rare and for the Senate to reject a nominee is even rarer still. I don't think Bush had any nominees rejected, although there was opposition to John Ashcroft for Attorney General. I don't recall any Clinton nominees being rejected either, although if memory serves he withdrew one or two voluntarily.

Back to the electoral college ... I think it works OK most of the time. The problem in 2000 wasn't with the electoral college per se, but rather with the way the election was conducted in Florida specifically. As a Gore supporter, I wasn't real happy with the fact that Bush had fewer popular votes, but Gore didn't have a majority anyway so it's hard to argue that he carried the true will of the people.

The only real complication would be if the race were very close, and an elector changed his/her vote in one of the few states where they aren't legally required to go with the popular vote. This is unlikely; there were some rumblings that this might happen in 2000 but nothing came of it.

Additionally, there is a proposal in Colorado this year that, if passed, would require the state to award its electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote. I don't know if it will pass or not, but things could be very chaotic if it does and the Presidential race is decided differently because of it.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 10-27-2004, 12:23 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 10:59 PM
thanks marty ..excellent links..

now everything is clear.... much more than yesterday

thanks strannix

acrobatman
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 10-27-2004, 12:31 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 10:59 PM
interesting link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...ml/default.stm
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 10-27-2004, 03:04 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:59 PM
I agree, nbcrusader, any and all electoral systems are flawed and pretty damned imperfect. Every democracy has problems with some "fairness" controversy of some sort. This time around you'd think the U.S. only had seventeen states from all of this talk about swing states. It's almost like some votes will be more "equal" than others, depending on which state you live in. Damn, even Hawaii is in play. That used to be solid Democratic country. Virginia used to be one of the most Republican states, now it's considered a swing state. Strange.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-01-2004, 05:22 AM   #27
Babyface
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 23
Local Time: 10:59 PM
The electoral college does represent both the population size by the number of House of Reps elected using a single member district and the number of members of Senate fixed at 2 members for each state regardless of size of the population. So the electoral college in number roughly represent both criteria. However there are occassion where the result of the electoral votes tilted slightly the 'too close to call' popular vote result (usually less than 1% margin) such as the case of the Bush-Gore race in 2000, where the structure of electoral votes affected the casting vote for Bush in Florida. Any state which the popular vote between candidates are very narrow (ie not a solid bloc for either candidates) are swing states. Swing states matter most are large one, simply because the electoral votes from a big state is more likely to affect the result any election using majority system, unless there was almost a tie between candidate then 1 vote is enough to determine a winner.

population size, is proven not an issue to prevent direct election. Indonesia with a population of 220 millions, and almost 150 millions voters was succesful in having one of the largest direct election ever. The election was in July this year. If no candidates won in the election, a second run off elections between the top two was held on September 20th 2004 with the ticket polled the highest votes wins. New President and Vice President won the second round with more than 60% of the votes directly by the people.

I agree with hiphop, it is up for the american citizen to choose which system works best for you. But if concerns were about the size of the population, Indonesia is a great example for that.

FA
__________________
FallenAngel is offline  
Old 11-01-2004, 05:25 AM   #28
Babyface
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 23
Local Time: 10:59 PM
Oh and it wasn't chaotic experience, though small number of irregularrities unavoidable, it was peaceful elections and Indonesia had 3 large scale elections on the same E year.

FA
__________________
FallenAngel is offline  
Old 11-01-2004, 05:36 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:59 AM
Yes Indonesia, gone through very tough times during the Asian Economic Meltdown and the IMF screwed her over in many parts of the reformasi framework but it demonstrates that functioning democracy is not incompatible with having a Muslim populus coming out of a long period of dictatorship, The majority practice Abangan is much less strict than the more funamentalist Santri school of Islamic thought, a land of many contrasts with a rich culture and wonderful sights but I digress, one thing with Indonesia is that the party lines are nowhere near as entrenched as GOP/DNC - they had the whole rainbow coalition thing working after Soeharto, it is still taking its steps - the corruption is still there and the millitary wields significant power when it needs too. Basically the US has had over 200 years to get its shit together, Indonesia hasn't had a decade.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-01-2004, 08:26 AM   #30
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,426
Local Time: 05:59 PM
if it was a straight popular vote, then the candidates would focus most of their attention on places with large populations, i.e. new york, california, texas, etc., completely disregarding the smaller states.

if it was a simply who won the most states, it makes the fact that states like california and new york have large populations insignificant.

the current system tries to make the best of both worlds... the higher the population the more electors you have, yet a smaller state with 10 or so electors is still significant in a close election.

when this whole thing was hatched out 200+ years ago, people identified more with their state than with the country. so a compromise had to be reached in order to assure that smaller states wouldn't be made insignificant. is it a perfect system? no... but it is the system, and will be until somebody can raise enough support to change it.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com