Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Generic voting question


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#61 of 75 OFFLINE   Stan

Stan

    Screenwriter



  • 2,264 posts
  • Join Date: May 18 1999

Posted November 09 2012 - 03:46 PM

Not at all in favor of a popular vote; because if that happens, you end up where the campaign and all issues focus only on the major metros.  Part of the reason for an electoral college is that it would require candidates to at least pay some attention to areas of required lower population (large swaths of farmland or federal national parks) which would make sure that the policies don't just ram-rod them. That having been said, the "winner take all" electoral college has turned into a serious diservice like you say.   So, there is an obvious answer:  Keep the electoral college, but make it so that each House Rep has 1 EV (as they supposedly do now) but that they vote as they do.  This also has the added benefit of making sure state-level gerrymeandering is held in some check.   That way, ® voters in states like California and NY feel like they have an impact.   (D) voters in Texas, Georgia, etc. have an impact.    The electoral college outcome this time wouldn't have been that different, but the fact is, you'd give a reason for a (D) to go to Georgia.  An ® to campaign in Northern California.   Go straight population, and most of the country goes completely ignored and you become a set of campaign stops of the 25 largest metros only.
I'm still confused by the electoral college vote. Obama is ahead with the popular vote, but not nearly at the ratio the electoral would lead you to expect. By popular vote, he'll still win, but by maybe only a few hundred thousand or few million votes, but other campaigns have been much closer, even with Gore beating Bush in the popular vote. Even where I live, I think we have 12 electoral votes, but by popular vote, it's closer to a 50-50 split, yet Obama gets all 12 votes. I understand your reasoning against a popular vote, but in many states, Obama did concentrate on the major metros, probably leading to his victory. Mentioned this in another post, but my vote really had little contribution, our state was decided months ago and given to Obama, regardless of how the lower population portions of the state voted. Maybe breaking the rules of the forum, but my choices did win, even though they were probably already decided before my vote was counted.
Stan

#62 of 75 OFFLINE   Mike Frezon

Mike Frezon

    Studio Mogul



  • 31,196 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001
  • LocationRensselaer, NY

Posted November 09 2012 - 04:30 PM

Let's not go any further, Stan, on the specifics of your votes.  The rules are getting pushed to their limit.   But you continue to vex me with this idea that your vote didn't count...even though your candidate won your state.  What if everyone who voted for your guy stayed home?  I believe he would have lost.  Elections are won by pluralities.  If you don't vote, there's that much of a better chance your guy won't win.

There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself.Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!


HTF Rules | HTF Mission Statement | Father of the Bride

Dieting with my Dog & Heart to Heart/Hand in Paw by Peggy Frezon


#63 of 75 OFFLINE   Walter C

Walter C

    Screenwriter



  • 2,208 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2006
  • Real Name:Walter

Posted November 09 2012 - 06:21 PM

Wow, I'm surprised that this thread reached 3 pages! Never thought a hint of this subject matter would get this far. :)

TV Episodes Watched - 2015 - March
Feature Films Watched - 2012 (97 seen) / 2013 (100 seen)
Shorts Watched - 2012 (222 seen) / 2013 (87 seen)

Books Read - 2013 (12 read) / 2014 (1 read)


#64 of 75 OFFLINE   Stan

Stan

    Screenwriter



  • 2,264 posts
  • Join Date: May 18 1999

Posted November 09 2012 - 07:16 PM

Let's not go any further, Stan, on the specifics of your votes.  The rules are getting pushed to their limit. But you continue to vex me with this idea that your vote didn't count...even though your candidate won your state.  What if everyone who voted for your guy stayed home?  I believe he would have lost.  Elections are won by pluralities.  If you don't vote, there's that much of a better chance your guy won't win.
Sorry Mike, never expected this thread to go this far, started as just a simple question. I know politics are off limits and tried to keep it as neutral as possible, but obviously went a little to far.
Stan

#65 of 75 OFFLINE   Mike Frezon

Mike Frezon

    Studio Mogul



  • 31,196 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001
  • LocationRensselaer, NY

Posted November 09 2012 - 07:25 PM

Don't get me wrong, fellas.  I'm not saying to end the discussion.  I just want to be cautious about mentioning specific votes and specific candidates, etc.   There have been a number of interesting sub-topics touched upon in this thread.  The Electoral College discussion, for example, is very relevant right now.   So keep going--as the spirit moves you.    Stan's original question about the value of his vote (at least I think that was the original question, IIRC) is a really important one and I still don't think he's yet got a complete understanding of how important one man's vote is--as hard as I try to explain it! 

There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself.Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!


HTF Rules | HTF Mission Statement | Father of the Bride

Dieting with my Dog & Heart to Heart/Hand in Paw by Peggy Frezon


#66 of 75 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Executive Producer



  • 10,193 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted November 09 2012 - 08:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan /t/324255/generic-voting-question#post_3985019 I know we're not supposed to discuss politics here, but this is just a simple question about voting, not debating or arguing for or against candidates. I live in Washington state (on the east side) and probably 99% of whatever comes out of this state is decided upon by the Seattle area. More and more I feel like my vote doesn't even matter. Other than a few local races, everything else is already decided by the west coast people. We're not a swing state and have already been written off by the national media, they're just assuming we'll go a certain direction. It just seems like it's not even worth the trouble to vote any longer, my little opinion just doesn't matter. If this thread is closed I understand, but it's not really about politics, it's more about "does the little guy count any more". When everything is controlled by one heavily populated section of the state, why should I even bother, it won't make a difference.
  Ok, I'm going to answer this in a way that is completely not political.   I will mention no candidates and we won't tread there. IF you are in a state that is a guaranteed "W" for one party or another, then you're right, if you are voting in opposition to how your state goes, your vote would be considered a wash.  In those states, your vote is worth a binary proposition of "1" or "0".  It either bolsters the majority or it is dismissed in the national scheme. Now, for local issues - municipality, house of representatives and even state senator, your vote has far more impact as these elections can rotate back and forth.   More than that, studies show that how you vote influences those around you, and in the end, very few people "vacuum vote" (that is, cast a vote without providing any external influence).  Again, in the end, as above, if it's a national issue and your state is not a swing state, the impact of your vacuum matters less.. unless you're vacuum is huge (this is why endorsements by popular celebrities, political figures and others matter, because their "vacuum effect" is much higher).   Now, in regards to an Electoral College, if the Electoral College is eliminated, there is SOME need to appear to you, but really, Washington's not a big enough base to really draw that much attention.  More than that, in a straight population vote, Regional candidates make a much higher appearance (see: George Wallace) in that a candidate can say "I don't have to win everywhere, I just have to win South/NorthEast/West by 80%, effectively shutting out others, and if Y runs in the West/South/NorthEast, then we divide up and.."  It is true that a national popular vote would be the ultimate desire of third parties, as it would provide them instant and immediate relief.   What is called a "split EV", where EVs are cast by house districts is seen by many as the mid-level compromise.  You avoid regionalism and you make sure that states are not "Winner Take All" at the same time.  It also provides a much more geographically correct assumption to the winner on the policies and areas that they are supported by as well as the ones they need to make progress in...   Both strategies are valid.   The prior policy of "All EVs at once" is an ideal strategy when communication within a state or nation is limited, thus a "sense of a state" provided an accurate sense of that state without requiring the resources and means of dividing it further.  In other words, before say, the modern PC era, the idea of dividing by district would have been such a monumental task that most states simply couldn't handle the management of accomplishing it.   But the importance of your vote at the LOCAL level (school boards, city issues, etc.) tends to be significantly important as your value there escalates immensely as your ability to influence that vote rises as it gets closer to you.   Does that help?
trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#67 of 75 OFFLINE   Patrick_S

Patrick_S

    Producer



  • 3,059 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2000

Posted November 09 2012 - 08:18 PM

So, there is an obvious answer:  Keep the electoral college, but make it so that each House Rep has 1 EV (as they supposedly do now) but that they vote as they do.  This also has the added benefit of making sure state-level gerrymeandering is held in some check.   That way, ® voters in states like California and NY feel like they have an impact.   (D) voters in Texas, Georgia, etc. have an impact.    The electoral college outcome this time wouldn't have been that different, but the fact is, you'd give a reason for a (D) to go to Georgia.  An ® to campaign in Northern California.   Go straight population, and most of the country goes completely ignored and you become a set of campaign stops of the 25 largest metros only.
If you are saying that the members of the House should be casting the EC votes to elect the President than this is an extraordinarily bad answer. Also it would result in more gerrymandering not less.

#68 of 75 OFFLINE   Adam Gregorich

Adam Gregorich

    Executive Producer



  • 15,016 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 1999
  • LocationThe Other Washington

Posted November 09 2012 - 08:29 PM

Matt- With the Electoral Collage, states like Washington, OR, CA, NY are going to vote for the D candidate guaranteed, while states like TX, OK, and others in the Midwest are going to go for the R.  Since these states are either "in the bag" or "unwinnable" (depending on your preference ) the candidates pretty much bypass them anyway.  I think Obama made one stop here that was a fundraiser, and Romey made one fundraiser/campaign stop, so we were essentiall ignored anyway (maybe that was a good thing? )   I don't get what you propose Matt, as that seems to ignore the public vote too.  Some states split their EC votes based on the percentage of votes plus giving a "bonus" vote or two to the winner of the popular vote, kind of a hybrid approach. 

#69 of 75 ONLINE   DaveF

DaveF

    Moderator



  • 14,962 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted November 09 2012 - 08:31 PM

Without it the candidate might be motivated to campaign mostly in big cities. But with it, they only campaign in Ohio and Florida, the swing states, since all-or-nothing EC creates its own distortions. Everyone works to their merit function. The trick is to design a good one to get good outcome. Here's a look at who matters for politicking. http://www.npr.org/b...orphed-by-money

#70 of 75 OFFLINE   Adam Gregorich

Adam Gregorich

    Executive Producer



  • 15,016 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 1999
  • LocationThe Other Washington

Posted November 09 2012 - 08:37 PM

The money and swing states look suspiciously alike

#71 of 75 ONLINE   DaveF

DaveF

    Moderator



  • 14,962 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted November 09 2012 - 08:43 PM

Yep. :)

#72 of 75 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Executive Producer



  • 10,193 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted November 09 2012 - 08:46 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick_S /t/324255/generic-voting-question/60#post_3999655 If you are saying that the members of the House should be casting the EC votes to elect the President than this is an extraordinarily bad answer. Also it would result in more gerrymandering not less.
  No, I'm not saying that at all.   I'm saying each house district would be the equivelent of one EV.  A House district could elect party A to the house and party B to the White House.. in fact, this happens often.  Electors are cast at the state level, not the house level. However, Gerry Meandering is often used to secure "guaranteed" "R" or "D" areas, but study after study have shown that they do so to make sure it's beyond a +10 rate.  This means completely safe districts.   This doesn't necessarily work on the national level, which if faced with a single guaranteed "A" and a guaranteed "B" would prefer 2 closer matched districts than two landslide ones as a chance to pickup 2 EVs than a guaranteed one.
trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#73 of 75 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Executive Producer



  • 10,193 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted November 09 2012 - 08:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich /t/324255/generic-voting-question/60#post_3999657 Matt- With the Electoral Collage, states like Washington, OR, CA, NY are going to vote for the D candidate guaranteed, while states like TX, OK, and others in the Midwest are going to go for the R.  Since these states are either "in the bag" or "unwinnable" (depending on your preference ) the candidates pretty much bypass them anyway.  I think Obama made one stop here that was a fundraiser, and Romey made one fundraiser/campaign stop, so we were essentiall ignored anyway (maybe that was a good thing? )   I don't get what you propose Matt, as that seems to ignore the public vote too.  Some states split their EC votes based on the percentage of votes plus giving a "bonus" vote or two to the winner of the popular vote, kind of a hybrid approach. 
  Two states do it.. Nebraska and Maine.  But let's look at it a different way.  Let's say Missouri did it.   Missouri has 11 electoral votes.  9 Districts.  Each district is assigned an Elector in a split system, so Missouri would have given 3 to Obama, 6 to Romney and than 2 more to Romney for winning the state.   Let's go to a really Red State, Texas.  Texas has 34.   If it was split, 11 would have went for Obama, 21 to Romney, and 2 to Romney for winning the state.  This divided system means that there is a benefit to winning the state, sure.   But it also means that the will of the people at the most base level is still much more accurate.   And how your district votes for President not any other race influences the electors (so your district could vote for a (D) or ® in other races, but as is current, the elector would only be set by the top of the ticket).   As others note, if we go to pure, raw vote, we spend time only in major metros.  In winner take all EV, we spend so only in toss up states.   In a split EC, pressure is on in all states to turn out to make sure you don't lose districts in Georgia, Texas, California, New York.. etc.  it becomes a much more nationwide race. The other real concern, as I pointed out, is if you go full popular vote, you immediately encourage third parties.  Whether that's good or bad, it's reality.  You can't afford to run a big nationwide race?  Doesn't matter.  Run a big race in the south and win a huge amount of votes.  Count on other people dividing the vote up elsewhere so you end up with an 8 way competition where regions pit against each other... IF that system had been in effect when George Wallace ran, the race would have been shockingly different... the EV system was a major obstacle against him in 1968, but despite other candidates pointing out he couldn't win, he still garnered 10M votes and several EVs.  If this was a competition of just raw vote, his case and money would have been much easier to come by.   Another big example of that:  Ross Perot in 1992.  In a non-EV system, Perot would have made a much larger regional impact.
trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#74 of 75 OFFLINE   Mike Frezon

Mike Frezon

    Studio Mogul



  • 31,196 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001
  • LocationRensselaer, NY

Posted November 11 2012 - 09:32 PM

Candidate's Wife Doesn't Vote, Race Ends in Tie.

There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself.Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!


HTF Rules | HTF Mission Statement | Father of the Bride

Dieting with my Dog & Heart to Heart/Hand in Paw by Peggy Frezon


#75 of 75 OFFLINE   Scott Merryfield

Scott Merryfield

    Executive Producer



  • 10,821 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 1998
  • LocationMichigan

Posted November 12 2012 - 12:21 PM

Candidate's Wife Doesn't Vote, Race Ends in Tie.


Is he certain his wife would have voted for him? :laugh:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users