The new Primary Thread

[Ramo]

I have not heard a single snipet of any of his speeches, not even the ones he shows on the TV ads I am now seeing in which he talks about anything but "change", "hope", whatever.

He gives speeches on detailed policy. They just aren't part of his generic stump. I don't know if that's a bad thing. The general public isn't particularly interested in the details, and the wonks could look up those speeches (or a summary).

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


And Bush has done some wide ranging important things as well.

Is it better to do wide ranging things that people despise you for decades later or perhaps not accomplish as much but make the nation as a whole feel inspired and optimistic about the country and their lives?

Reagan had both. Roosevelt had both. Johnson/Nixon/Bush have one and Kennedy has the other. I think most people will prefer Kennedy.

Then they are fools, happy fools perhaps but fools.

Unless you die young, any and every American will live through several presidencies. Four years of good feelings will not mean that in 30 years you will have the ability to have adequate health care.

Nixon was a bastard, but he gave us the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, so I get to both hate him AND have relatively clean air and water.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Admiral
Electoral College is fine per se, the problem is that it is tied to the states. If you tied it to Congressional districts, which are by and large of equal size, you would lose the disproportionality of the system, while preserving the anti-democratic basis of the system.

Um, no, that would preserve all of the bad anti-democratic basis and keep none of the good. It exists to protect state's rights, not to be anti-democratic.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Um, no, that would preserve all of the bad anti-democratic basis and keep none of the good. It exists to protect state's rights, not to be anti-democratic.

Not at all. Look at the Federalist Papers. The primary reason of the Electoral College was to create a cushion between the populace and the White House. That way, in a worst case scenario, the electors could choose not to vote for the demagogue that won the popular vote.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo


He gives speeches on detailed policy. They just aren't part of his generic stump. I don't know if that's a bad thing. The general public isn't particularly interested in the details, and the wonks could look up those speeches (or a summary).

I think most of the public would liek to think he has any plan, which does not shine through from his stump speech.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Admiral


Not at all. Look at the Federalist Papers. The primary reason of the Electoral College was to create a cushion between the populace and the White House. That way, in a worst case scenario, the electors could choose not to vote for the demagogue that won the popular vote.

I think you'll find that it's more complex than that... I don't have a copy at hand, but wikipedia suggests reading No.39 for an explanation of the mixture of state/national vote.

Either way, I don't necessarily hold the Federalists (US party in 18th-19th century) as supporting what I consider Federalism (modern). They started as a party that supported a stronger federal government...

The particular mechanics of the current electoral college most definitely exist to protect states' rights and the say of those in smaller states.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I think you'll find that it's more complex than that... I don't have a copy at hand, but wikipedia suggests reading No.39 for an explanation of the mixture of state/national vote.

Either way, I don't necessarily hold the Federalists (US party in 18th-19th century) as supporting what I consider Federalism (modern). They started as a party that supported a stronger federal government...

The particular mechanics of the current electoral college most definitely exist to protect states' rights and the say of those in smaller states.

Well, except that the way the electoral college currently works, the smaller states have even less power than they would if it didn't. The battleground states strategies that both parties employ involves narrowing the number of actively contested states to a minimum. In 2004, for instance, the three critical states were Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. Bush won because he won 2 out of 3. And they are all big states.

Or, look at my point from a different angle. Compare the GOP and Democratic primaries. The GOP primary is winner-take-all, and the Democratic primary is proportional delegation. Effectively, the Democratic primary does what we should do with the electoral college. As a result, everyone gets to feel like their vote matters. I live in NY. Obviously, Clinton will win. But I'm part of a strong and energetic Obama organizing effort, because we're hoping to nab a bunch of delegates. Obama is even running ads here. If the GOP primary were heavily contested, however, it would still be focused around key battleground states. The proportional delegation system, thus, is able to expand the sphere of active participation in the primary, and give a voice to more people.

[GePap]

Originally posted by snoopy369

The particular mechanics of the current electoral college most definitely exist to protect states' rights and the say of those in smaller states.

What the hell does the Electoral college, which comes into play only every four years, do for "states rights"? The Senate is where small states get their real power, not the electorcal college. Hell, a Presidential candidate could run a campaign by going to only the 20 most populous states and leave the thirty smaller states to rot and still be president.

[snoopy369]

No, a popular vote would disenfranchise small states relative to big ones.

You are suggesting that we give more power to the districts; however that is not consistent with the US federal system, which gives more power to the states. Doing it by districts would disenfranchise the states just as easily as a popular vote would; CA would still have 50x the power to elect the president as opposed to WY, and many of the middle-sized states would no longer be relevant in the presidential elections.

[Ramo]

think you'll find that it's more complex than that... I don't have a copy at hand, but wikipedia suggests reading No.39 for an explanation of the mixture of state/national vote.

Either way, I don't necessarily hold the Federalists (US party in 18th-19th century) as supporting what I consider Federalism (modern). They started as a party that supported a stronger federal government...

The particular mechanics of the current electoral college most definitely exist to protect states' rights and the say of those in smaller states.

1. Federalist No. 39 was written by someone who didn't become part of the Federalist Party, Madison.
2. It didn't defend the electoral college.
3. Hamilton defends the institution in No. 68, where he sees it as a firewall against the riffraff - people without the "requisite qualifications," only "talents of low intrigue" and "the little arts of popularity."

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by GePap


What the hell does the Electoral college, which comes into play only every four years, do for "states rights"? The Senate is where small states get their real power, not the electorcal college. Hell, a Presidential candidate could run a campaign by going to only the 20 most populous states and leave the thirty smaller states to rot and still be president.

It gives small states more say in the Presidential Election than they'd have otherwise... without it they could campaign in five or six states and leave the rest to rot

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ramo


1. Federalist No. 39 was written by someone who didn't become part of the Federalist Party, Madison.
2. It didn't defend the electoral college.
3. Hamilton defends the institution in No. 68, where he sees it as a firewall against the riffraff - people without the "requisite qualifications," only "talents of low intrigue" and "the little arts of popularity."

... and you missed the part about the Federalists not being in favor of what we now call federalism? (They supported "Federal Government" as in a national government instead of a "Confederation"...)

[chequita guevara]

That wouldn't work, because most states are actually purple, not red or blue. Thus, every major media market would need to be hit, as well as states that normally only go one way. You need every single vote. Right now, Dem's can ignore Texas and the GOP New York, despite millions of supporters living in each. Likewise, Nevada becomes important because of Las Vegas. States like Alaska and Hawaii that never get visited will be just as important, and actually have some input on the election.

The current EC is just bad for everyone except the two political parties.

Anyway, even if they did only campaign in five or six states, what would be wrong with that? Half the population lives in just ten states. The majority of the population ought not to be held hostages by the majority. It is fundamentally undemocratic.

[Ramo]

... and you missed the part about the Federalists not being in favor of what we now call federalism? (They supported "Federal Government" as in a national government instead of a "Confederation"...)

You have a knack for writing complete and utter non-sequiters.

The Federalist Papers were written before the founding of the Federalist Party. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were the authors, and they were selling the Constitution; so these essays constituted the original intent of the document. Hamilton and Jay became Federalists, pushing for greater federal powers within this framework; Madison a Republican (predecessor to the Democrats), pushing for less.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Snoopy369 - This is not about states rights, and your Iowa/California example is foolish. First of all, California still gets more votes than Iowa, so California does get to tell Iowa what to do. But Iowa gets more proportional representation in the College. As far as I'm aware, there's no argument for States Rights that suggests that all States are equal, but some are more equal than others, which is the situation the EC produces. The Electoral College is the worst of both worlds -- not democratic AND not a good example of States Rights.

Incidently, I'd be fine with preserving the electoral college and the tradition of states casting all their viotes for the candidate that won the state. That'd be fine -- with proportional representation. Deduct two votes from each state, and you're there.

Ben - The Senate is a different beast that the Electoral College, in that it doesn't even pretend to be proportional; it's a pure States Rights institution. But the electoral college is a pure hybrid that serves neither democracy or States rights, which is what makes it particularly horrid. And it doesn't matter which party it serves (btw, if the big, empty Western States were blue, I guarantee you'd hear Republicand fulminating about it).

Sloww - WTF? I said that Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000. How the hell is that "over the top" -- as opposed to, say, "true"?