The Official 2008 Electoral College Prediction Thread

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You don't understand. The US is a federation of states. One state should not rule over the whole federation. You can give additional weight to a state, which the EC does. Letting a couple of states rule destroys the federal system.

By your logic, why not do away with the Senate? It's a billion times worse than the EC -- each state is equal. Why not just throw all power in the hands of the big states?

Think on it, numbnutses.

You have a hard time differentiating between STATES and AMERICANS.

ALL Americans should have equal votes. What state they live in plays no ****ing part. They're all Americans, they all can vote, and all votes are equal.

Why should incest cousins have votes that carry more weight than Clint ****ing Eastwood? Answer me that while preserving your manhood and I'll bake you a cookie.

I'm not saying get rid of the US Senate. I'm saying when voting for PRESIDENT, all votes should be equal. You still get your overrepresentation for fellow incestuous hicks via the Senate.

[Wiglaf]

Why should incest cousins have votes that carry more weight than Clint ****ing Eastwood?

I'm afraid you're going to have to rephrase this question so it makes some sense.

The fundamental problem with saying 'all votes are equal' is that it has the effect of letting 4 or 5 states basically dominate the elections for the executive. The populous states already dominate the house. You can see why this might upset the people living in the 25-30 other states. These people might see the federation as not being in their interests, resulting in all sorts of problems. Probably secession if you do away with the senate and the EC.

The real question is, why do gay men boinking in the rear and archiving Lincoln's speeches all day get more of a vote than farmers who put food on America's tables?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


I'm afraid you're going to have to rephrase this question so it makes some sense.

The fundamental problem with saying 'all votes are equal' is that it has the effect of letting 4 or 5 states basically dominate the elections for the executive.

No, the problem with saying 'all votes are not equal' is that it has the effect of letting 20 or 30 states with six people a piece dominate the elections for the executive.

When voting for the president, states don't ****ing matter. You are electing 1 man (or 1 manly woman in pantsuits) to run your country. State lines should not matter. At all.

The real question is, why do gay men boinking in the rear and archiving Lincoln's speeches all day get more of a vote than farmers who put food on America's tables?

They don't. Every vote is equal.

Do they not teach basic logic at the American Idol forums where you spend all your time?

[Wiglaf]

The executive is a lot more than one man. My god, you need civics and grammar lessons. The executive controls the cabinet, the sec of state, the defense department, the judicial appointments, etc etc.

Again, if states lose say in the process, then they lose representation, and they have no reason to be a part of the United States.

The small population states don't "dominate" the EC. They are just given a slight boost to them a bit more competitive.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The executive is a lot more than one man. My god, you need civics and grammar lessons. The executive controls the cabinet, the sec of state, the defense department, the judicial appointments, etc etc.

Again, if states lose say in the process, then they lose representation, and they have no reason to be a part of the United States.

All states can vote. All people no matter where they have will have equal say.

What you advocate is fundamentally undemocratic, though you pretend it is. Farmers are no more important in deciding our executive than Bank executives in New York City. You can say they put food on our tables, but I disagree -- most of my food is synthetic and comes from factories in major states. Your lies are spiraling out of control, Mr Aiken.

[Wiglaf]

They don't. Every vote is equal.

Civics time for Asher!

Let's say there's two states in the Union: one full of 20 million gay hockey loving lawyers who archive Lincoln's speeches all day, and another full of 5 million hard working farmers who put food on the tables of those lawyers.

Can you not see how maybe -- just maybe -- the farmers interests might not be represented if voting power is determined by population size? And how this can bring down the whole system and hurt both the gays and the straights?

[Wiglaf]

Mr Aiken.

HE'S DEAD TO ME :MAD

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Civics time for Asher!

Let's say there's two states in the Union: one full of 20 million gay hockey loving lawyers who archive Lincoln's speeches all day, and another full of 5 million hard working farmers who put food on the tables of those lawyers.

Can you not see how maybe -- just maybe -- the farmers interests might not be represented if voting power is determined by population size? And how this can bring down the whole system and hurt both the gays and the straights?

No, I don't see.

How about this case:
You've got a state of 2 million incestuous hicks living off farm subsidies making wheat that they ship overseas as token "foreign aid", and a state of 49 billion people who are awesome in every way.

Can you not see how maybe -- just maybe -- the awesome people's interests might not be represented if the voting power is lopsided towards the incestuous hicks?

[Unimatrix11]

WigLaf, i might have asked god and the world, but i certainly did not ask You...

AFAIK and can also be read in this thread, certain states are certain wins for one or the other candidate under the current system. This means, that in the election, only a select number of states even matter. In Texas, i´d assume, voting democrat in a, mind you: FEDERAL election, is a wasted vote, more or less, since you can be sure, your vote wont even make it beyond state level. If at least the electorate of the different states would split according to the proportions of the votes, then you´d at least not throw your vote away totally unnoticed. Say, and i dont know and i dont care to look it up right now, Texas had 20 EVs: If for each 5% your candidate gets in this state, you would get one EV, then it would be at least a step in the right direction.

BTW: It is called the ´FEDERAL republic of germany´ - so trust me, i know the concept of federalism, and that the US has 50 (now you tell me how many Germany has...), and those are representated by the senate, not the president, who is acting for the whole union. You could argue, that having two seats per state in the senate isnt really fair either, since modern democracy usually represents people not money (or rather: is supposed to), otherwise these system would feature a census electoral system.

And i dont even get started on having a two-party system. How convenient: You just have to lobby in two rooms to be certain your goals be achieved, if you have the neccessary means.

WigLaf, your point goes in the direction of: If you are a mechanic in a famers state, you are, for all practical purposes, exspelled from presidential elections.

You just showed, that you dont know history (apart from the fact, that, of course, i didnt vote Hitler, though i will say, given the time, the circumstances and the lack of historic experience, i may well would have), because Hitler never got the votes to make him chancellor - he scared those who would vote against him out of parliament, which is how he got his majority for the ´empowerment´. And guess what: He was made chancellor by an almost almighty president - which is the reason, why we abolished such an overiding office in our constitution in 1949 - unlike in other nations, where the president can just go and declare war, even though it is against the constitution of his own country. All the more important then, to have that office (wo-)manned in a fair manner...

[Wiglaf]

OH NOW YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR

IF YO U WANT THE UNITED STATES TO ONLY HAVE 5 STATS DO YOU CAN INVADE FROM CANDA AND DIVUDE US AND MAKE US WEAKER? NIE TRY. I SEE IT COMING FROM AM ILE AWAY. WE ARE UNITED FOR 270 YEARS BECAUSE OF THIS SYSTEM. WHY CHANGE IT? BECAUSE AL GORE LOST? LOL HE INVENTED THE INTERNET HE COULD HAVE WON FLORIDA. CALL ME INCESTUOUS IF YOU WANT, BUT I HAVE NEVER HAD SEX WITH ANYONE I DIDN'T EAT DINNER WITH FIRST.

[Unimatrix11]

Is he mental ?

[Asher]

Al Gore is to the internet what McCain is to Blackberries.

Don't test me Wiggy.

[Unimatrix11]

It is BTW, a pretty f***** up mindset to vote solely on your own personal interest. One should always vote for what one believes is the best for the common good of the whole nation.

And it is precicely because even the smallest state´s population is not composed out of one single interest group, that the system you advocate is unfair - there is no such place as the ones you describe, full of lawyers or full of farmers. Even in the mid-west, you could find a lawyer here and there, right ? Well, by your system you expell him from the electoral process entirely - unless he moves where the majority of people are lawyers, he is not part of the system. This, in theory, contributes a lot more to tearing a country´s cohesion apart, because it forces you to stick with those who are like you, instead of having diversity all across the place. And thats how secession comes along...

[siron]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


That my point!

For mathematic's sake, let's say that California has the exact same population as the bottom 25 states put together.

Under the electorial system, Califonria gets (IIRC) 52 votes for its representatives (i.e. for its population) + 2 votes for its Senators = 54 votes total. The least populated 25 states would also get 52 votes for their population + 50 votes for their Senators = 102 votes total. Thus, the least populous states have double the electorial votes as California.

Why would the 25 least populous states vote to replace this system for one in which each person's vote is counted individually and equally?

Actually, a priori (ignoring preferences) a voter in California has the highest probability to change the outcome of the election.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly backwards, but am too lazy to do the math.