Romney wins presidential debate

[Elok]

No time to get to most of what you posted right now, Ken, but I mean that I'm "represented" by electors chosen to fit my proportion of the population, but who will go with the winner even if I vote for the loser. In effect, I'm being made to vote against my own wishes unless I happen to agree with the majority of my state. The fact that they can cheat is just an additional problem.

[kentonio]

Yes, but your main point is just the same problem as in any first past the post system. There really isn't any reason for a Presidential election to not use proportional representation really. Unfortunately over here there would be some major issues with moving to that kind of system.

[C0ckney]

how can a presidential election use proportional representation? PR is for legislatures, not elections where one man wins.

i think you mean a system whereby votes aren't split according to location and are just counted on a nationwide basis.

[kentonio]

how can a presidential election use proportional representation? PR is for legislatures, not elections where one man wins.

i think you mean a system whereby votes aren't split according to location and are just counted on a nationwide basis.

Yeah, that. Sorry, hadn't had my coffee at that point.

[Jon Miller]

That still has the same effect that the minority is voting in someone who they didn't vote for.

JM

[kentonio]

Huh? How?

[Jon Miller]

Anyone who didn't vote for Obama, whether they were in Utah or New York, ended up getting Utah.

Remember Elok's complain: "makes voting for president a farce by effectively disenfranchising the minority in every single state"

No matter what, the minority get disenfranchised by getting the person in office who they didn't vote for.

The only way to fix this is proportional election and no separate president/etc.

JM

[kentonio]

Anyone who didn't vote for Obama, whether they were in Utah or New York, ended up getting Utah.

Remember Elok's complain: "makes voting for president a farce by effectively disenfranchising the minority in every single state"

No matter what, the minority get disenfranchised by getting the person in office who they didn't vote for.

The only way to fix this is proportional election and no separate president/etc.

JM

Nah, democracy has to have some element of majority vote having its way. Even in proportional representation systems theres usually a level of votes needed to elect a candidate. If every vote has to result in representation then you'd end up with utter chaos.

I think you can draw a clear line however between that kind of ideal world and a system that doesn't discount votes purely based on location. If your vote counts towards the total but your guy doesn't win, then hey thats part of living in a democracy, having to accept that sometimes others views need to be heard.

[Hauldren Collider]

No time to get to most of what you posted right now, Ken, but I mean that I'm "represented" by electors chosen to fit my proportion of the population, but who will go with the winner even if I vote for the loser. In effect, I'm being made to vote against my own wishes unless I happen to agree with the majority of my state. The fact that they can cheat is just an additional problem.

How is this any different from electing an MP who then votes for prime minister?

[Asher]

Allahu Akbar!

Praise Jesus!

What's your point, other than hardcore religious people should not be in power?

[DinoDoc]

Praise Jesus!

What's your point, other than hardcore religious people should not be in power?

This would have been the better response:

[Asher]

No.

[Elok]

How is this any different from electing an MP who then votes for prime minister?

I didn't say I wanted that system, either. I favor direct popular election of the president, or failing that for the EC to be broken up into substantially smaller chunks--so that, say, a single congressional district's vote goes with its majority. Not quite as ridiculous as the current system, where every Republican in Maryland could vote for Romney and accomplish nothing. What kind of democracy leaves at least a third of the people powerless to support their chosen candidate at the booth?

[Hauldren Collider]

You realize that could be done right now, don't you? Under the constitution, states can assign electors any way they like--including without an election at all.

But you realize, if your vote is meaningless, everybody's vote is equally meaningless. Their voice may be the one represented, but by your logic, no one's voice is represented because and individual's choice does not affect the outcome. This would be true under any system unless the victor wins by exactly one vote. It would just be more reflected in the final tally.

[giblets]

I didn't say I wanted that system, either. I favor direct popular election of the president, or failing that for the EC to be broken up into substantially smaller chunks--so that, say, a single congressional district's vote goes with its majority. Not quite as ridiculous as the current system, where every Republican in Maryland could vote for Romney and accomplish nothing. What kind of democracy leaves at least a third of the people powerless to support their chosen candidate at the booth?

Congressional districts is worse because of gerrymandering. It would make it easier for someone to win the presidency while losing the popular vote. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a much better proposal.