13 years on what are your thoughts on the U.S. presidential election of 2000?

[N35t0r]

Over here we got rid of the electoral college in the last constitution amendment, and since then the president is chosen by direct vote.

[Jon Miller]

I think that direct popular vote is worse than the electoral college because it doesn't account for the geographic diversity of the electorate.

I think the senate is much better than the gerrymandered congress. Congress districts change based on what is best for the majority party in that state every 10 years. The states are based on an identity and a sharing of law. There is nothing wrong with the senate elections.

If I were to change it I would just make it proportional within the state.

I don't see why you are against states. The people who choose to live in Texas or Kansas are very different than the people who choose to live in Massachusetts/etc. Making everything the same is a sure way to make everyone unhappy.

JM

[kentonio]

Well, it was a travesty, and for one if you recounted you would have several tn of debt less.

I have no idea how can you even think it would be remotely similar. No Bush tax cuts which would net you about 2tn less debt to date and no Iraq war about 1tn to date, not to mention future commitments... anyhow if Gore won we would not have had this.

Indeed.

In addition, anyone who's still worked up about the 2000 election is a ****ing loser.

Anyone who isn't still worked up about an election that lead America into huge debt, an utterly pointless war which killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, completely decimated the USA's standing in the world, and fundamentally changed the way America views it's own security and it's attitudes to freedom is.. well pretty ****ing stupid.

[kentonio]

I think that direct popular vote is worse than the electoral college because it doesn't account for the geographic diversity of the electorate.

What's the issue with just keeping the system of electing representatives via state, but electing the President directly? Just because people in one state might be different to people in another, does that mean their voice should be worth more or less?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

In addition, anyone who's still worked up about the 2000 election is a ****ing loser, particularly if they are not a citizen able to influence the outcome in any event.

Fixed

[giblets]

I don't see why one particular form of diversity- geographic diversity- should be singled out for special representation in presidential elections. Why not also divide the voters up according to race, religion, occupation, sex, and whether they live in urban or rural areas?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Presumably its not geographic diversity that is intended to be represented but the unique flavors of soveriegnty of the various states (petry dishes of democracy as it were)

The other categories you describe ( race, religion, occupation, sex etc.) have been purposely deemed within the framework of law as equal and not worthy of extra special consideration one from the other.

[Jon Miller]

What's the issue with just keeping the system of electing representatives via state, but electing the President directly? Just because people in one state might be different to people in another, does that mean their voice should be worth more or less?

The voice that is heard more is the voice in a state that is 'up for grabs'. The voice that is hear less is the voice in a state that is 'not up for grabs'.

This means that 'up for grabs' states are heard more than 'not up for grabs states'.

This is independent of the number of votes.

I would probably be OK with assigning the number of electoral college votes based on population instead of population+2.

But I see this as pretty meaningless, it isn't why one voice is heard more or less than another voice.

JM

[Jon Miller]

In a way this is to keep the US diversity (of opinion/etc).

Places where people all think the same are valued a bit less, places where people have differences of opinion are valued a bit more. It isn't just geographic, some states are big and some are small.

I actually think this means a better job is done then the direct vote.

JM

[kentonio]

Fixed

Which is pretty damn stupid, because when your electoral decisions affect the rest of us, we have even more reason to be pissy about them when we don't have a vote.

In a way this is to keep the US diversity (of opinion/etc).

Places where people all think the same are valued a bit less, places where people have differences of opinion are valued a bit more. It isn't just geographic, some states are big and some are small.

I actually think this means a better job is done then the direct vote.

JM

I really don't understand your point, why should your state of residence have any relevance to your vote for a nationwide president? So lots of people in your state disagree with you so your vote therefore becomes worth more? What sense does that make?

[Jon Miller]

Because geographic/cultural/state/etc matters.

For example, if you removed the electoral college the way to reach people who matter the most would be to focus on the big cities.

It would over emphasize new york/chicago/la compared to the rest of the nation.

The big cities are already weighted towards, having some other weights towards other diferences (cultural/political/state/geographic) is important for such a diverse nation.

JM

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Which is pretty damn stupid, because when your electoral decisions affect the rest of us, we have even more reason to be pissy about them when we don't have a vote.

Too bad deal with it. Not a thing you can do about it. Suggest meditation, medication, or a long vacation.

[giblets]

Even if he were American his influence on presidential elections would be essentially nil.

[snoopy369]

Because there really isn't the concept of 'nationwide President', at least in theory. We understand the need for some guy (or gal) to be designated as the guy who you monarchists should talk to when talking about state matters, but we don't want someone telling us what to do.

Of course this changed over time; the President post-Lincoln had far more power than pre (thanks, South ) and post-FDR had even more (thanks, Japan/Germany/Hoover ) However, even now the President isn't all that powerful; the Prime Minister in London or Canada probably has more political power. Most of the President's real power comes from the Executive branch's functionaries, which don't even change all that much at the lower levels from administration to administration (even at the higher levels, look how many Bush appointees still are in office, or people like the current FBI nominee). GWB and Obama expanded the powers of the Executive significantly (warrantless wiretaps, drone strikes, Guantanamo, etc.), but you'll note there's a lot of complaining about that, and a good chance much of that will be rolled back.

The reason we select this person through a method involving state level representation is a combination of two things. One is that it was a compromise back in 1788; the more populous states wanted House-style representation (population-based) and the less populous wanted equal representation by state. So you have the Senate and the House, and you have the Electoral College (which is not coincidentally equal to the representation in the Senate and the House combined). The president is effectively chosen by the members of Congress, just like your Prime Minister is selected by the MPs; we just have an extra layer in the middle nowadays.

Having this separation is actually pretty important to the US functioning as a country. While it's attractive to look at popular vote and say that each person should have an equal say, I could point to a lot of places where that caused problems. Rwanda. Bosnia. What happens when you have two groups, one of which is a majority, and allow the majority to dictate to the minority? They do so. The way you get a functioning nation when you have disparate groups is by governing together, sometimes giving the minority an outsized say in governance.

In our case, we have a few disparate groups, but ultimately what you really have are more populous urban states and less populous rural states. Those states are to some extent cohesive entities - much more so than in most of the European examples (like Germany). Some of these states would instantly become the second largest country in Europe if they joined the EU. There are wildly different cultures and priorities in different states. In a lot of ways, the USA is much more similar to the EU than any member state thereof. Keeping the states together involves ensuring the lesser populated states aren't underrepresented; if the US government suddenly moved to a completely popular election model, you would see substantial shifts in how the US is run, and it would disadvantage the rural states.

Whether or not you agree with the politics involved in that swing, I don't think it's hard to see that it's very important you not have a nation where part of the nation dictates to the other part of the nation. That would be the quickest way to ensure the breakup of the Union, and I suspect it would happen in my lifetime.

[DinoDoc]

Which is pretty damn stupid, because when your electoral decisions affect the rest of us, we have even more reason to be pissy about them when we don't have a vote.

We still don't care about your opinion.