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

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Because Ohio and Virginia are lacking idiots?

I live in Ohio, sir. I am beset on all sides by idiots. I don't want those ****ing snake oil salesmen sleazing their way through my backyard anymore, thank you very much.

No, you have a better distribution of idiots. For every Sarah Palin there has to be Michael Moore.

Besides we get enough of the politico sleaze balls coming through our neck of the woods for fund raising as it is. Suck it up and do your patriotic duty and enjoy your rubbing elbows time so that the rest of the nation doesn't have to. Take one for the team damn it.

[korn469]

The top 10 most populous states have about half the population of the United States. Why in an election shouldn't they get about half the campaigning efforts of the candidates? Why should more than half of the candidates efforts go to 5-6 states that usually contain maybe a fifth of the population. If states are important, then why is only 10-12% of them getting attention from the candidates a good thing? If a candidates wants to win a direct popular election, he'll have to go where the votes are. So at worst it replaces the 5-6 battle ground states with the top 10 most populous states. I think if the electoral college went away, the candidates would stop in more cities. Yes maybe a few farming communities in Iowa would lose out, but oh well. About 80% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. What would be wrong with about 80% of the candidates efforts going towards urban areas?

What is so wrong with one person one vote?

[Guynemer]

**** you. That's why.

Spoiler:

That was the clearest chance to use that line I'd ever have.

No, **** YOU, that's why!

[Jon Miller]

The top 10 most populous states have about half the population of the United States. Why in an election shouldn't they get about half the campaigning efforts of the candidates? Why should more than half of the candidates efforts go to 5-6 states that usually contain maybe a fifth of the population. If states are important, then why is only 10-12% of them getting attention from the candidates a good thing? If a candidates wants to win a direct popular election, he'll have to go where the votes are. So at worst it replaces the 5-6 battle ground states with the top 10 most populous states. I think if the electoral college went away, the candidates would stop in more cities. Yes maybe a few farming communities in Iowa would lose out, but oh well. About 80% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. What would be wrong with about 80% of the candidates efforts going towards urban areas?

What is so wrong with one person one vote?

In a federal system you never have 1 person 1 vote. We don't have it for congress, we dont' have it for senate, we don't have it for president. If we got rid of our whole system and adopted the westminster system then your issue could be fixed... and maybe it would be better. But I am not convinced. Switching just the president would be a huge mistake (or just president and senate).

The current system gives you 15 or so battle ground states.

And you thinking 10 is unreasonable, it would be 5 or less (California, Texas, and New York have a huge portion of the US).

Not only do you have the 15 for presidential elections, you have a 3-5 more from congress/etc elections (which happen to be the California/Texas/New York), and you have the possibility of an additional 1-3 due to senate/etc elections.

It is purely better.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

What is so wrong with one person one vote?

It's the President of the United States, not President of the People of the United States after all

Though, whenever I think of direct popular vote as a good idea, I remember how the news media enjoys focusing almost solely on New York (& Boston gets brought it as a counter to NY) and California. Sometimes Chicago, but mostly when Obama is there.

[snoopy369]

Focusing on which states are campaigned in is idiotic; they'll game whichever system you set up, so don't worry about that.

Either you understand that the US is not a cohesive nation, but is instead a collection of states, or you don't. If it's a cohesive nation, then one person one vote, all good. If it's a collection of states, then the electoral college is a reasonable solution. The fact that the result of the electoral college does not always agree with the popular vote is not a problem; it is proof of it _working_. Sorry if that means the guy you wanted in didn't get in, or whatever, but that's life.

[Jon Miller]

The top 10 most populous states have about half the population of the United States. Why in an election shouldn't they get about half the campaigning efforts of the candidates? Why should more than half of the candidates efforts go to 5-6 states that usually contain maybe a fifth of the population. If states are important, then why is only 10-12% of them getting attention from the candidates a good thing? If a candidates wants to win a direct popular election, he'll have to go where the votes are. So at worst it replaces the 5-6 battle ground states with the top 10 most populous states. I think if the electoral college went away, the candidates would stop in more cities. Yes maybe a few farming communities in Iowa would lose out, but oh well. About 80% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. What would be wrong with about 80% of the candidates efforts going towards urban areas?

What is so wrong with one person one vote?

In a federal system you never have 1 person 1 vote. We don't have it for congress, we dont' have it for senate, we don't have it for president. If we got rid of our whole system and adopted the westminster system then your issue could be fixed... and maybe it would be better. But I am not convinced. Switching just the president would be a huge mistake (or just president and senate).

The current system gives you 15 or so battle ground states.

And you thinking 10 is unreasonable, it would be 5 or less (California, Texas, and New York have a huge portion of the US).

Not only do you have the 15 for presidential elections, you have a 3-5 more from congress/etc elections (which happen to be the California/Texas/New York), and you have the possibility of an additional 1-3 due to senate/etc elections.

It is purely better.

JM

[giblets]

In a federal system you never have 1 person 1 vote. We don't have it for congress, we dont' have it for senate, we don't have it for president. If we got rid of our whole system and adopted the westminster system then your issue could be fixed... and maybe it would be better. But I am not convinced. Switching just the president would be a huge mistake (or just president and senate).

The current system gives you 15 or so battle ground states.

And you thinking 10 is unreasonable, it would be 5 or less (California, Texas, and New York have a huge portion of the US).

Not only do you have the 15 for presidential elections, you have a 3-5 more from congress/etc elections (which happen to be the California/Texas/New York), and you have the possibility of an additional 1-3 due to senate/etc elections.

It is purely better.

JM

California, Texas and New York have 26% of the population. We're talking about maybe a quarter of campaign resources getting devoted to those states, assuming that voters in those states are as persuadable on average as the whole country. The idea that an election would revolve around those three states is silly IMHO.

[giblets]

It's the President of the United States, not President of the People of the United States after all

Though, whenever I think of direct popular vote as a good idea, I remember how the news media enjoys focusing almost solely on New York (& Boston gets brought it as a counter to NY) and California. Sometimes Chicago, but mostly when Obama is there.

Why does it matter what the national media "enjoys" focusing on? No matter what the media does any presidential campaign that assumed they just needed New York and California would be doomed to failure. Realistically no one would do this; they would distribute their resources throughout the country to reach voters everywhere.

[giblets]

What I find distressing is that of the 3143 counties and county-equivalents in the United States, only a small percentage receive any focus in a presidential election. A system of dividing electoral votes by county would be purely better and not crazy at all.

A popular vote system, on the other hand, would be awful. Look at how many people live in a relatively small number of counties that would get so much more attention. It would make the other counties sad.

[snoopy369]

It's not a matter of the 'election' riding on that. It's a matter of the policies adopted by said elected official(s) revolving around the urban voters rather than being reasonably balanced between the desires of urban and rural states. That's going to drive who wins the next election, and would move our national politics very far to policies favoring the urban voters.

[Aeson]

We'd be better off without the electoral college. Though I'll admit it does have some value, such as snoopy bringing up Rwanda and Bosnia. That was hilarious

The actual issues that presumably gain a little political sway because of the electoral college are all crap. Keeping the Cuban embargo ... crap. Keeping SS from being reformed ... crap. Farm/ethanol subsidies ... crap. (Just to clarify, I don't think removing the electoral college will change those things. At best it might make it slightly easier to change those things at some point in the future.)

Whether A or B would have won without the electoral college is not clear at all. There are surely voters in non-swing states who don't vote in Presidential elections because they realize it's pointless, and voters in swing states who do vote because they realize their vote counts more. How many of these marginal voters there are, and how their votes would impact the elections, is difficult to say.

[giblets]

It's not a matter of the 'election' riding on that. It's a matter of the policies adopted by said elected official(s) revolving around the urban voters rather than being reasonably balanced between the desires of urban and rural states. That's going to drive who wins the next election, and would move our national politics very far to policies favoring the urban voters.

If "favoring urban voters" means "dismantling policies that favor rural voters such as agricultural subsidies" then it might be an improvement.

[snoopy369]

I'll be first on board the 'farm subsidies are not a good idea' train, but there are lots of policies that would likely change that would negatively impact rural states; and while you might not agree with them, that's the point - the rural states are populated by people who don't agree with you.

[Jon Miller]

California, Texas and New York have 26% of the population. We're talking about maybe a quarter of campaign resources getting devoted to those states, assuming that voters in those states are as persuadable on average as the whole country. The idea that an election would revolve around those three states is silly IMHO.

What is cheaper, to buy advertising/be active politically/etc in California, Texas, Florida, and New York... or to buy advertising/be active politically/etc in the smallest, geographically separate, very diverse interest wise, etc 30 states (Which also have ~25% of the population). No one would ever put any interest into those 30 states, and even states 5-11 (which also have ~24% of the population) would be entirely ignored as not worth the time.

There is no way that political emphasis would be split even based on population unless it was forced to be. Focus would go to where the most people were and stay there because that is where the most return would be.

Like it is with other efforts that require national activity.

Basically, there are a lot of things that Texans share or New Yorkers share or Californians share. This is based on the politics of the state, the culture of the state, the economics of the state (very important), and the geographic location of the state. To make it based on popular count only means that only places where a message tuned towards the particular states which are dominant will go out....

And as Snoopy said, they are already dominant. They don't need to be made even more dominant... it would become unbalanced.

JM