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

[giblets]

You really don't understand the sociopolitical dynamics of the US, do you? States still have very significant roles in American lives. Even with increased mobility, you still have a very large percentage of people living in the state they grew up in; and a lot of the folks that move do so once (presumably to get to something more sympatico with their preferences, and/or going to college and staying like I did). In particular from a region perspective, there's a lot of regional and state culture that is reflected in their constituents; claiming the US is a homogenous nation is flat-out wrong in my opinion. States are no more arbitrary lines than nations are; do you suggest we poll the people of Mexico as to who our President should be?

No, I suggest we poll the people whom the President will govern. Is there regional variation? Sure, but the culture gradually changes rather than suddenly changing completely as soon as you cross a state boundary, so the lines are in fact arbitrary.

[Ben Kenobi]

How about this for a compromise: keep the EC, but drop 2 votes from every state & DC. Make things more proportional

Right, because people spend too much time campaigning in Wyoming and not enough time in Ohio.

How about the opposite. Give each state a minimum of 5 EC votes and then redistribute the rest proportionally.

[korn469]

We're been over this. Wyoming has, proportionately, far more EC power than Ohio, or almost any other state other than its fellow 3 voters.

How about this for a compromise: keep the EC, but drop 2 votes from every state & DC. Make things more proportional.

That wouldn't fix the swing states problem. Even you changed the electoral college so that it had 100+ million votes, one electoral vote for each voter, but administered it so that it worked the same as the current system, then it would still be undemocratic. You win Florida by 500 votes, and suddenly your candidate won 5 million electoral votes in Florida. We don't need to fix it, we need to replace it.

[giblets]

Let's split Texas, California and New York into multiple states. That should make electing the president by popular vote more palatable (even though it would have no effect on the outcome of a popular vote election and arbitrary concepts are obviously clouding some people's thinking and causing them to reach bizarre conclusions).

[korn469]

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.

If I remember correctly, the constitution starts out...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't see where it says,

We the States that came together to form the Confederation of Completely Independent States that occasionally work together

[snoopy369]

We're been over this. Wyoming has, proportionately, far more EC power than Ohio, or almost any other state other than its fellow 3 voters.

How about this for a compromise: keep the EC, but drop 2 votes from every state & DC. Make things more proportional.

The EC is the compromise between 2 for each state, and (House of Reps) for each state [or direct popular vote, which is different but similar in its effect here]. Dropping the Senate portion of the vote does not make it a compromise, it makes it a surrender. That's how we came to this compromise in the first place...

Gribbler, the President does not govern 'the people'. The states and local leaders largely govern the people. The decisions of the IL state assembly and the Oak Park village council have far more effect on my daily life than the Federal Government, not to mention the President, who aside from strip searching me at airports doesn't have almost any effect on my life. That's how the US works, and why it works fairly well, except for the whole accumulation of power in the federal government bit, which is sort of unfortunate, but unsurprising (power only flows up, never down).

The President primarily serves as the head of state for diplomatic purposes and as a check on Congress. He is the elected representative of the States plural, not the people.

[snoopy369]

If I remember correctly, the constitution starts out...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't see where it says,

We the States that came together to form the Confederation of Completely Independent States that occasionally work together

The Union is not a Union of _people_, though. It's a Union of _states_.

[korn469]

You really don't understand the sociopolitical dynamics of the US, do you? States still have very significant roles in American lives. Even with increased mobility, you still have a very large percentage of people living in the state they grew up in; and a lot of the folks that move do so once (presumably to get to something more sympatico with their preferences, and/or going to college and staying like I did). In particular from a region perspective, there's a lot of regional and state culture that is reflected in their constituents; claiming the US is a homogenous nation is flat-out wrong in my opinion. States are no more arbitrary lines than nations are; do you suggest we poll the people of Mexico as to who our President should be?

I spent a most of my life living in Virginia, but I have also lived in Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, and now (technically, but not really) in Kentucky and I've lived in both rural and urban places. Besides Virginia, most of the people I've know in all of the places I've lived, weren't born there.

Now while states do have different laws, they are usually fairly petty annoying things. It's not like I move from one state to another and go, "Hmmmm....I wonder if dueling and bear baiting are legal here?" Everywhere I go, big familiar corporations surround me. I don't think I have ever been more than an hour drive from a place that didn't have a McDonalds, or Subway, or Walmart. Most people I run into speak english. Most of the signs are in english. If I have a phone or computer I can log onto the same sites online. 100 or 150 years ago, it might have been different, but now in most respects, America is quite similar.

Yes there are difference. When I am on the kentucky side of the border I pay 6.5 cents in sales tax and on the Tennessee side, I pay like 9.5. Now because of that there are two Walmarts nearly equal distance from me, so I usually go to the KY one when I do go to Walmart, but it has a slightly worse selection than the other one. So sometime I do go to the TN one. But the experience is virtually identical.

Driving from the hills of Virginia to Miami in December does give you a vastly different climate, and Miami is a big urban center, but I can still tell I'm in the U.S. If you want culture shock go to a public restroom in Bulgaria. You certainly won't question if you're still in the U.S. or not.

[giblets]

The Union is not a Union of _people_, though. It's a Union of _states_.

What are states?

Spoiler:

Unions of people.

Spoiler:

A union of unions of people is... a union of people.

[korn469]

The EC is the compromise between 2 for each state, and (House of Reps) for each state [or direct popular vote, which is different but similar in its effect here]. Dropping the Senate portion of the vote does not make it a compromise, it makes it a surrender. That's how we came to this compromise in the first place...

Gribbler, the President does not govern 'the people'. The states and local leaders largely govern the people. The decisions of the IL state assembly and the Oak Park village council have far more effect on my daily life than the Federal Government, not to mention the President, who aside from strip searching me at airports doesn't have almost any effect on my life. That's how the US works, and why it works fairly well, except for the whole accumulation of power in the federal government bit, which is sort of unfortunate, but unsurprising (power only flows up, never down).

The President primarily serves as the head of state for diplomatic purposes and as a check on Congress. He is the elected representative of the States plural, not the people.

My experience has been completely different. The federal government has a far larger impact on my life than the states.

[giblets]

The EC is the compromise between 2 for each state, and (House of Reps) for each state [or direct popular vote, which is different but similar in its effect here]. Dropping the Senate portion of the vote does not make it a compromise, it makes it a surrender. That's how we came to this compromise in the first place...

Gribbler, the President does not govern 'the people'. The states and local leaders largely govern the people. The decisions of the IL state assembly and the Oak Park village council have far more effect on my daily life than the Federal Government, not to mention the President, who aside from strip searching me at airports doesn't have almost any effect on my life. That's how the US works, and why it works fairly well, except for the whole accumulation of power in the federal government bit, which is sort of unfortunate, but unsurprising (power only flows up, never down).

The President primarily serves as the head of state for diplomatic purposes and as a check on Congress. He is the elected representative of the States plural, not the people.

The executive branch, by enforcing federal law, does in some ways govern the population of the United States, although many government functions are reserved for the lower levels. And the Constitution never says "the President represents this, but not that". That's, like, your opinion, dude.

[Hauldren Collider]

My experience has been completely different. The federal government has a far larger impact on my life than the states.

According to your "location", you are in the military, making this rather unsurprising, since you are actually an employee of the feds. Unless you are in the National Guard?

The federal government has an unusual amount of effect on my life because I live in close proximity to Washington, DC, and yet the state legislature in Richmond has way more to do with my daily life than the feds even though the capital of my state is further away from me than the capital of the country. I also wouldn't have it any other way, since the people in Richmond are occasionally capable of governing, while Washington never seems to be.

[Aeson]

You really don't understand the sociopolitical dynamics of the US, do you? States still have very significant roles in American lives. Even with increased mobility, you still have a very large percentage of people living in the state they grew up in; and a lot of the folks that move do so once (presumably to get to something more sympatico with their preferences, and/or going to college and staying like I did). In particular from a region perspective, there's a lot of regional and state culture that is reflected in their constituents; claiming the US is a homogenous nation is flat-out wrong in my opinion.

The difference within states is generally far greater than the difference across the state boundaries. So yes, the boundaries tend to be arbitrary in regards to the social and political makeup of adjacent populations.

For instance, the difference between Green River, UT and Grand Junction, CO pale in comparison to the differences either of those smaller towns have with SLC or Denver respectively.

States are no more arbitrary lines than nations are; do you suggest we poll the people of Mexico as to who our President should be?

If he was their President, sure. But he's not, now is he?

(We should of course allow them to emigrate to the US and become citizens, at which point they can vote for the US President. Or Mexico could become a state or three and added to the Union. Getting rid of the effects of arbitrary lines on maps is good for everyone )

[korn469]

According to your "location", you are in the military, making this rather unsurprising, since you are actually an employee of the feds. Unless you are in the National Guard?

The federal government has an unusual amount of effect on my life because I live in close proximity to Washington, DC, and yet the state legislature in Richmond has way more to do with my daily life than the feds even though the capital of my state is further away from me than the capital of the country. I also wouldn't have it any other way, since the people in Richmond are occasionally capable of governing, while Washington never seems to be.

I am in the military. So while it might be unsurprising, the federal government does have an outsized impact on me and there are many others both military and civilian that the federal government has a larger impact on their life than the state government.

I believe you're right about Washington has great trouble governing, but that is BECAUSE of the way the government is currently set up. The executive and judicial branches are national organizations, but the electoral college hangs around the presidential election process like an albatross. Then the legislative branch isn't a national organization. It's House of Representatives isn't even a state organization. Everybody in Congress is looking out for their little pieces of the country. Nobody in Congress has a job that requires them to looking out for the nation.

It's like the delegation from Oklahoma. Five out of the seven voted against Sandy rebuilding funds, because it was a waste. Now that that Oklahoma has suffered a natural disaster, where's FEMA? Where's federal aid?

[giblets]

(We should of course allow them to emigrate to the US and become citizens, at which point they can vote for the US President. Or Mexico could become a state or three and added to the Union. Getting rid of the effects of arbitrary lines on maps is good for everyone )

We'd better admit Mexico as 31 states, not 1-3 states, so that they won't dominate the presidential election when we decide the president by popular vote.