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

[Jon Miller]

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.

Counties don't have any say in national politics so you are stupid as usual (they don't even have much of a roll in state politics... which people sometimes care about).

If you had said congressional district, there would have been and least something to think about.

JM
(but then see my point about gerry-mandering... states were not gerry-mandered)

[giblets]

Counties don't have any say in national politics so you are stupid as usual (they don't even have much of a roll in state politics... which people sometimes care about).

Of course they don't. Giving arbitrary divisions on a map a major role in politics would be stupid.

[Jon Miller]

But states are not arbitrary divisions. They have very different laws, taxes, economics, politics, demographics, role in politics, etc.

They are also located in extremely different locations by distance (of various sorts, including geographic).

There is a reason why Hawaii never matters...

JM

[giblets]

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.

You haven't given any logical reason to assume that reaching a voter in Los Angeles should be easier than reaching a voter in Portland. Do corporations struggle with marketing their product towards people who live outside the largest 5-10 states in the country?

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.

This is incoherent because if "political emphasis is split based on population" then "focus would go to where the most people are" by definition. Which, of course, does not imply that someone in Manhattan will influence the election more than someone in rural Arkansas.

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

No, the state someone lives in is not a relatively strong predictor of their political interests when compared to other variables such as race, age, sex, or income.

[Jon Miller]

You don't know much about marketing do you?

JM

[giblets]

You don't know much about marketing do you?

JM

So if I move to Hawaii no one will be interested in marketing their crap to me?

[Jon Miller]

Things that require a national response won't, no.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Most national advertising campaigns won't be geared for you (like they are geared for NYers or CAers or Texans).

Local advertising campaigns might still be be.

JM

[giblets]

How the campaigns are geared doesn't have any practical relevance to me, just the way the products are designed, which is determined by expected demand.

[Guynemer]

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.

There are four times as many people who live in my metropolitan area than live in the entire state of Wyoming.

I've been to Wyoming. It is gorgeous. I loved the time I spent there. But why in crikey **** should they have more power than metropolitan Columbus?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But states are not arbitrary divisions. They have very different laws, taxes, economics, politics, demographics, role in politics, etc.

That's it in a nutshell.

[snoopy369]

Of course they don't. Giving arbitrary divisions on a map a major role in politics would be stupid.

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?

[snoopy369]

There are four times as many people who live in my metropolitan area than live in the entire state of Wyoming.

I've been to Wyoming. It is gorgeous. I loved the time I spent there. But why in crikey **** should they have more power than metropolitan Columbus?

Because that's how we come to a reasonable compromise between giving the state of Wyoming equal power to all of Ohio, and giving the population of Columbus four times more power. We give Wyoming 3 votes and Ohio 18. That's certainly not giving Wyoming a huge ton of power - just giving them some.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are four times as many people who live in my metropolitan area than live in the entire state of Wyoming.

I've been to Wyoming. It is gorgeous. I loved the time I spent there. But why in crikey **** should they have more power than metropolitan Columbus?

Because the United States is a federation of states. True, the balance has swung to the federal government, esp since WW2, but the basic underpinning is still there.

It'd be like in a debate on the future of the European Union saying why should Ireland have more power than London. It's because part of the discussion is about how much state sovereignty to give up to the federal order.

[Guynemer]

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.