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

[korn469]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izddjAp_N4I

Too bad that system wasn't in place in 2000

[Tupac Shakur]

The biggest change:
More states follow Maine/Kansas? lead in dividing the electoral votes proportional to the vote within the state.

Burn in hell, Jon Miller.

[Tupac Shakur]

The biggest change:
More states follow Maine/Kansas? lead in dividing the electoral votes proportional to the vote within the state.

Burn in hell, Jon Miller.

[Tupac Shakur]

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 Columbus is full of ****ing Ohioans, that's why.

[Tupac Shakur]

What are states?

Spoiler:

Unions of people.

Spoiler:

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

Corporations are people, my friend.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

In some states the borders are relatively arbitrary, but this is not true for all of them. New England for example, yes.

Ohio river is a natural boundary, as is the Mississippi. As are the Appalachians (for NC/TN. VA/KY), as is the Rio Grande.

Federalism is an important principle. I can see why people who believe in the unitary state, but that doesn't really apply to America. States are states - federalism is a superior form of government to a unitary republic in that it permits states to have control over their affairs and to govern the people.

See, everyone believes that 'there are no differences worth respecting', but I've only ever seen it advocated because people want to smash differences that they hate. They hate that Texas has advantages over other states and that they can ram their ideas down the throat of Texas to ensure that they get their own way.

Federalism circumvents this altogether. It lets NY be NY and TX, TX.

[korn469]

In some states the borders are relatively arbitrary, but this is not true for all of them. New England for example, yes.

Ohio river is a natural boundary, as is the Mississippi. As are the Appalachians (for NC/TN. VA/KY), as is the Rio Grande.

Federalism is an important principle. I can see why people who believe in the unitary state, but that doesn't really apply to America. States are states - federalism is a superior form of government to a unitary republic in that it permits states to have control over their affairs and to govern the people.

See, everyone believes that 'there are no differences worth respecting', but I've only ever seen it advocated because people want to smash differences that they hate. They hate that Texas has advantages over other states and that they can ram their ideas down the throat of Texas to ensure that they get their own way.

Federalism circumvents this altogether. It lets NY be NY and TX, TX.

All borders are somewhat arbitrary. In addition to the Rio Grande, you have the Pecos, the Colorado and the Brazos rivers that all cross texas. Why is the Rio Grande the one special river?

I grew up in the Appalachians, so I believe that at one time you were right on the effect natural borders can have on people. I have hiked up many mountain trails and they can be challenging, and lucky for me they already have a marked path (for most of them at least). That is probably why there was so much diversity in pre-Columbian America. However, with at least the introduction of steam power and telegraphs those natural borders were disappearing. Now we have cars, trains, high speed rail, international flights, cell phones, skype, hell suborbital flights to space will probably become somewhat common in the next 30 years.

If you go jump in your car and spend 6-8 hours on an interstate you should be in a different state, but it probably won't be all that different.

Federalism may have advantages, but the electoral college isn't one of them. If the president and the federal government are really as insignificant as what many of you have said, then why does states rights lovers always ***** so much about the EPA, Obamacare, FEMA, the IRS, etc? If they're not feeling the effects of those agencies, then why do people stay up in arms about them?

Growing up, I never felt like I was a citizen of Virginia. I never looked at the blue flag, and said Sic Semper Tyrannis with a feeling of Virginia patriotism. I was and remain, a citizen of the United States. I am proud of the American flag and what it represents. Does anyone really consider themselves a state citizen first? Or a dual citizen? "Hey people. Nice to meet you. I'm a Wyoming-American."

How many of you have had a lively debate this week with three or four semi strangers who live within walking distance of you? Now how many of you have had a lively debate here on Apolyton? I bet if Imran or Slowhand died, you'd feel more emotions than if some random dude across town died. Technology has changed the way we interact with the space around us, and how we communicate across that pace. In many ways, states are needed less now than ever.

[Ben Kenobi]

All borders are somewhat arbitrary.

I would challenge that. Most borders are not arbitrary.

In addition to the Rio Grande, you have the Pecos, the Colorado and the Brazos rivers that all cross texas. Why is the Rio Grande the one special river?

Have you been to Texas? The reason for the Rio Grande is because of the mountains in the northern part of Mexico. It forms an effective barrier because of it's size (larger than the Brazos), and it's length (all the way up to New Mexico). The reason Texas doesn't own half of New Mexico now is because it sold that half to the United States for debt forgiveness. However - there is no natural divide between West Texas and New Mexico, or between New Mexico and the Panhandle. There is a southern division - the Rio Grande, and a western division - the Rio Grande as well.

There were proposals to have Texas be the Brazos, but that would leave out the largest Texas city of San Antonio, so that wasn't ever going to happen.

I grew up in the Appalachians, so I believe that at one time you were right on the effect natural borders can have on people. I have hiked up many mountain trails and they can be challenging, and lucky for me they already have a marked path (for most of them at least). That is probably why there was so much diversity in pre-Columbian America. However, with at least the introduction of steam power and telegraphs those natural borders were disappearing. Now we have cars, trains, high speed rail, international flights, cell phones, skype, hell suborbital flights to space will probably become somewhat common in the next 30 years.

I disagree with this significantly. It will permit people in an area to have greater communication with folks in that area. How many people did you know outside of your family and your community? Probably not a whole lot. This is a great boon for large countries like the United States to permit communication within the country (since they share the same language), that otherwise wouldn't be available to them.

My life is substantially different because of how the world has opened up - but there are reasons why that opening is more likely to benefit those with connections by language already which are present between large nations that would have difficulty sticking together.

As for the Appalachians - why is the area between Boston and Washington so heavily concentrated? Because of the Appalachians. There are significant differences between those on one side of the mountains and those on the other - differences that are far deeper than the rest of it because of how long the Americans were confined to the other side.

If you go jump in your car and spend 6-8 hours on an interstate you should be in a different state, but it probably won't be all that different.

Again, I've travelled through some of these areas. I haven't been to the east coast but I will eventually get a chance to test these observations. There are maybe not differences between Montana and Wyoming, but Colorado is different from Montana and Wyoming, and Kansas very different from Colorado. Oklahoma is different from Kansas (far higher population density and Warmer. And TX, is, well, TX.

I'm speaking as an outsider who had never been there before and those were my impressions.

Federalism may have advantages, but the electoral college isn't one of them. If the president and the federal government are really as insignificant as what many of you have said, then why does states rights lovers always ***** so much about the EPA, Obamacare, FEMA, the IRS, etc? If they're not feeling the effects of those agencies, then why do people stay up in arms about them?

They do feel the effects, but the question is why if they feel these effects are they advocating for state governance. Because they feel more strongly identity wise - with the state than with the national government.

Growing up, I never felt like I was a citizen of Virginia. I never looked at the blue flag, and said Sic Semper Tyrannis with a feeling of Virginia patriotism. I was and remain, a citizen of the United States. I am proud of the American flag and what it represents. Does anyone really consider themselves a state citizen first? Or a dual citizen? "Hey people. Nice to meet you. I'm a Wyoming-American."

In Texas, it's different. Texas has a long history as an independent sort not present in other nations like VA.

How many of you have had a lively debate this week with three or four semi strangers who live within walking distance of you? Now how many of you have had a lively debate here on Apolyton? I bet if Imran or Slowhand died, you'd feel more emotions than if some random dude across town died. Technology has changed the way we interact with the space around us, and how we communicate across that pace. In many ways, states are needed less now than ever.

Ok, but I'll counter with that.

I felt more of an affinity towards folks like Floyd and Slowwhand. I now live closer to them and in a state that I feel far more of an affinity towards than British Columbia. So it doesn't work just one way.

[SlowwHand]

Someone spoke of splitting up Texas? That was a joke, right? It had to have been, because that will never happen. Never.

[Aeson]

Ohio river is a natural boundary, as is the Mississippi. As are the Appalachians (for NC/TN. VA/KY), as is the Rio Grande.

Natural boundaries are also arbitrary boundaries in the context we are talking about.

See, everyone believes that 'there are no differences worth respecting', but I've only ever seen it advocated because people want to smash differences that they hate. They hate that Texas has advantages over other states and that they can ram their ideas down the throat of Texas to ensure that they get their own way.

Federalism circumvents this altogether. It lets NY be NY and TX, TX.

The EC ensures quite the opposite. No one gives a **** about Texas in presidential elections because their results have been decided decades in advance.

[SlowwHand]

My father was an avowed Democrat.

[Ben Kenobi]

The EC ensures quite the opposite. No one gives a **** about Texas in presidential elections because their results have been decided decades in advance.

That's a bad thing?

Try being Ohio every election year.

[Aeson]

That's a bad thing?

You were the one worked up about other states telling Texas what to do. Absurdly, your solution is to deny Texans equal representation in Presidential elections. Perhaps you just want Florida to ram it's panhandle up your ass, hoping they'll give your panhandle a reach-around?

[onodera]

I've thought the EC was created as a check on the people being retards and voting for a blatantly populist candidate. Electors could then vote against the wishes of the people for a more reasonable candidate. Now that so many states have laws that restrict their electors' choice, there's no need for the EC. The Senate is there to provide equal representation to all the states.

[korn469]

I think that federalism does have some benefits, but that in most cases the benefits are overstated. Occasionally, the states will have success passing a well thought out law that benefits people, whereas that the same law failed at the national level. For example, yesterday I heard about on the radio that Michigan tracks cattle with an electronic tag. The USDA proposed to do the same thing but eventually backed down due to backlash. The USDA has now implemented a new system, but it doesn't seem to be as comprehensive as the Michigan one and it took years longer to do.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/05/31/187327856/michigan-tracks-cattle-from-birth-to-plate

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/04/17/usda-makes-2nd-attempt-with-livestock-id-system-meant-to-help-control-spread

However, even with conceding that federalism does have benefits, I don't think the arguments presented in this thread demonstrate how the Electoral College promotes federalism.

Argument 1 -> The EC makes small states more important than they otherwise would be in a direct popular election.
Nope. Unless a state is a swing state/battleground state it doesn't matter.

Argument 2 -> The EC forces presidential candidates to visit a higher number of states than a in a direct popular election.
Nope. Again swing states causes candidates to focus on a small number of swing states. In fact a direct popular election would cause candidates to campaign in more states than the EC.

Argument 3 -> The EC allows states not the people to decide who is president
Wrong. In 1976, 1960, and 1824, a higher number of states voted for the losing candidates. In 1880 and 1848 the number of states won by both candidates was a tie.

Argument 4 ->

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.

If the nation can survive survive having Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida dictating to the rest of the nation, then the nation can weather having more states involved.

EDIT 1: Also, I know in your statement that you are defining "part of the nation" in a geographic sense, either by number of states or probably by urban versus rural. But if you define "part of the nation" as people. Then the 2000 election was part of the nation dictating to the other (larger) part of the nation because the candidate with fewer votes won

END of edit

Also going back to the 2000 election, not only was the outcome undemocratic (more people voted for Gore but he lost), but the outcome was also needlessly complicated, partisan, and doubly undemocratic. In the end unless you voted for Katherine Harris in the 1998 Florida Secretary of State election, your vote in the 2000 election didn't matter, because Katherine Harris, more than any person influenced the outcome of the election. If Karen Gievers had of won that election and been Florida Secretary of State, I can almost guarantee the outcome of the election would have been different. So because of the way the EC works, some official in another state that you have no representation in can decide close elections.