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

[korn469]

Have you been to small town america, it is like 10-20 years before.

JM

I grew up in a small town. I have lived in small towns. Small towns though are surprisingly the same (at least in the states I've been in).

[korn469]

The big cities have less cultural differences, but medium to small cities (I would say 750,000 people or less) definitely still do.

But are those differences caused because of the states that the cities are in? If so, are those differences so important that we need a system to protect it , even to the point where we void one person one vote? If so, is the best system to protect state differences the electoral college?

I think not.

[Aeson]

I have to hand it to BK for changing "arbitrary" and getting all of Apolyton to follow him in lock-step. Well done Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

I think Texas vastly prefers having Ohio decide things as opposed to California. Liberals prefer getting rid of the EC because they want California to decide things and not Ohio.

[Elok]

The electoral college effectively nullifies the minority in every state; scads of rural Republicans here in MD get shouted down by the Dems in the big three counties, and Dems in Kansas might as well stay home. I don't see why the values of certain clumps of people--who happen to be majorities within certain arbitrary boundaries--should be promoted at such a cost.

[Ben Kenobi]

Presumably you've looked at a map of the United States. Why do you think most of the state boundaries are perfectly straight lines?

Most of the borders are not straight lines, and I can probably give a history for most of the ones that are.

Why is Utah shaped the way it is? Because of the Wasatch mountains, and because of the trail routes through Wyoming. Wyoming is a square to make sure they have the route from Cheyenne (capital because of the railroad routes) included inside. The northern border is also not arbitrary because of the Little Bighorn river and the mountain ranges out by Sheridan Wyoming.

It makes sense if you've been through the area. I can't be the only Polytubby who's travelled through Wyoming 6 times.

[giblets]

I think Texas vastly prefers having Ohio decide things as opposed to California. Liberals prefer getting rid of the EC because they want California to decide things and not Ohio.

You don't seem to understand how a popular vote works. The median voter nationwide decides, not the median voter in the biggest state.

[Elok]

Hell, if you just want to give rural voters more influence, do it directly: multiply each state's votes by a factor based on the percentage of its GDP devoted to crop production, or something. That's stupid, but less ridiculous than the EC.

[Ben Kenobi]

The electoral college effectively nullifies the minority in every state; scads of rural Republicans here in MD get shouted down by the Dems in the big three counties, and Dems in Kansas might as well stay home. I don't see why the values of certain clumps of people--who happen to be majorities within certain arbitrary boundaries--should be promoted at such a cost.

Why are liberals fighting so hard to re apportion the few EC college votes that KA actually has? Liberals aren't stupid. Why should conservatives be stupid? EC means Ohio decides, and not California. Eliminate the EC and California decides. This isn't difficult to understand.

Remember, I'm coming from a system where the connection between ridings and between elected representatives is far stronger than in the United States. Federalism and regional representation just makes sense to me - and tying the riding to the people and the region feels right. I grew up in rural Canada - this is why I feel that way, and I know plenty of folks in rural areas prefer things this way. They want a representative that represents them.

Most of the 'innovations' that I've seen are designed to eliminate the connection between rural people and their elected officials.

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't seem to understand how a popular vote works. The median voter nationwide decides, not the median voter in the biggest state.

Again, California would be decisive every election. Right now the margin there is irrelevant. Without an EC, the margin in CA would dominate the election every year. What, you think I'm stupid or something? I know math.

Run the numbers themselves the chances of the margin mattering in smaller states is something like the square of the size of the state. Size is very, very much more important in an undifferentiated national election.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hell, if you just want to give rural voters more influence, do it directly: multiply each state's votes by a factor based on the percentage of its GDP devoted to crop production, or something. That's stupid, but less ridiculous than the EC.

I offered a counter proposal. 5 EC votes for every state. Remainder apportioned according to the size of the state. 538, means that slightly more than half the representation is apportioned solely by the population and provides stronger regional representation.

Hell, if I wanted true rural representation it would be done by county not by state.

[N35t0r]

That only makes the problem of a president being able to be elected with a minority of the popular vote even greater.

[giblets]

Again, California would be decisive every election. Right now the margin there is irrelevant. Without an EC, the margin in CA would dominate the election every year. What, you think I'm stupid or something? I know math.

Run the numbers themselves the chances of the margin mattering in smaller states is something like the square of the size of the state. Size is very, very much more important in an undifferentiated national election.

Yes, I actually do think you are stupid. If California was divided into ten different states, then Texas would have the largest population, but the outcome of a popular vote election wouldn't change at all because people would continue to vote the same way. Following your "logic", you could have the same winner in two different hypothetical scenarios, but in one California was "decisive", while in the other, Texas was "decisive" because California had been split up into a bunch of small states.

[Ming]

Yeah... California has not been decisive in recent elections

It only represents 10% of the electoral votes needed to win.

Let's take a look a "THE MATH"

In the popular vote, one could actually consider it a close election.
Obama got 51% while Romney got 47%

But thanks to the winner take all crap in most states, the EC vote wasn't ever close with Obama getting 62%.

You talk about how removing the EC would make California decisive in every election... well guess what, it already is decisive.

One person, one vote.
Under the EC, it doesn't work that way.

Hell, we might as well save the government a lot of money and only bother holding the election in possible swing states.
Just do a poll before the election... if the state is up for grabs, let's actually have an election there, otherwise, why waste the money.

Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states might as well not even vote.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, I actually do think you are stupid. If California was divided into ten different states, then Texas would have the largest population, but the outcome of a popular vote election wouldn't change at all because people would continue to vote the same way.

The likelihood of the deciding vote being cast in Texas would not change. Texas would then become the state most likely to have the deciding ballot cast, all else considered equal.

Following your "logic", you could have the same winner in two different hypothetical scenarios, but in one California was "decisive", while in the other, Texas was "decisive" because California had been split up into a bunch of small states.

That's absolutely how it would work.