Campaign Reform

[Ming]

That is true... The real question is, what states do you want deciding for us.

[Aeson]

We could vote like normal, but after the votes are in we have a random drawing that decides the method to determine the winner. So politicians won't know whether it will be a popular or electoral vote and have to campaign without knowing which states will matter the most.

[Aeson]

I tend to think a popular vote is better though. We have the senate to give states equal representation, which it does. The EC doesn't actually provide equal representation for the states anyway.

In a popular vote more people's votes matter. It at least achieves the argument made for it.

[Ming]

That's the main problem I have with EC. In Illinois, it really doesn't really matter much who I vote for president. With rare exception, the Dem candidate is going to win.
My vote doesn't matter.

[self biased]

if you think that's bad, you should try living in Upstate New York.

[Aeson]

Same with Utah.

Not only does the non-R vote not count, but roughly half the R vote similarly doesn't matter.

[PLATO]

I tend to think a popular vote is better though. We have the senate to give states equal representation, which it does. The EC doesn't actually provide equal representation for the states anyway.

In a popular vote more people's votes matter. It at least achieves the argument made for it.

The EC is more about the sovereign power of the States to elect the chief executive. The House of Representatives was set up to be the voice of the people.

[Aeson]

The reality is it means only a small handful of states actually matter.

[Aeson]

The original intents if the EC were largely lost or changed.

Originally it was meant to be people electing someone they respected to choose how to vote for them. It was argued that the common folk wouldn't be informed enough to choose. This changed of course, both in how the elections worked and in how informed the common folk could be expected to be.

It was meant to allow slave states to be able to have their slave pop count somewhat without the slaves getting all uppity and thinking they could vote for an abolishionist or something abhorrent like that. Thankfully we have progressed past that point.

It was meant to limit coercion and intrigue by keeping the vote from being decided in a small number of places, but with the advent of parties that was lost.

As to the sovereignty of states, the Civil War showed it was largely a fascade. Also people now tend to identify as Americans rather than as citizens of their state.

[Ben Kenobi]

The original intents if the EC were largely lost or changed.

Actually the EC has been vindicated. You can find discussion of it among the Founders very early on. They wanted a Republic to counterbalance the influence between cities and the countryside.

Originally it was meant to be people electing someone they respected to choose how to vote for them. It was argued that the common folk wouldn't be informed enough to choose. This changed of course, both in how the elections worked and in how informed the common folk could be expected to be.

Actually, America was probably the most literate country in the 18th and 19th centuries.

It was meant to allow slave states to be able to have their slave pop count somewhat without the slaves getting all uppity and thinking they could vote for an abolishionist or something abhorrent like that. Thankfully we have progressed past that point.

Nope. Had everything to do with the urban/rural divide.

It was meant to limit coercion and intrigue by keeping the vote from being decided in a small number of places, but with the advent of parties that was lost.

Hardly. If it were lost why are people complaining about it?

As to the sovereignty of states, the Civil War showed it was largely a fascade. Also people now tend to identify as Americans rather than as citizens of their state.

Façade, and no - states are important. Federalism is why the united states has worked as well as it has.

[Aeson]

You should go read the actual arguments made before dismissing them as not having been made.

[Jon Miller]

That's the main problem I have with EC. In Illinois, it really doesn't really matter much who I vote for president. With rare exception, the Dem candidate is going to win.
My vote doesn't matter.

But that isn't the EC but rather the winner take all nature of most states contests.

JM

[Egbert]

I tend to think a popular vote is better though. We have the senate to give states equal representation, which it does. The EC doesn't actually provide equal representation for the states anyway.

In a popular vote more people's votes matter. It at least achieves the argument made for it.

Here is Australiastan we also have a senate that gives states equal representation. (I think we stole that idea from the USA).

The senators are, of course, a mob of party drones who represent whatever daft ideas their parties supports rather than their states. (With a ffew exceptions who are invariably independents)

[kentonio]

It's not like the GOP are ever going to agree to change to a system based on the popular vote. With demographics changing how they are, why would they?

[Ben Kenobi]

You should go read the actual arguments made before dismissing them as not having been made.

I have. Again - the argument was that they wanted a counterbalance between urban and rural areas. Most federalism centers on preserving these distinctions.