On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:37:15 -0400, John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:49 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: > >> Bush States Never in Doubt: > >> AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN > >> Kerry States Never in Doubt: > >> HI, CA, IL, DC, MD, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI > > > >Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat, especially if > > you're in the minority party there. > > I categorically reject this conclusion in the strongest possible terms. > > First, why is it that you think "your vote" in an election decided by 10%+ > of the vote means less than "your vote" in an election decided by 527 > votes? In either case, the changing of a single vote does not change the > outcome.
My problem is that the nationwide presidential election is broken down into 50 separate statewide elections that vary from "blowout for one party" to "incredibly tightly contested". As I said in my reply to Erik, as I see it, a vote for Bush or Kerry in Iowa or PA is infinitely more important that one in MA/AL. I'd prefer if every person's presidential vote was of equal importance, value and impact regardless of which state they lived in. > Moreover, I think that it is exceptionally dangerous to suggest, as you do, > that a vote for a minority party, "doesn't mean squat." The importance > of democracy is that the *process* matters, and that seeing your side tally > up a minority of votes confers legitimacy to the fact that your particular > minority is in power. It ensures that grievances are addressed through > peaceful means. Making yourself heard is certainly of value; I was speaking in terms of chances of actual impact on the election result. > The corollary to your argument is that American democracy would be > healthier if all of elections were split almost exactly 50-50, and decided > by as little as one vote. I think that this is a false assumption - and I > think that it is a good thing that certain politicians are able to build > such a strong consensus around their views as to win substantial majorities. I don't think what I'm arguing implies this at all, and I have no problem with strong concensus or states having substantial majorites. My problem lies in the fact that the votes for the losing party are essentially quantized to 0 at the state level rather than being allowed to have impact at the national level. > Additionally, it is worth noting that no matter what system you use for > "tallying up" the votes, be it winnner-takes-all EC, congressional district > EC, proportional EC, or straight popular vote, there will always be a > single winner and everyone else will be "losers." Under your logic, the > votes of the 40.56% of Americans who voted for electors for Mondale-Ferraro > in 1984 "didn't mean squat" because "both parties [knew] who will win." > And what about the votes of the 56%+ of Americans who cast votes for > electors pledged to *other* candidates than Clinton-Gore in 1992? or the > nearly 51% of Americans who did so in 1996? I have no problem with there being winners and losers of national elections. I just don't want that quantization being done on a per-state basis, particularly since many states are pre-disposed to go one way of the other. > Thus, I again reiterate this in the strongest possible terms - we do not > simply count votes for the winners, we count *everyone's vote.* To say > otherwise is to slowly undermine the democratic-republican system of > governance. Yes. I just would like them *all* to be counted (or have some impact) at the national level, rather than truncated at the state level. > >Is this really a desirable system for a democracy (or, ok, a > >republic)? Any good justifications for it? Why should we want the > >voters in a handful of states have so much influence over the final > >results? Why isn't there more call for change? > > > >I had thought that after winning the popular vote but losing the > >election, that at least the dems would push for some changes, but they > >seem content with the status quo, and that puzzles me a bit. > > Is the system desirable? Well, for one thing it was a fairly important > part of the deal that sealed the creation of the United States of America > as a nation-state in the first place. Thus, it is arguable that any > attempt to ditch it would smack a bit of "bait-and-switch." I meant the is the nitty-gritty details of the system, which makes just a small handful of states the main determinants of the election, while other states are free to be left out in the cold because one party's victory is virtually insured. Is *that* desirable? I will also point out that there is a constitutional amendment process, that while not to be undertaken likely, is there to make changes possible, so I wouldn't consider a proposal to change the EC system "bait and switch", especially not after 200+ years! But, as I stated in my last post, I'm not especially advocating getting rid of the EC system -the smaller scale fix would likely satisfy me. > Another good reason for it, is that geography is important. First off, > all nation-states are based on some form of geography, to the extent that > they have national borders. As a corollary to this, all wars of secession > are also based on secession. One benefit of the EC, then, is that it > ensures that rural States brought into the political process - or more > accurately, it creates the perception that more rural Sates are brought > into the process. Especially in cases when these rural States have a > broad consensus of political opinion, it could be very easy for dissidents > in said States to argue that "Others" in the distant, urban States, simply > don't understand them, blatantly ignore their interests, and that in an > electorate of 110 million votes, that their votes are simply lost. By > reducting the electorate to 538 Electoral College votes, it is much easier > to argue that a small State is carrying an impact with 3, 4, or 5 EV's. I understand this. The implication of it, though, is that voters in those small states are worth more EC voting power than voters in the large states, in terms of EC votes per capita. Land doesn't vote, people do, and it strikes me as unfair that not all votes are created equal. But - that's actually a separate matter than my concerns, and I do see some merit. > (By the same token, it is hard to argue that CA and NY - which are > single-handedly keeping the Party which supports their broad consensus of > opinion afloat in the Electoral College - are being slighted by the > Electoral College process.) I care less about states than about people, and CA, TX, and NY voters have less presidential voting power per capita than those in small states. > One reason why there isn't more call from change, even from the Democratic > Party, is that it is exceptionally difficult to change the Constitution. > As of yet, there does not appear to be the broad-based outrage at the EC > that would be necessary to effect a Constitutional Amendment to change it. Yes, I agree amending the constitution would be tough to gain approvial for. But I was suggesting an alternate way to help things that wouldn't require constitutional changes. > Another reason is that somewhat surprisingly, the Electoral College doesn't > necessarily benefit Republicans as much as you might think. For example, > consider the list of States benefitting from the floor of 3 EV's. Perhaps that's an argument other people have made elsewhere, but I wasn't thinking about that at all, and partisanship really wasn't the motive behind my discussion here. I'm not even expecially bitter or angry about the 2000 election mayhem. I honestly just want what I think would be a fairer system for everyone. > Republican: > WY, ND, AK, SD, MT > > Democratic: > DC, VT, DE > > In other words, the 3 EV floor benefits the Republican Party to the tune of > only 1 EV or 2 EV. It is also worth noting that MT is the closest State > to picking up a 4th EV, and that the closest States to dropping from 4 EV's > to 3 EV's are RI, HI, NH, and ME. Thus, it is entirely conceivable that > this will balance itself out in the future... and may even swing to > benefitting the Democrats after the next Census. Interesting. > (As an aside, it is interesting that you - like almost all observers who > make arguments similar to yours, chose Alaska as your type-example of > disproportionate voting power, even though WY, ND, and DC all have even > more disproporionate voting power (by virtue of their lower populations.) > Alaska, is however, the state most geographically "different" from CA, and > thus is the most "Other" - which to me at least, is an interesting > illustrative example of why geography matters.) Hmm. I picked AK and CA because they're the first states that came to my mind as examples of small/large states. There was no larger meaning behind it. > >I can only posit cynical behavior on behalf of BOTH parties to > >maintain their own strongholds at the expense of fairness. > > Well, this is another argument entirely. I suspect that Gautam can post a > better defense of the two-Party system than I can.... but I'll give a shot > at it in another thread. > > >But it seems to me that the biggest problem isn't so much the EC > >itself, so much as the "winner takes all" setup that awards all the > >electoral votes to the state pop vote winner so that that the winner > >gets all the electoral votes whether he wins by a 99% margin or a 50 > >vote margin. That just seems unnecessary and wrong to me. It would > >be very easy to allocate the electoral votes directly proportional to > >the pop vote, or give each district one electoral vote, with the 2 > >other EC votes going to the overall pop vote winner. > > A proportional EV system would be disastrous - see more on Colorado below. I'm not so sure it'd be bad at all... > One effect would be to empower third parties - but, the catch is that > those third parties would pretty much only be viable in the largest States, > like CA, NY, and TX. For example, 10% of the vote for a 3rd Party would > win EV's in California, but not in any State with 5 or less EV's. So in the small states, it'd take 30% to gain an EV. Better than no chance! And of course it wouldn't just benefit 3rd parties - the minority party would certainly benefit from the system as well, and in some of those states probably has a decent chance of getting 30% of the pop vote. > Given the obscene level of gerry-mandering in Congressional Districts, that > system would probably be no better either. We probably both agree that > Congression redistricting should be put into the hands of non-partisan > commissions. Good point about despicable gerry-mandering. Perhaps assigning EV's in direct proportion to the popular vote would be superior to the EV-per-district idea. I definitely agree with you about non-partisan commisions in charge of districts. > >> ... Lastly, while there is an initiative > >> on the ballot to split Colorado's EV's, it is nearly inconceivable that > >> Colorado would choose to commit electoral suicide in this way - and that's > >> probably more said about that than it is worth. > > > >You say "electoral suicide", I say "democracy". :-) That measure > >could conceivably give up to 50% of the CO voters some impact on the > >election that would otherwise be written off. Why can't (or > >shouldn't) every state do this? > > The reason is that Colorado has 9 EV's, and after the 2010 Census will > almost certainly have 10 EV's. Under the 9 EV system, the loser of > Colorado needs to garner a mere 39% of the Colorado vote to earn 4 EV's. > That leaves the winner of Colorado with 5 EV's. In other words, > campaigning in Colorado would produce an expected return of only a single > EV - a smaller expected return than WY, VT, or DE. So it wouldn't be as worthwhile for the candidates to focus on CO because there's less return for their effort? You mean something like the 33 or so other states that the candidates don't need to bother with because they're virtually wrapped up? Oh horrors! What would the citizens of CO do? :-) And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a disadvantage to anyone. -bryon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
