So it's gonna be Obama with a landslide!

[Darth Mandarb]

Look buddy, I think you've kind of argued yourself into a corner here.  If you're so opposed to the status quo and the current electoral system, but you don't do anything about it (and no, not voting is not "doing something") other than complain on the Internet, aren't you exactly the kind of sheep who "goes along with it because it's all there is"?

As I stated in my last post (and must repeat again); you have no way to know what (if anything) I'm doing about it.

If you want to [try to] debunk my opinion by using a demeaning tone and condescending claims that I'm doing nothing but complaining on the internet by all means go ahead.  I am neither complaining, nor doing nothing about the situation.

If I express my opinion to an audience on the internet and even just one person out of one thousand sees my point, then that's doing something.

If a person feels that a certain system is corrupt, and that contributing a vote to that system is "wrong", then the act of not voting is doing something.

This does not make me a sheep.

I think it is not I that has argued himself into a corner.

Well, grasp of facts can actually be objectively verified, and poor understanding of those facts typically soon reveals itself when things don't work out as predicted. There's been plenty of predictions made in this thread. We'll see.

And you arbitrarily determine that your grasp of the "facts" is correct and others are wrong?

That's the very way of thinking that has led to the problems as I see it.

Perhaps you should run for public office!

[RickJ]

I may be wrong but I believe that one of the original reasons for creating the electoral college was so that individual states could maintain their power by voting as a block.   

For those not familiar with the US system:

The number of representatives in congress for each state is determined by that state's population.   Each state gets two senators regardless of the population.   This was done so that small and/or sparsely populated states would have some say so in the political process.   

They used the same formula to determine the number of electoral votes delegated to each state.   From Wikipedia ... 

"Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. ...

Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the presidential and vice presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. ..."

For me it seems to be a sane system.  It doesn't bother me that occasionally there is a difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote.   It's only happened a couple of times in 250 years and in each instance they were very close elections.   I think it's good that small states are guaranteed a voice.

[Snarky]

As I stated in my last post (and must repeat again); you have no way to know what (if anything) I'm doing about it.

If you want to [try to] debunk my opinion by using a demeaning tone and condescending claims that I'm doing nothing but complaining on the internet by all means go ahead.  I am neither complaining, nor doing nothing about the situation.

Nice. You call people sheep, I simply point out that by your own standards you're probably one of those sheep, and I'm the one with the demeaning tone?

If I express my opinion to an audience on the internet and even just one person out of one thousand sees my point, then that's doing something.

If a person feels that a certain system is corrupt, and that contributing a vote to that system is "wrong", then the act of not voting is doing something.

This does not make me a sheep.

I think it is not I that has argued himself into a corner.

So when you wrote, "That's one of the things I actually like about the system.  I don't have to go along with it because it's all there is," you were trying to express the nobility of complaining on the Internet rather than getting involved and trying to change the things you don't like about the democratic system through the system itself?

And I guess that would mean the "sheep" that you attack are those who don't like the current system, but never complain about it or give any sign of not liking it. In other words, they are completely imaginary people that you made up in your head.

And you arbitrarily determine that your grasp of the "facts" is correct and others are wrong?

Many errors of fact have already been corrected in this thread. If anyone wants to dispute these corrections (ones like "Obama is NOT a muslim" or "Democrats were NOT ahead in the polls before the last two elections"), go right ahead. I'll let others judge who has the correct grasp of the facts.

[Nacho]

Snarky, my friend, I want you to take this in the "good" side, so, here it goes:

You "project" too much. Darth has expressed some opinions many people has and you are twisting his words in a way that, reading what you say of him, might take to think that you are debating against one of those born-in-the bayou-no-teeth-Southern-flag-sticker-in-the-van idiot. Relax mate... You don' t know what kind of person he is, you are being quite unfair.

Look, I am the first in the line when it' s necessary to beat some idiots, I like it, it's my favourite sport, (^_^) but in this case the tone is not justified at all... Hope you take my advice in the good sense.

[SSH]

Actually, to be fair to Snarky, every post that Darth has made in this thread makes himself look a numpty. He may well be a nice guy but just not very good at expressing his political opinion.

[Nacho]

I haven' t read hos posts carefully... I read something about a "negative Bradley effect", it' s something I never had in mind before he mentioned,but they I browsed and, apparently, some political analists agree with him, so, his idea "might" not be so crazy. Note that I don' t have an opinion about that, actually, I give a shit about this future US elections, but I keep thinking that if Darth' s ideas are shared by political analists it might not be so looney.

I didn' t read anything else, I try to avoid this political threads since I noted that here everything but showing total devotion to liberalism is seen as negative in this forums... (I.E. "-All politicias are bad-Oh, yeah, that's allways true except now, with Obama, he has so good maners, he is so polite, handsome and coooooool!!!")

Please 

I mean, there are two or three members who have avatars of the Butcher of the Cabaña, and nobody complains, so... 

[Erpy]

I may be wrong but I believe that one of the original reasons for creating the electoral college was so that individual states could maintain their power by voting as a block.   

For those not familiar with the US system:

The number of representatives in congress for each state is determined by that state's population.   Each state gets two senators regardless of the population.   This was done so that small and/or sparsely populated states would have some say so in the political process.   

They used the same formula to determine the number of electoral votes delegated to each state.   From Wikipedia ... 

"Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. ...

Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the presidential and vice presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. ..."

For me it seems to be a sane system.  It doesn't bother me that occasionally there is a difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote.   It's only happened a couple of times in 250 years and in each instance they were very close elections.   I think it's good that small states are guaranteed a voice.

The electoral college system seems a bit sane to me in the way that it does decrease the impact of votes in densely populated states and increase the impact of votes in rural areas. (this is probably a big reason the republican party is still around, since a lot of densely populated areas and big cities traditionally vote blue)

What bugs me personally about the system is the "winner-takes-all"-rule that's enforced in every state but two. If you're a republican in Massachusetts and you vote red (who thought up those colors?), your vote automatically goes to the democrats anyway. Likewise, in a red state, it doesn't matter whether 49% or 1% votes blue...the effect is that the state's electors vote 100% red. This has a couple of questionable effects in practice:

- Less people will be interested to look into the candidates' political program, since they might feel their vote won't count towards the final result anyhow.

- Hence, less people vote.

- The "winner-takes-all"-rule is basically "all or nothing", meaning it strongly favors 2-party systems. It's impossible for additional parties to have any impact on the final result.

2-party systems, in my own opinion, result in turn in an unhealthy political climate.

- People will often vote against the candidate they don't want in office, rather than for the candidate they do want in the big chair.

- Since there's only one opponent, the political climate is more vulnerable to becoming shallow...instead of going out of their way to increase public awareness of their political programs, candidates instead go out of their way to assassinate the only other competitor's character and sling mud...meaning whoever gets to be the winner gets to govern a nation that's more divided than before. And hey, what's more important to the world? Your own economic vision that might affect global economy or the fact your opponent smoked joints as a teenager?

- Style over substance.

- The less parties, the easier it gets for big corporations to buy political support.



I'm not sure why most states don't simply distribute the electors according to the local voting results, rather than make the entire state support one particular candidate, but since both mainstream political parties benefit from the status quo, I don't see the system changing anytime soon.

[Darth Mandarb]

Nice. You call people sheep, I simply point out that by your own standards you're probably one of those sheep, and I'm the one with the demeaning tone?

Yes.

And you didn't simply point out anything.  You made a weak argument which failed to turn my comment around on me.

If you think I'm a sheep for following my own path and believing in what I believe in, so be it if that actually makes sense to you.  To try and somehow connect my 'not doing what I say I won't do because those that do are sheep' to me 'being one of those sheep' ... well ... that just doesn't make any sense.

So when you wrote, "That's one of the things I actually like about the system.  I don't have to go along with it because it's all there is," you were trying to express the nobility of complaining on the Internet rather than getting involved and trying to change the things you don't like about the democratic system through the system itself?

It wasn't complaining.

You keep claiming to know what actions I'm taking in my personal life when you do not posses this information.  When you know nothing about a person's day-to-day life you really shouldn't make statements like that.

In other words, they are completely imaginary people that you made up in your head.

So not only do you know what I do in my day-to-day life, you also dictate my beliefs?  Interesting.

I'm done discussing this off-topicness.  You proved my point quite nicely about politics, so thank you.

Back on topic...

RickJ - thanks for that information.  I had researched the institution before (not like I did a book report on it or anything just some Google and Wikipedia) but it's nice to get some new information about it.  I always admire your posts as they come with good information!

It was, to my understanding (and I could well be wrong), that the electoral college was put in place to allow smaller, less populated, states of the union an equal 'voice' in the voting process.  While at the same time being used as a 'safety measure' because the founding fathers didn't trust the population to elect their president.  Not just that they would make bad decisions but also that they could be coerced into voting a tyrant into power which, given the fact that they'd just fought an incredibly costly war in the effort to over-throw a tyrant, makes perfect sense.

I feel that in this day and age, with the proliferation of mass media, it's reached a point where we can (and should) tally the popular vote and base the presidency off of that.  I see the electoral college as antiquated and no longer needed.  It's a different world than it was when the electoral college was instituted.  Perhaps back then (I can't speak for how others feel/felt) the citizenry were content with a select group of people making the decisions for them.  I am not happy with such a system.

I know that it's extremely unlikely the EC will be 'done away' with anytime soon.  It would require an amendment to the constitution (3/4 of the states must agree) and the smaller states (that benefit from the system) aren't likely to vote for it.   I just don't feel that is a good enough reason for me to like it

[jetxl]

TV spots are smearing Obama. McCain and Palin are fireing up the crowd. McCain supporters say/yell stupid things. Joe the plummer doesn't know shit. Neo nazis planned to kill Obama. A McCain supporter claimed she was stabbed in the cheek by a black man but it turns out she was lying.
It all back fires into McCain face. Many voters feel McCain = ignorance & racism. People don't want to be associated with that so they say that they'll vote Obama. But I do think that they'll pull through and still vote for Obama even with the curtain of the voting booth closed.

Skin color-wise, Obama is as FOX puts it best "just a half-rican". Shoul'n't that appeal to both black AND white america? Maybe that's too naive.

[Miez]

I'm just a little scared that the US may not be ready for a black president (whatever his precentage of "black blood" - which is a silly concept by itself imho; we've all got colour: some darker, some lighter - that should not make a difference).
And I wouldn't be at all surprised (very sad and disappointed, but not surprised) that if Barack Obama becomes the new president, he'll be assassinated within a year...

[Nacho]

That stupid nazi (Reluctant?) has put all that fear in the body, I am afraid...

[Pumaman]

I may be wrong but I believe that one of the original reasons for creating the electoral college was so that individual states could maintain their power by voting as a block.   

I still don't understand why this is a good thing. Why not just have a 1 person - 1 vote system, where all the votes are counted up nationwide and then whoever gets the most wins? Surely that would be the fairest way to run the Presidential election?

Having a block-vote system makes sense when you're electing a local representative for the Senate or whatever, where each state has to choose somebody to represent it in government (and this person comes from whichever party gets the most votes in the state) -- but when a national President is being elected, why add all the complications?

2-party systems, in my own opinion, result in turn in an unhealthy political climate.

The advantages of 2-party systems though are that most of the time there is at least a clear winner one way or the other, and the winning party can get on with the job of government.

In some countries that have multi-party systems, they seem to have to have elections every 6 months after the coalition partners break up with each other and nobody has enough power to get anything done -- which can't be a good thing for the country or the economy.

But I wouldn't be a all surprised (very sad and disappointed, but not surprised) that if Barack Obama becomes the new president he'll be assassinated within a year...

Well, somehow George W has managed to survive 8 years assassination-free, and if he can do it, anyone can!

[InCreator]

But I wouldn't be at all surprised (very sad and disappointed, but not surprised) that if Barack Obama becomes the new president, he'll be assassinated within a year...

As would be assassinated anyone who has power and will to crusade against CEOs and oil import, white or black, beggar or president. You can checkmate, but never capture the king.

In this world, kings do not reside in White House or Kremlin.
I think that they reside in banks and oil companies. Drug and weapon factories.

[Darth Mandarb]

Why not just have a 1 person - 1 vote system, where all the votes are counted up nationwide and then whoever gets the most wins? Surely that would be the fairest way to run the Presidential election?

My sentiments exactly.

I believe the counter-argument to this is that such a system is too fallible to be effective and/or reliable.

However, I like to think that if we had the technology to put man on the moon 40 years ago we can find an effective way to make such a voting system a reality today.

Well, somehow George W has managed to survive 8 years assassination-free, and if he can do it, anyone can!

I heard a news blurb last night about the CIA uncovering an assassination plot on Obama.  They made it sound (in the blurb) like some huge far-reaching conspiracy. I did a little reading on the story and it sounds like it wasn't quite as menacing as the media made it out to be (big surprise) just a couple of skin-heads talking shit; but still, it appears to be credible.

I'm sure Obama expected things like this to come up.  I will give him credit for going forward with his campaign knowing it might put his life at risk (though I suppose that's a reality for any presidential candidate).

[GarageGothic]

From the article Darth linked to:

It was to end, authorities said, with the two suspects â€" dressed in white tuxedos and top hats â€" blasting guns from the windows of a speeding vehicle aimed at Obama.

Just... wow.

[RickJ]

RickJ - thanks for that information.  I had researched the institution before (not like I did a book report on it or anything just some Google and Wikipedia) but it's nice to get some new information about it.  I always admire your posts as they come with good information!

Darth - Although you know what you are talking about, I think there are "some people" from other countries listening to this conversation that may not.  I posted the explanation for the benefit of those less informed so that they could better appreciate what is being said on both sides.

I believe you are also correct about the fear of the general population going ape-shit and selling out their hard won freedoms over a chrismatic dictator type person.  And yes it can happen even in modern times; just look at what's going on in Venezuela and Bolivia.   

Having a block-vote system makes sense when you're electing a local representative for the Senate or whatever, where each state has to choose somebody to represent it in government (and this person comes from whichever party gets the most votes in the state) -- but when a national President is being elected, why add all the complications?

There is noting in the constitution or in federal law requiring that states vote in a block.  This is decided by each state individually, and there are a number of states that do in fact proportionally select their electors according to the popular vote.  So in these states if Obamma wins 52% of the popular vote and McCain gets 48% then 52% of the electors are selected from the democrat (obama0 party and 48% from the republican party (mccain).

The reason some states vote as a block is that they believe that doing so will give them a stronger voice, not only in the election, but also in political process before and after elections.

You have to remember in the US sovereignty lies with the people first.  They delegate some of their power to the state in which they reside to govern.   The individual states in turn delegate some of their power to the federal government.   I think in most other countries it's the other way around, where the King/Queen are the sovereigns and delegate some of their [power to a Parliament who in turn delegate some powers to the people.

In the end both systems can (but not necessarily) produce similar results but the journey can be quite different.

In some countries that have multi-party systems, they seem to have to have elections every 6 months after the coalition partners break up with each other and nobody has enough power to get anything done -- which can't be a good thing for the country or the economy.

Hehe, I on this point.   Just to clarify though.  There are no laws codifying or requiring a two party system in the US.  It has just worked out that way.   There are in fact other political parties in the US who routinely run presidential candidates, such as the  Libertarian party, The Green party and the one created by Ross Perot in 92.  This is not to say that the two parties in power don't do everything they can to maintain the status quo.   

[Makeout Patrol]

But I wouldn't be a all surprised (very sad and disappointed, but not surprised) that if Barack Obama becomes the new president he'll be assassinated within a year...

Well, somehow George W has managed to survive 8 years assassination-free, and if he can do it, anyone can!

Well, that's because Bush went for the more extreme running mate, which is a pretty consistent tactic in American elections... there's a name for it, but I forget how it works. Basically, nobody's going to assassinate Bush because then Cheney will president. McCain's doing the same thing.

My predictions are that the Bradley effect won't have a big influence and that Obama will win. I would hope that this will mean that overall discourse in the States will shift to the left, but I predict an awful lot of acrimony before that happens, and if the White House returns to the Republicans after Obama leaves, it won't happen at all. That said, I'll call it right now: Obama is the next president of the United States, and he'll have a pretty large mandate. He'll also have a lot of opposition in the House and Senate.

[SSH]

Well, that's because Bush went for the more extreme running mate, which is a pretty consistent tactic in American elections... there's a name for it, but I forget how it works. Basically, nobody's going to assassinate Bush because then Cheney will president. McCain's doing the same thing.

Let us all pray for McCain's ongoing health if he does win...

[Erpy]

I believe you are also correct about the fear of the general population going ape-shit and selling out their hard won freedoms over a chrismatic dictator type person.  And yes it can happen even in modern times; just look at what's going on in Venezuela and Bolivia.

Yeah, I too heard that one of the original thoughts behind the electoral college was the assumption that Joe-the-ignorant-redneck-farmer-from-Kentucky was too oblivious of national politics to make an informed choice about out-of-state candidates who hailed from the Boston or Florida area. Thus, the electoral college could make an "informed choice" on behalf of the voters. And seeing the motivations of some citizens for voting for or against a certain candidate are nothing short of shallow, I can't say I blame them. What I wonder is how the electoral college is meant to correct irresponsible decisions by the electorate. Check this link out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

Not only do parties usually pick drones as their electors who are certain to vote the party line, no matter how irresponsible, but voting against the party line is also discouraged and in theory even punished. So does it really make a difference? Unless I'm missing something about the way the system works.

In some countries that have multi-party systems, they seem to have to have elections every 6 months after the coalition partners break up with each other and nobody has enough power to get anything done -- which can't be a good thing for the country or the economy.

Yeah, the coalition system is hardly perfect, although in the US, the results would be slightly less profound due to local (state) government being a lot more influental than some local province governments in other western countries. I agree elections for the US every 6 months would be a bad thing economically, seeing the crazy amounts of money that get poured into campaigns.

Hehe, I on this point.   Just to clarify though.  There are no laws codifying or requiring a two party system in the US.  It has just worked out that way.   There are in fact other political parties in the US who routinely run presidential candidates, such as the  Libertarian party, The Green party and the one created by Ross Perot in 92.  This is not to say that the two parties in power don't do everything they can to maintain the status quo.   

True, although due to the voting-as-a-block deal, a lot of people who would have voted for a 3rd party still end up voting one of the two mainstream parties because if the only way to deny a candidate your vote is to make certain that candidate doesn't get the majority of the votes in a state. (See the "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush"-line)

Well, that's because Bush went for the more extreme running mate, which is a pretty consistent tactic in American elections... there's a name for it, but I forget how it works. Basically, nobody's going to assassinate Bush because then Cheney will president. McCain's doing the same thing.

I'm not sure if that's the thought. There's been word that while Bush makes it to the headlines more often, Cheney has more political say behind the scenes. Ironically, shooting Cheney might have had more impact than shooting Bush. The only reason Palin seemed to be chosen was to bring "youth" to the team (unfortunately also debunking the "Obama is inexperienced"-talking point) and to appeal to the religious right wing part of the base, who weren't exactly charmed with McCain before. (and vice versa) I doubt she'd pick up many Hillary-voters due to her gender...her opinion that abortion isn't even justified in case of rape isn't something a lot of women, particularly Hillary voters, are gonna agree with.

I feel that in this day and age, with the proliferation of mass media, it's reached a point where we can (and should) tally the popular vote and base the presidency off of that.  I see the electoral college as antiquated and no longer needed.

I see the system as antiquated too, but I'm not sure if the proliferation of the mass media has made the popular vote any more reliable. With the mass media bombarding the public with all sorts of contradicting information, it's hard to see the forest for the trees and judge what's reliable and what's spin. I doubt those rabid McCain-supporting crowds had been this fired up if it hadn't been for the fearmongering, attack ads and pundits shouting all sorts of things. In the good ole' days, a significant part of the electorate was uninformed and now that same part is misinformed. That's progress for ya.

[Darth Mandarb]

I see the system as antiquated too, but I'm not sure if the proliferation of the mass media has made the popular vote any more reliable. With the mass media bombarding the public with all sorts of contradicting information, it's hard to see the forest for the trees and judge what's reliable and what's spin. I doubt those rabid McCain-supporting crowds had been this fired up if it hadn't been for the fearmongering, attack ads and pundits shouting all sorts of things. In the good ole' days, a significant part of the electorate was uninformed and now that same part is misinformed. That's progress for ya.

It certainly is hard to tell the the 'good' from the 'bad' sometimes.  I saw one commercial bashing McCain's tax plan, and very next commercial talks about how McCain's tax plan will save the country.  It's all a matter of how each person sees it I suppose.  One side will see it one way, the other side sees it the opposite.

My basic thought on it was that 100 years ago if you took a picture of Bryan and one of Taft (the two candidates for president at the time) out to a bible-belt farmer in the mid west they'd have no idea who either man was.  Now-a-days if you go up to a bum on the street and show him a picture of McCain or Obama chances are they'd know who they were.  While they may not be very educated on the candidates (policies, beliefs, etc) they at least now who they are.  That's at least a little progress I suppose?

I think removal of the electoral college and letting the popular vote decide the president would completely change the face of presidential campaigns (for the better).  Sure it's possible it could backfire ... but the system as it is now gave us Bush for 8 years.  Could it really be any worse??