letting my voice be heard

[Onion of Death]

There is something about the entire Electoral College idea that just bugs me. I wonder how much opposition there would be to actually giving voters the true ability to elect their leaders.

[Entsuropi]

The idea of true democracy would not work. It could work if people were to check every issue, think it through, consider the possibilities and then vote. Which is never going to happen. So we vote those that we feel represent our views best, because they can give issues the proper consideration, and can do so due to doing it full time. That is the idea, and yes, it is not perfect. But boyo, nothing is. Modern democratic states are the most ethical and just states ever to exist on Earth. The current system is the only realistic one, given the mentality of the average citizen and the current level of technology.

[Spriggan]

There is something about the entire Electoral College idea that just bugs me. I wonder how much opposition there would be to actually giving voters the true ability to elect their leaders.

People do elect their leaders, the thing is the leader is not elected by the nation wide popular vote, but by a state wide popular vote.  

The college was also put into place (among the other things) was to keep people that were pro england and it's monarchy out.  If, at the founding of the country, the popular vote was for someone who wanted to rejoin England and disolve the US, the Electorial College could vote for someone else instead, thus keeping out the pro england loon.  The founding fathers, rightly so, never trusted the general populace to elect a leader.  There actualy have been a few times where the repesentive for the state actualy voted for someone who didn't win the state (think the last time it happend was aound the early 1900's).  

Personaly I think all the people that are complaining about it are the ones that didn't pay attenting on 4th grade civics class .  Oh, and I agree with what has been said about Voterpair, if you're going to use a site like that then don't vote, you don't deserve the right to.  I also wouldn't be surprised it that was illiegal too.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I like the electoral college. However, I don't think it's perfect. I like the District Method like Maine and Nebraska use.

But I also like the idea of instant-runoff elections, like is used for the Hugo Award voting (and elections in Australia), where you rank your choices from 1 (your top choice) on down, and if the top vote-getter of first choices doesn't have a majority, they knock out the lowest votegetters and apply their votes to the 2nd and 3rd choices etc. until there is a winner with over 50%. That way people won't be afraid of voting for who they really want rather than who they think will beat the guy they want to lose.

AND I like the "none of the above" vote, where if it wins, new people have to run.

...that said...I'm voting absentee in Ohio, because Bush has no chance in California... >_>

[Spriggan]

Ya, let me add that I agree with what Ookla said about Nebraska and mane.  What those states do is divide the total electorial college votes among all the canididates based off the percentage they got (rounded up for the majority winner down for the looser).  So, for example, if Nebraska has 10 votes (I'm too lasy too look up their actualy count) and bush gets 60% of the vote (which he probaly will since NE is almost all wayse a red state) he'd get 6 collage votes while Kerry (assumeing he gets 40%) would get 4.  

Now what I don't like about this meathod is that right now the DNC is trying to pass laws in battlegound states that would require them to do this this election.  And I'm sure to balence things out the RNC is doing the same things in states where it would hurt kerry (like in CA).  You either need to do it in ALL the states or NONE of them, none of this selective bull crap where you're doing it just to help/hurt a specific canidate.

[Spriggan]

Oh, and since we allready have a Political discussion about stupid ideas I'd like to add this to the fray:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/britain.letters.reut/index.html

[Peter Ahlstrom]

No, that's not what Maine and Nebraska do. That's called proportional something. That's what Colorado is voting on at this election, and if it passes, their electoral vote THIS YEAR will be divided in that way.

The District Method, which Nebraska and Maine use, give 2 electoral votes to the winner of the state, and 1 to the winner of each representative's district. So Maine has 4 electoral votes total; it's possible that 3 could go to 1 candidate and 1 to another. Perot came close to winning 1 electoral vote there in 92, I believe.

I am not in favor of the proportional thing Colorado is doing. Since historically the margin is very small, people would only win by 1 or 2 electoral votes in every close state, or tie. You might as well not have an electoral college at all, then. Which may be the point for some people who like it.

[EDIT: Heh. Clark County is the county directly north of my Ohio county. Home of Springfield and Young's Jersey Dairy.]

[fuzzyoctopus]

Ben, you're cool, and thank you for posting this link.  To everyone who thinks it's crap, go stick your head in a bucket of cheese.  At least we're trying to work with an election system that is crappy and actually VOTING  and trying to make a difference instead of throwing our vote away.

[Spriggan]

I don't see the overall difference between perportional and districk Ookla, in both cases the looser only has a chance of winning a few votes.  You're saying one is bad becasue it gives so few votes yet the one you like gives the same amount.

[Tekiel]

I'm going to agree with Entropy on True Demoncracy.  Most of the people I know (small city in Idaho) just vote straight Republican because they don't have the time/energy/interest to find out who they would  want to vote for for the issues.  Most just figure one or the other will be better for the general economy.  Americans just aren't responsible enough to become a true democracy.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I don't see the overall difference between perportional and districk Ookla, in both cases the looser only has a chance of winning a few votes.  You're saying one is bad becasue it gives so few votes yet the one you like gives the same amount.

Not really. I'm saying proportional is bad because it doesn't differentiate enough. District is good because it allows states not to be dominated by the opinions of people in a couple large cities. (Okay, I didn't actually say that before.)

I like the electoral college because it allows for a clear regional voice to emerge. The district method would make the blocks smaller. So for Colorado under the district method, Denver might be blue but the rest of the state red. Under the proportion system, the whole state would just be purple.

[House of Mustard]

To everyone who thinks it's crap, shut the hell up.  At least we're trying to work with an election system that is crappy and actually VOTING  and trying to make a difference instead of throwing our vote away.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but:

[inflammatory remarks]

What actually throws your vote away is that you are not working within the real, effective system.  You're not (correct me if I'm wrong) out donating your time to the party of your choice, volunteering for campaigns, actively participating in grassroots activities -- so that you might have a chance of swinging a real election.

Instead, at the last minute before an election, you're claiming that the system (that you have not participated in) is hopeless, and you're going to give in to an internet fad, pretending that you're poltically active.

That's what makes me sick about vote-swapping.  It's trading in your blood-earned freedom to vote for a trendy excuse.  You're giving up your real choice to the choice of somebody you've never met, who may or may not actually vote according to the agreement.

Once again, if you've done ANYTHING to be poltically active, let me know.  But if you haven't, then quit pretending.  The system can work, despite the pop culture idea that it can't.  But it doesn't work if you don't do anything.

[/inflammatory remarks]

[House of Mustard]

Incidentally, I'm not trying to point my remarks at fuzzy.  I'm pointing them at vote-swappers collectively.  Fuzzy just happened to be here at the time.

No personal offense intended.

[fuzzyoctopus]

I'm sorry, WHERE exactly did we say we weren't going to vote before this came up?

Never mind, I shiouldn't even care

[42]

The vote-swapping is based on a lot of flawed thoughts to begin with. First it is based on the premise that no intelligeent person would ever vote for Bush. Sorry, but a lot of the people voting for Nadar and other third party canidates, have Bush as their second choice. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they are stupid.

It has a great potential for backfiring on the Kerry campaign. People who are serious about bringing third parties into the spotlight could get a lot of more recognition by making sure their party had a strong representation in locked states and swing states. The possibility for deception is just enormous.

Course, every vote is going to be contested in swing states already. The lawyers are already geared up.