Skip to main content

View Diary: Colorado may change EV allocation (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In reply (none)
    You seem to say that smaller states or different regions should have NO say for all practical purposes.  Florida and Ohio still get a ton more attention than New Hampshire or New Mexico ever will no matter how you slice it.

    My 50 Floridas argument still stands.  If the popular vote is like Gore-Bush (5 votes out of every 1000 difference) or Kennedy-Nixon (17 votes out of every 10,000 difference), the difference will be small enough that there have to be recounts EVERYWHERE (many if not most states have a standard of .5% for a recount).  Sure 200,000 votes doesn't seem like a lot, but that's less than 1 vote per precinct and that certainly entitles the loser to a recount (and as Al Gore now knows - rolling eyes - you should recount the votes everywhere, not just pick and choose).

    You may not believe that the country should be a Federal Republic, but that's what we have a Federal system with 50 states as members.

    If horrible weather holds the totals down in some state vs. good weather is that intrinsically fair that the good weather states get an advantage?  Is it fair if some states allow you to vote weeks ahead of time, that others only have polls open for 10 hours, and still others are open for 14 hours?  The same candidates won't be on the ballot in all states - how do you address that?  The same eligibiliy requirements vis-a-vis felons and new residents do not apply uniformly.  Some states allow you to register on the same day, some require 90 days.  Should voting be compulsory as it is in places like Australia?  Ballot access is far from consistent from state to state.

    Swing voters will have less pull and they'll certainly be less of a need for candidates to appeal to different regions of the country - this serves as it's own check of sorts.  I don't think this is an unhealthy thing.

    -Mutt

    •  x (none)
      You seem to say that smaller states or different regions should have NO say for all practical purposes.

      Yes.  Or, rather, I see it differently than you do.  You see a nation of fifty states.  I see a nation of 300 million PEOPLE.  People.  Not states, which after all are artificial political constructs, but people.  And it pisses me off to no end that somebody in Wyoming has more of a say than me.  Wyoming deserves the say that Wyoming deserves, which is approximately 1/600 of the total (based on population) and not one bit more.  Or, rather, the 500,000 people in Wyoming should have the exact same say as any 500,000 people in a large urban area, and no more.

      If the popular vote is like Gore-Bush (5 votes out of every 1000 difference) or Kennedy-Nixon (17 votes out of every 10,000 difference), the difference will be small enough that there have to be recounts EVERYWHERE (many if not most states have a standard of .5% for a recount).

      Well, that would be just awful, wouldn't it?

      If I had my way, the Presidential election would be completely federalized, with one uniform ballot and one uniform guideline for ballot access.  That should make recounts easier.  "Because recounts would be too hard" is not a sufficient reason for jettisoning "one man, one vote" for an 18th century anachronism.

      You may not believe that the country should be a Federal Republic, but that's what we have a Federal system with 50 states as members.

      I may not.  Indeed, I do not.  And since the Electoral College will never really be changed anyway, and we are just having an intellectual debate, I'm free to believe whatever I want, and what I believe is that the EC contradicts everything that is good about democracy.

      If horrible weather holds the totals down in some state vs. good weather is that intrinsically fair that the good weather states get an advantage?

      You are talking about states again.  P-E-O-P-L-E.  If horrible weather holds the totals down in a particular area, well, too damn bad for that area.  Such is the nature of fate and chance.  "Because it might be snowing in Montana" is also not a good reason to let a Montana voter's vote count more than mine.

      Want to get more people to the polls?  Declare Election Day to be a national holiday and close everything down, or hold it on a Saturday, or hold it over a three-day period.

      Is it fair if some states allow you to vote weeks ahead of time, that others only have polls open for 10 hours, and still others are open for 14 hours?  The same candidates won't be on the ballot in all states - how do you address that?

      See above.

      The same eligibiliy requirements vis-a-vis felons and new residents do not apply uniformly.  Some states allow you to register on the same day, some require 90 days.

      Frankly I have no idea how this is relevant to the Electoral College.

      Should voting be compulsory as it is in places like Australia?

      No.

      Swing voters will have less pull and they'll certainly be less of a need for candidates to appeal to different regions of the country

      On the contrary, there will be MORE of a need for candidates to appeal to different regions of the country.  It will become worthwhile for a Democrat to campaign in heavily Hispanic portions of Texas or heavily Black parts of the South.  It will become worthwhile for a Republican to comb for conservative votes in the Sacramento Valley or upstate New York.  The EC funnels the entire campaign into the "swing" states and ignores the rest.

      One man, one vote.  That is the guiding principle of democracy, and anything that is contradictory to that needs to be changed.

      BTW, are you willing to support an Electoral College for your state, to elect your Governor?

      •  Would I support an EC for Gov? (none)
        Probably, actually :) We Dems got 'em running in circles here anyhow.

        And since it's an intellectual discussion only you MUST agree with me ;o)  

        I'm sure we agree about I&R as well ;o)

        -Mutt

    •  The 1876 election (none)
      was contested for FOUR MONTHS in FIVE DIFFERENT STATES.

      And yet, the Democrat won the popular vote by 3 points.

      There's a good example of where the popular vote would have had fewer problems.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site