Posted by lil' jimi on November 12, 2006, at 2:49:30
In reply to Re: And now, while iron is gold » lil' jimi, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2006, at 18:10:47
hi dinah,
> > I guess I just get stuck on the fact that people are disenfranchised anyway. But in the end, it may make no difference.
disenfranchisement occurs to varying degrees: one goal would be to minimized it.
it is all to easy to think of violations of voting rights that have intentionally maximized it.> > If no democrat will bother with Utah (as an example, with no basis in anything I know), because they're unlikely to win, and no republican will bother with Utah, because they're not likely to lose, Utah voters are effectively disenfranchised, even if they have a disproportionately large share of electors.
with only the basis of my 50 years in texas, an intensely so-called “Red State”, where my home congressional district has been redrawn three times since the 2000 census ... where was i ?
oh, yeah: texas gets “not bothered with” due to our current overwhelming Republican majority.> > But in a popular vote, the thirty someodd percent that are yellow dog democrats, and the thirty someodd percent that are yellow dog republicans (and I sure hope I have the origin of that phrase correct), are largely disenfranchised after the primaries. Well, not really, because they'll still be courted to vote, which would make a difference in a popular vote election, and less of a difference in an electoral college election.
or, to put more extremely, should 49% of texas vote democrat, those votes would go toward the republicans’ 100% of the electoral votes.
> > What difference does it make in a state that always goes republican, or a state that always goes democrat, what percent of the vote comes out?
under our current “winner takes all” system all of the electoral votes go to the state's majority’s choice.
> > I'd be happy with the middle ground of splitting electoral votes. It might be the best of both worlds. Each voter in every state would be important.
splitting the electoral votes down to each electoral vote representing its district individually would help to minimize this Electoral College form of disenfranchisement.
> > It would make a fascinating change in campaign elections.
i agree.
> > I'll have to give it more consideration. The most appealing outcome to my personal tastes is usually when the parties decide to nominate someone who will be highly electable, by virtue of appealing to the swing votes.
very interesting:
in all gentleness may i suggest this would be advocating the Rule by the Most Politically Unstable?> > (says this fervent proponent of moderation)
then may i ask how you envision your “swing” voter being the ideal for ‘proponing’ moderation ? i am misunderstanding something: clear me up, please?
there is every reason to believe that the major political parties aspire to strive in every way to achieve highly electable candidates; and “the swing voter” has remained the center of the parties' bull’s eyes.
thus i have the feeling that what you are proposing is exactly what has been being done with great success for a while now, but i suspect these are not the results you would have proponated.
alas i fail to moderate my proponation sometimes.
i go for extreme moderation to moderate my moderation.
sometimes.we only see presidential political advertisements on cable.
why bother with texas?
doesn’t hurt my feelings.political advertising campaigns are a separate component of efforts in political disempowerment.
(i liked making ‘proponent’ into a verb: thanks)
poster:lil' jimi
thread:701735
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20061009/msgs/702751.html