![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2006, at 18:27:27
Or at least I think it's cold.
Who wants to do away with the electoral college? It was a fine institution in its day, but isn't it somewhat anachronistic in today's electronic media rich environment?
One man (or person if you prefer), one vote, seems so much more equitable than the current situation which appears to effectively marginalize so many voters. Once the primaries are over, they can pretty much forget those states that traditionally vote one way or another, they're likely to ignore the small states with small numbers of electoral college votes, and all the attention ends up focused on the voters of a few states like Ohio and Florida.
Although come to think of it, it also spares a large number of people a large number of campaign advertisements and phone calls.
But still...
Posted by madeline on November 8, 2006, at 20:15:47
In reply to And now, while the iron is cold, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2006, at 18:27:27
I think we should keep the electoral college. I think it provides "check" on the popular vote. In my mind I think that it is what it was designed to do.
Throughout history it has been relatively easy to "sway the masses" especially during hard economic times. This can allow for some pretty radical ideology to move to power.
The electoral college can say - umm... maybe electing this candidate isn't such a great idea. It could potentially allow for cooler heads to prevail.
Now, what the consequences of the electoral college failing to follow the populist vote would be - well. It probably wouldn't be good. Let's hope it never happens.
Just my two cents.
Maddie
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2006, at 20:32:26
In reply to Re: And now, while the iron is cold » Dinah, posted by madeline on November 8, 2006, at 20:15:47
I think that that was what was meant to happen. And it was meant to give more weight to rural areas with less population.
I'm not sure that's the current effect of the process.
People didn't seem too happy in 2000 when the popular vote and the electoral vote didn't tally. It's happened three times now. I'm not sure how it was viewed back when the other two occurred.
It may come to the same end at any rate. If the candidates can ignore the states that are consistently republican or democrat and focus on those states where the vote could go either way, it might not be all that different from courting the middle in a popular vote.
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2006, at 10:34:51
In reply to Re: And now, while the iron is cold » madeline, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2006, at 20:32:26
per normal, there are more than two sides to this issue.
lately the electoral college has been determinative in presidential elections.
case in point, without the electoral college bush loses to gore in 2000.on the down side, there are more voters in the suburbs of san antonio than the whole state of montana.
so i see there being a balancing between the franchise of every individual voter (excellent principle we may not abandon) versus the electoral college enfranchising the representation of every state (really not such a bad idea) in the selecting of the president and vice president.
the electoral college’s effect of disenfranchising of individual voters in favor of state representation is exacerbated by the ‘winner-take-all the state electors’ rule at the state level. eliminating this rule would go a long way toward a more acceptable balance between state versus voter representation. i believe that nebraska has such a rule as part of state law.
a federal law could mandate every u.s. house of representative’s congressional district be allowed to select their electors autonomously with no state-wide presidential winner-takes-all.
this would still hit the montanas pretty hard and as a consolation we could have the states’ u.s. senators have their own electors represent the states’ elector majorities.
the upside: bush still loses in 2000.
and the elections without popular vote become much less likely.another worthy reason to not eliminate the EC altogether is that presidential campaigns would be free to ignore completely the sparsely populated regions: alaska, utah, vermont, south dakota ... and this could effectively disenfranchise even more individual voters. and my proposed federal law would have the effect of prohibiting that since every candidate would have to run in every district to have a chance to win.
but, of course, as always, i could be wrong.
~ a pro-democracy democrat of the democratic wing of the democratic party
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2006, at 10:53:37
In reply to Re: And now, while the iron is cold » Dinah, posted by madeline on November 8, 2006, at 20:15:47
hey, Maddie
> Now, what the consequences of the electoral college failing to follow the populist vote would be - well. It probably wouldn't be good. Let's hope it never happens.
please see 2000 presidentail election:
"This election marked the third time in United States history that a candidate had definitively won the electoral college and thus the Presidency without winning a plurality of the popular vote. (This also happened in the elections of 1876 and 1888.)"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
we may hope against hope that it never happens, again.
Posted by madeline on November 10, 2006, at 17:56:23
In reply to Re: And now, while i'm ironing » madeline, posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2006, at 10:53:37
actually, what I was talking about was when the populist vote in the state votes one way, but the electoral college in that state votes another.
I don't think that has ever happened.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2006, at 18:10:47
In reply to Re: And now, while iron is gold » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2006, at 10:34:51
I guess I just get stuck on the fact that people are disenfranchised anyway. But in the end, it may make no difference.
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.
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.
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?
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.
It would make a fascinating change in campaign elections.
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.
(says this fervent proponent of moderation)
Posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2006, at 17:48:53
In reply to Re: And now, while iron is gold » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2006, at 10:34:51
hey, yellowdog!!!! i had a LD sign in my frontyard in Lockhart til Wednesday......i'm HERE! pat
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)
Posted by lil' jimi on November 12, 2006, at 2:56:02
In reply to Re: And while i'm ironing in central Texas!!!! » lil' jimi, posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2006, at 17:48:53
> hey, yellowdog!!!! i had a LD sign in my frontyard in Lockhart til Wednesday......i'm HERE! pat
well gosh darn it all!
great to hear your voice!
you sound good!
Does our congressman represent your town too ?
CD 25?yeee haw!
Posted by fayeroe on November 12, 2006, at 9:31:24
In reply to Re: And while i'm ironing in central Texas!!!! » fayeroe, posted by lil' jimi on November 12, 2006, at 2:56:02
> > hey, yellowdog!!!! i had a LD sign in my frontyard in Lockhart til Wednesday......i'm HERE! pat
>
> well gosh darn it all!
> great to hear your voice!
> you sound good!
> Does our congressman represent your town too ?
> CD 25?
>
he sure does!!!!!!!!!!!!! isn't redistricting nice????and nicer when the engineer of it succumbs to the powers of $ and crashes and flames and "moves" to another state.....:-)
> yeee haw!wooooooooohooooooooooooo......i've i'll babble you my e.mail. it's the same...in case you keep stuff laying around that long. :-)pat
>
Posted by Dinah on November 12, 2006, at 12:13:48
In reply to Re: And now, while iron is gold » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on November 12, 2006, at 2:49:30
I guess I don't see the swing vote as all that unstable. I see them more as reactive. When things lean too far one way or another, they exert a pull in the opposite direction. They may or may not be ideological moderates, but they do act as a moderating influence.
I'm not enormously unhappy with the results.
Posted by lil' jimi on November 13, 2006, at 11:03:56
In reply to Re: And now, while iron is gold » lil' jimi, posted by Dinah on November 12, 2006, at 12:13:48
> > I guess I don't see the swing vote as all that unstable.
well, for as much as the swing voters themselves may (or may not) be somewhat ‘flaky’, it is the process of choosing which splinter of voters are teh ‘swing voters’ which seems unstable to me. Soccer Moms one cycle, Angry Males the next, et cetera; each chosen as the most likely to Flip Flop or the most nudgeable toward some desired candidate.
and the commandment Thou Shalt Be Highly Electable (while pandering to these most uncommitted voters) does not seem to have moderation as its purpose. Moderation (or moderates) would seem to be as likely as not among of its casualties.
> > I see them more as reactive.
i can see that: they would be expected to be at least more sentient or responsive since they are chosen for their ability to be influenced.
> > When things lean too far one way or another, they exert a pull in the opposite direction. They may or may not be ideological moderates, but they do act as a moderating influence.
i am too cynical to see this as benign nor as effective in the way you suggest.
a large part of my challenge is in trying to see moderates or centerists as uncommitted or undecided, hence swing voters; any such intersection of swing voters with moderation seems purely incidental since we may presume that the party honchos and their political consultant coterie would be just as happy to target a more divisive or even extremist element (once designated as swing voters) as not.
> > I'm not enormously unhappy with the results.
although not tremendously happy either?
i am suggesting that the solution you have proposed seems to me to be a source of the problem we seek to solve.
but, then, i am not as interested in what we are sold as being Highly Electable nor swing voter appealing nor necessarily moderate nor moderating.i’d rather have some one who is extremely wise and extremely honest while still willing to suffer the abuse and assaults that come with public service.
and i see any such candidate as not being seen as highly electable nor as appealing to swing voters. At least not in the view of our current political establishment(s).i can easily imagine such a candidate being seen as dangerous, and being slandered as such.
know what i mean ?
Posted by lil' jimi on November 13, 2006, at 11:11:21
In reply to Re: And while i'm ironing in central Texas!!!! » lil' jimi, posted by fayeroe on November 12, 2006, at 9:31:24
One could almost believe in poetic justice.
more like irony than ironing.once again, the dogma gets run over by the karma.
Posted by fayeroe on November 13, 2006, at 11:57:02
In reply to Re: And while i'm ironing in central Texas!!!! » fayeroe, posted by lil' jimi on November 13, 2006, at 11:11:21
> One could almost believe in poetic justice.
> more like irony than ironing.
>
> once again, the dogma gets run over by the karma.
;-)
Posted by fayeroe on November 13, 2006, at 11:59:58
In reply to Re: And while i'm ironing in central Texas!!!!, posted by fayeroe on November 13, 2006, at 11:57:02
> > One could almost believe in poetic justice.
> > more like irony than ironing.
> >
> > once again, the dogma gets run over by the karma.
>
>
> ;-)"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" Abraham Lincoln.
>
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.