Yes, I agree that it gives voice to more constituencies and theoretically increase voter turnout, which is horribly pathetic. Also it would loosen the hold the 2 major parties of corruption hold over the electoral process. Independents and third parties would have a greater chance of getting on the ballots. Technology has given us the ability to quickly count votes and determine a winner.
We must keep the Electoral College for several reasons.
1. It forces presidential candidates to campaign all across the country and they represent ALL the citizens in this United States.
2. Without it, all a candidate must do score high on the East and West Coast. Forget about everything in the middle. There is no reason for Middle America to vote.
Dave,
Ballot access is controlled at the state level. A change to the federal electoral college system would not change that. In some states, it's very easy. In places like NY, it's very hard.
I disagree Ted. While, true it does encourage an equal motivation to 'hit the pavement' in every state. Those with lower representatives to aquire are visited in proportion to those with more. Also some larger states that have historically been known to vote on one side of the line or the other, rarely if ever are graced by the opposing side's candidate. Candidates under this process, spend their time (and money) where they think it will help.
Under a popular vote model, even Blue or Red states will have votes to be gained to assit win out. I am not a Democrat, but yet I live in a blue state. So why should I bother to vote for "my guy (or girl)" when Obama is going to win NY. If it was the popular model, at least I know that my voice would be heard and count toward the overall picture.
Why does anybody think a popular vote would improve voter turn out?
We elect city council, county legislature, state legislature and a governor by popular vote. How are those turnout rates?
The only thing that will improve voter turn out is higher community engagement. More people need to turn off their TVs, join a civic club, join a group activity, attend public meetings, volunteer and get to know their neighbors. An engaged community cares about who gets elected. Engaged people are more likely to go to the polls, not just for local elections but all elections.
Until the engagement problem is fixed, we're going to continue to see lower voter turn outs, worse results from the elections we do have and a continuing spiral downward for our communities and our nation.
Howard, it's because people feel their vote doesn't count. It's hard to argue that, because of what Phil pointed out above. If you write in a vote in NY, it's not counted. If you vote for someone on the ballot who isn't a Dem, it usually won't matter. There have been some exceptions, but not many. It sure didn't in 2008. But without the elctoral college system, their votes will count.
The "my vote doesn't count" is a cop out used by many people (obviously, not you, since you participate).
People use that excuse for Batavia City Council, where races can be pretty competitive and there's lots of options for somebody who wants to get on the ballot to get on the ballot (though, yes, all ballot access rules are too restrictive).
There was a time when about 70 percent of the people in a community were engaged and involved in their community. That number is now less than 50 percent.
It may be a cop-out for some. But you can't deny that a lot of people feel disenfranchised with the election process. And for good reason. Actually, I feel pretty left-out. I just adhere to "Animal House" logic. "This situation calls for a stupid and futile gesture on someone's part." "And we're just the guys to do it" Or something like that
John, true, there are some good people who actually do want to serve, that I would support. But if you don't make kissy-kissy nice nice with the local party folks, and toe the line you won't get the endorsement. And although it's a mite easier to run in a local race as an independent, it's still a long, hard road. Ask C M Barrons.
Dave,
CM, while a member of the Green Party, ran as a Democrat, not an independent.
But in this last local election, the other major party, the Democrats, did not run candidates in most races. That keeps voter turn out low when you know the only person running is going to win. It does not matter what the reason was, you have to have a race to get people out.
I'm well aware of CM's affiliations, John. But he may as well have been an independent for all the back-up he got from either the Green's or Democrats.
The Presidents elected with fewer popular votes had troubled administrations whose legitimacy was questioned long after they took office. The last President who took office without the popular vote managed to squander the countries image abroad, decimate the economy , start one war without a legitmate reason and failed to prosecute a justified war on those who attacked on 9/11.
The electoral college no longer functions with any other reason than it satisfies the wishes of long dead politicians whose time has past. On close examination it was done to balance the number of votes by head count to satisfy one side who wanted slaves counted as 3/5 ths. persons to increase their leverage in electing a President as well as portioning the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representitives and relied on the appointment of Senators by Govenors. If we want to have a democracy then direct elections of the President is the answer.
Two Presidents that I know of Hayes a republican who won and was elected by evident skuduggery on the part of Florida electors who gave the edge to Tilden the Republican in one of the more notorious post-civil war re-construction acts, and George W. Bush in 2000 whose Jeb was the sitting Govenor.
Keep the electoral college the way it is. Popular vote? Just because people are involved doesn't me they're helping. Raise the voting age about ten years. Put a test out there. ...... ........... ........ Thin line between democracy and communism when no one wants to work. ;)
I want to comment on the characterization, "But he may as well have been an independent for all the back-up he got from either the Green's or Democrats."
1) Local Democrats encouraged me to run and did all of the legwork required to get my name on the ballot, including coordinating four counties coming together in support of my candidacy. They never pledged any financial support and were honest about explaining why such support was not possible because of by-laws applying to cross-endorsed candidates. I bear them no ill-will- on the contrary, I was honored to be endorsed and overwhelmed by the warmth shown toward a non-party member.
2) Most of the Genesee County Green Party leadership are not residents of the 139th Assembly District- aside from being very supportive of my candidacy, they lacked bodies to offer much legwork. HOWEVER, the Monroe County Green Party DID make up for that. I was provided campaign literature, a website and coordination of Monroe County campaign logistics in a big way: canvassing, petitioning for the Green Party line on the ballot, parade dates and other appearances.
I won't dispute that my campaign was largely conducted by the soles of my own shoes, but it would be disingenuous to categorize my run as independent. There are too many Democrats and Green Party folks who lent themselves to my campaign for Assembly and I am grateful to all regardless of affiliation or county of residency. They are spread from Medina to Barker to Kuckville to Holley to Hilton to LeRoy to Corfu to Clarendon to Alabama to Batavia to Gaines... More goodwill than this Bergenite could ever adequately express gratitude for or soon forget!
John can you cite information that gives evidence that Dave was right about the lack of support given to C.M.? Both of you seem to have inside information. Want to share?
Dave Olsen wrote:" I'm well aware of CM's affiliations, John. But he may as well have been an independent for all the back-up he got from either the Green's or Democrats"
Dave, since you appear to have inside information, can you cite evidence that C.M. didn't receive 'back up" from the Greens or the Democrats.
I'm aware that C.M. has already responded to this but I'm curious what your information might be that contradicts what he wrote.
John, I'd much prefer you address this with C.M. since you are disputing his response. He is aware of the support he received and those who stepped up to help him (yes, he has names).
Your criticism of his campaign started early and often.
If you have the names, give them in public. Why hide your light in a barrel.
Bea,
I am not disputing anything with CM, I just don't agree. And I don't think he cares if i agree or not. You are the one who asked me, not him (remember?).
Yes, I agree that it gives
Yes, I agree that it gives voice to more constituencies and theoretically increase voter turnout, which is horribly pathetic. Also it would loosen the hold the 2 major parties of corruption hold over the electoral process. Independents and third parties would have a greater chance of getting on the ballots. Technology has given us the ability to quickly count votes and determine a winner.
(No subject)
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFHXhwbQRBc]
Dave, I agree wholeheartedly.
Dave, I agree wholeheartedly. The need for the electoral college has been surpassed by technology.
Does anybody have info on how many presidents won through the electoral college but lost the popular vote?
We must keep the Electoral
We must keep the Electoral College for several reasons.
1. It forces presidential candidates to campaign all across the country and they represent ALL the citizens in this United States.
2. Without it, all a candidate must do score high on the East and West Coast. Forget about everything in the middle. There is no reason for Middle America to vote.
Dave, Ballot access is
Dave,
Ballot access is controlled at the state level. A change to the federal electoral college system would not change that. In some states, it's very easy. In places like NY, it's very hard.
John, well it should
John, well it should
Bob; 4 times:
Bob; 4 times: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vot…
I disagree Ted. While, true
I disagree Ted. While, true it does encourage an equal motivation to 'hit the pavement' in every state. Those with lower representatives to aquire are visited in proportion to those with more. Also some larger states that have historically been known to vote on one side of the line or the other, rarely if ever are graced by the opposing side's candidate. Candidates under this process, spend their time (and money) where they think it will help.
Under a popular vote model, even Blue or Red states will have votes to be gained to assit win out. I am not a Democrat, but yet I live in a blue state. So why should I bother to vote for "my guy (or girl)" when Obama is going to win NY. If it was the popular model, at least I know that my voice would be heard and count toward the overall picture.
Why does anybody think a
Why does anybody think a popular vote would improve voter turn out?
We elect city council, county legislature, state legislature and a governor by popular vote. How are those turnout rates?
The only thing that will improve voter turn out is higher community engagement. More people need to turn off their TVs, join a civic club, join a group activity, attend public meetings, volunteer and get to know their neighbors. An engaged community cares about who gets elected. Engaged people are more likely to go to the polls, not just for local elections but all elections.
Until the engagement problem is fixed, we're going to continue to see lower voter turn outs, worse results from the elections we do have and a continuing spiral downward for our communities and our nation.
Howard, it's because people
Howard, it's because people feel their vote doesn't count. It's hard to argue that, because of what Phil pointed out above. If you write in a vote in NY, it's not counted. If you vote for someone on the ballot who isn't a Dem, it usually won't matter. There have been some exceptions, but not many. It sure didn't in 2008. But without the elctoral college system, their votes will count.
The "my vote doesn't count"
The "my vote doesn't count" is a cop out used by many people (obviously, not you, since you participate).
People use that excuse for Batavia City Council, where races can be pretty competitive and there's lots of options for somebody who wants to get on the ballot to get on the ballot (though, yes, all ballot access rules are too restrictive).
There was a time when about 70 percent of the people in a community were engaged and involved in their community. That number is now less than 50 percent.
That's a problem for democracy.
It may be a cop-out for some.
It may be a cop-out for some. But you can't deny that a lot of people feel disenfranchised with the election process. And for good reason. Actually, I feel pretty left-out. I just adhere to "Animal House" logic. "This situation calls for a stupid and futile gesture on someone's part." "And we're just the guys to do it" Or something like that
I can do stupid and futile
I can do stupid and futile very well....count me in LOL
We just had local elections
We just had local elections and most races were uncontested. With that, it's hard to get voter turn out.
Kyle; Road Trip? John, true,
Kyle; Road Trip?
John, true, there are some good people who actually do want to serve, that I would support. But if you don't make kissy-kissy nice nice with the local party folks, and toe the line you won't get the endorsement. And although it's a mite easier to run in a local race as an independent, it's still a long, hard road. Ask C M Barrons.
I say we start our own party
I say we start our own party here in Batavia. The Greater Batavian Libertarians. We could try to fit in Localist too...for Howard. :-)
Dave, CM, while a member of
Dave,
CM, while a member of the Green Party, ran as a Democrat, not an independent.
But in this last local election, the other major party, the Democrats, did not run candidates in most races. That keeps voter turn out low when you know the only person running is going to win. It does not matter what the reason was, you have to have a race to get people out.
I'm well aware of CM's
I'm well aware of CM's affiliations, John. But he may as well have been an independent for all the back-up he got from either the Green's or Democrats.
Dave, no argument there.
Dave, no argument there.
The Presidents elected with
The Presidents elected with fewer popular votes had troubled administrations whose legitimacy was questioned long after they took office. The last President who took office without the popular vote managed to squander the countries image abroad, decimate the economy , start one war without a legitmate reason and failed to prosecute a justified war on those who attacked on 9/11.
The electoral college no longer functions with any other reason than it satisfies the wishes of long dead politicians whose time has past. On close examination it was done to balance the number of votes by head count to satisfy one side who wanted slaves counted as 3/5 ths. persons to increase their leverage in electing a President as well as portioning the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representitives and relied on the appointment of Senators by Govenors. If we want to have a democracy then direct elections of the President is the answer.
Two Presidents that I know of
Two Presidents that I know of Hayes a republican who won and was elected by evident skuduggery on the part of Florida electors who gave the edge to Tilden the Republican in one of the more notorious post-civil war re-construction acts, and George W. Bush in 2000 whose Jeb was the sitting Govenor.
Keep the electoral college
Keep the electoral college the way it is. Popular vote? Just because people are involved doesn't me they're helping. Raise the voting age about ten years. Put a test out there. ...... ........... ........ Thin line between democracy and communism when no one wants to work. ;)
I want to comment on the
I want to comment on the characterization, "But he may as well have been an independent for all the back-up he got from either the Green's or Democrats."
1) Local Democrats encouraged me to run and did all of the legwork required to get my name on the ballot, including coordinating four counties coming together in support of my candidacy. They never pledged any financial support and were honest about explaining why such support was not possible because of by-laws applying to cross-endorsed candidates. I bear them no ill-will- on the contrary, I was honored to be endorsed and overwhelmed by the warmth shown toward a non-party member.
2) Most of the Genesee County Green Party leadership are not residents of the 139th Assembly District- aside from being very supportive of my candidacy, they lacked bodies to offer much legwork. HOWEVER, the Monroe County Green Party DID make up for that. I was provided campaign literature, a website and coordination of Monroe County campaign logistics in a big way: canvassing, petitioning for the Green Party line on the ballot, parade dates and other appearances.
I won't dispute that my campaign was largely conducted by the soles of my own shoes, but it would be disingenuous to categorize my run as independent. There are too many Democrats and Green Party folks who lent themselves to my campaign for Assembly and I am grateful to all regardless of affiliation or county of residency. They are spread from Medina to Barker to Kuckville to Holley to Hilton to LeRoy to Corfu to Clarendon to Alabama to Batavia to Gaines... More goodwill than this Bergenite could ever adequately express gratitude for or soon forget!
John can you cite information
John can you cite information that gives evidence that Dave was right about the lack of support given to C.M.? Both of you seem to have inside information. Want to share?
Dave Olsen wrote:" I'm well
Dave Olsen wrote:" I'm well aware of CM's affiliations, John. But he may as well have been an independent for all the back-up he got from either the Green's or Democrats"
Dave, since you appear to have inside information, can you cite evidence that C.M. didn't receive 'back up" from the Greens or the Democrats.
I'm aware that C.M. has already responded to this but I'm curious what your information might be that contradicts what he wrote.
Bea, nothing to share. It is
Bea, nothing to share. It is merely my opinion. I should've put that in the comment.
Bea, Next time I see you out
Bea,
Next time I see you out and about, I'll be glade to tell you how I think they failed him, with names of the people I think failed him.
John, I'd much prefer you
John, I'd much prefer you address this with C.M. since you are disputing his response. He is aware of the support he received and those who stepped up to help him (yes, he has names).
Your criticism of his campaign started early and often.
If you have the names, give them in public. Why hide your light in a barrel.
Bea, I am not disputing
Bea,
I am not disputing anything with CM, I just don't agree. And I don't think he cares if i agree or not. You are the one who asked me, not him (remember?).