[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by smooth_guy: *
What I don't get is for instance if there are 27 electoral college votes in Florida and the poll shows a 47-45 lead for one candidate how come all 27 votes going to that candidate. Instead of 15-12 votes split or whatever may be the ratio is. Why the whole state falls for one candidate, where he just had one or two percentage point advantage or popular votes per se.
[/QUOTE]
Thats true for practically all voting else where in the world. In, Pakistan or UK or Australia... if a candidate gets 1 more vote than the others, he is elected to Parliament and the loser goes home, despite getting 49.9% votes. Its just the way it is. Democracy is not perfect.
And I always thought (despite of disliking for their foriegn policies) the Amercian presidental system is the best government system in the world, which has check and balance in terms of congress, president’s administration and supreme court etc. It actually reflects the Islamic values of check and balance between the powerful institutions i.e. shuraa, khalifa(ruler) and quzaa(Judicial system) to make each other accountable for their actions.
But if the president is not elected fairly (not having popular votes) than the system’s crediblity is questionable. I think the best example is Gore getting 500,000 more votes than Dubya and was still sent to his ranch instead of White House. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by smooth_guy: *
But if the president is not elected fairly (not having popular votes) than the system's crediblity is questionable.
[/QUOTE]
How is that different from an election elsewhere, when one party's candidates win by landslides, and the other party wins all the closely contested seats. It doesn't matter which party got more popular votes. What matters is which party has more elected MNA's in the National Assembly.
Yeah, the electoral college system is convoluted and could be better, but it has some basis. Its no different than a bunch of MNA's selecting who shall be their Prime Minister. The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President.
I agree Faisal bhai, but what I am saying is that why all the electoral votes of a state goto a candidate. Why not some go to one candidate and others goto other, based on regional division (on county basis) within state.
For instance if Multan division has 5 seast in National Assembly its not neccessary all 5 will goto one party. But its based on the ridings within that division. So its possible that 2 seats goto one party and 3 to other.
I am not disagreeing with you. By the way, just for information purposes, Nebraska and Maine do not have “winner-take-all” system. They have a proportional vote system, which is kinda similar to the Multan example you gave. However, 48 of the 50 states have “winner-take-all”. For more information click here](The Electoral College | National Archives).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fair_&_balance: *
Thats the flaw of system.
It is not one-person-one-vote-system.
[/QUOTE]
That's no flaw! By intent the US is a republic and not a pure democracy!
The Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize that if you turn things over to the lowest common denominator, you get mob-rule by those who could care less about the long-term effects on society as whole.
Hence, the Electoral College!
Four more years! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
:Salute:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mrpockets: *
That's no flaw! By intent the US is a republic and not a pure democracy!
The Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize that if you turn things over to the lowest common denominator, you get mob-rule by those who could care less about the long-term effects on society as whole.
Hence, the Electoral College!
[/QUOTE]
lowest common denominator? that would be your average joe, right. Well, the thing is, all that you are saying would be fine and dandy... except that the electors don't vote their concious. They vote strictly according to party lines... so it again falls back to the "lowest common denominator" on who they vote for.
Anyway, its just an esoteric discussion. There have been many attempts in the past many decades to change the constitution to make it more democratic, but no change ever materialized, cz its not a top priority. Most likely the guy with the most popular votes will also get the electoral college votes too. Its only in a very close election, that this may become an issue. 2000 was more an exception than the rule.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
How is that different from an election elsewhere, when one party's candidates win by landslides, and the other party wins all the closely contested seats. It doesn't matter which party got more popular votes. What matters is which party has more elected MNA's in the National Assembly.
[/QUOTE]
There is difference. These system doesnt boast that their premier is directly elected. System in India or I belive in Pakistan is that people chose representative of house and then they select the Premier.
If situation was same in USA that people voted for Senator or Rep. and then they selected the President then it was ok. But here people vote directly for President and it is not one-vote-one-person system.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fair_&_balance: *
If situation was same in USA that people voted for Senator or Rep. and then they selected the President then it was ok. But here people vote directly for President and it is not one-vote-one-person system.
[/QUOTE]
Its kinda same. People do put their stamp in front of the name of Bush or Gore (or in case of Florida and the butterfly ballot, in front of Buchanan :D), but that doesn't elect Bush. All that does is to select the pre-defined 'Electors' for that state, who then vote for Bush later on. So the electors are the same as your MNA/Senators, except they are chosen people and only vote for whom they were selected to vote, and their role ends once they have cast their votes for the President.
Why do some think that the direct popular election of the President is better than the current system. I agree with Mr. Pockets that the Electoral College system is not a flaw. Perhaps in a smaller country with a more homogenious population, direct popular vote might make sense.
Our country is so large and has so many states that have so many different issues facing them that it makes good sense to require a President to have appeal to a broader segment of the country on a state by state basis.
For instance, New York and California have extremely large populations and those populations disproportionately reflect certain values that are not held by the majority of the populations of a whole bunch of states. The Electoral College system gives more votes to them in recognition of their population. However, the state by state population disparity is tempered as well to assure that a President will not be elected by appealing to a supermajority of only a few of the most populous states.
As mentioned again by Mr. Pockets, ours was founded as and remains a republican form of representative democracy. And since we've survived with it for over 200 years with only one civil war, that's not a bad record.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
For instance, New York and California have extremely large populations and those populations disproportionately reflect certain values that are not held by the majority of the populations of a whole bunch of states. The Electoral College system gives more votes to them in recognition of their population. However, the state by state population disparity is tempered as well to assure that a President will not be elected by appealing to a supermajority of only a few of the most populous states.
[/QUOTE]
Hypothetically, how will all that change if each state uses proportional voting, instead of winner-takes-all? Actually, it will require candidates to give appropriate time to Missouri and Iowa, along with California and New York. For example, right now, neither Kerry nor Bush care much for California because the whole state will go to Kerry (most likely). With proportional voting, Bush will make some effort to get some votes and consequently some electoral seats. No?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Hypothetically, how will all that change if each state uses proportional voting, instead of winner-takes-all? Actually, it will require candidates to give appropriate time to Missouri and Iowa, along with California and New York. For example, right now, neither Kerry nor Bush care much for California because the whole state will go to Kerry (most likely). With proportional voting, Bush will make some effort to get some votes and consequently some electoral seats. No?
[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure exactly how things would change in the abstract because we don't have a specific plan on the table. One plan would be to simply take the statewide vote and divvy up the electoral college votes based upon the percentage of the popular vote in that state. You say (correctly) that :"right now, neither Kerry nor Bush care much for California because the whole state will go to Kerry (most likely)." So the candidates are beating the bushes to pick up 5 to 10 electoral votes in Nevada, Montana and some smaller states and fighting hard where the election is close. In changing to straight percentage allocation, you'd probably get more campaigning in California but find very little attention paid to Nevada, Montana and the smaller states. The spread in these smaller states would probably never deviate in greater percentages than 45% to 55% (a landslide election). So why would a candidate spend time and money in a state trying to get a 5 1/2 to 4 1/2 electoral vote edge over his opponent in Montana? Makes no sense at all.
** Thus, in trying to get more campaigning in California, you get a loss of campaigning in other states. ** Before changing something that has worked for 200+ years, I really think some serious consideration would need to be given to all possible repercussions.
In Maine, unless I am seriously mistaken (and I don't think I am), the electoral votes are NOT strictly allocated in accordance with the percetnage of the popular vote. The overall popular vote winner gets some number of votes and then the remainder of the votes are allocated somehow based upon some formula taking into account the percentage of vote. I'm sure that if the whole country adopted Maine's method of doing things, there would be some winners and some losers and campaign strategy would change to the benefit of some states and to the detriment of others.
If I am not wrong (and I don't think I am), the electoral votes are also based on the total number of Senators + Representatives from each state, and Representatives are based on population (loosely). So having some kind of proportional voting means, that each electoral vote would be (roughly) equally important, whether its in California or Iowa. Right now, you see all the efforts of candidates focussed on small number of swing states.
So the present model probably works best for candidates, as they don't have to travel all across the United States to get votes. They can take some states forgranted (or write off) and focus only on a small number of states. Thus, we can't say the present model works for voters or states. It does, definitely work for Carl Roves of the world.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I'm not sure exactly how things would change in the abstract because we don't have a specific plan on the table. One plan would be to simply take the statewide vote and divvy up the electoral college votes based upon the percentage of the popular vote in that state. You say (correctly) that :"right now, neither Kerry nor Bush care much for California because the whole state will go to Kerry (most likely)." So the candidates are beating the bushes to pick up 5 to 10 electoral votes in Nevada, Montana and some smaller states and fighting hard where the election is close. In changing to straight percentage allocation, you'd probably get more campaigning in California but find very little attention paid to Nevada, Montana and the smaller states. The spread in these smaller states would probably never deviate in greater percentages than 45% to 55% (a landslide election). So why would a candidate spend time and money in a state trying to get a 5 1/2 to 4 1/2 electoral vote edge over his opponent in Montana? Makes no sense at all.
** Thus, in trying to get more campaigning in California, you get a loss of campaigning in other states. ** Before changing something that has worked for 200+ years, I really think some serious consideration would need to be given to all possible repercussions.
In Maine, unless I am seriously mistaken (and I don't think I am), the electoral votes are NOT strictly allocated in accordance with the percetnage of the popular vote. The overall popular vote winner gets some number of votes and then the remainder of the votes are allocated somehow based upon some formula taking into account the percentage of vote. I'm sure that if the whole country adopted Maine's method of doing things, there would be some winners and some losers and campaign strategy would change to the benefit of some states and to the detriment of others.
[/QUOTE]
Why not simply count each vote and let the guy who gets more vote all over the country wins the election. Why cant it be simple.
Well, if you follow mv's reasoning carefully, what he is saying that some states have more population per square mile (e.g. California or New York) compared to some states who have less. So, in order to make sure that the candidates don't just spend all their time and energy in states with dense population patterns, where they will potentially get more bang for the buck, the electoral college system tries to make sure even smaller states with less dense population also get their fair shake. Although, in my view, this results in candidates losing focus of states that heavily swing one way or the other, politically speaking, i.e. and spend most of their time and energy in the so-called swing states. Those that are up for grabs in a close race.
The Electoral College was formed when most of the population (the average Joes) had no basis to make a decision. With today's mass media the only reason many still favor the system is to protect the status quo (red states, conservatives, WASPs, white men, the wealthy, etc) from "turning things over to the lowest common denominator" (blue states, minorities, lower income, progresive, etc).
Faisal.
There is a problem with apportioning Electoral Votes per District in a way mirroring how representatives are chosen for Congress. There have been huge debates dealing with reapportionment of Congressional districts. Essentially, the majority in power redraws district lines in ways to assure that certain districts are Democratic and certain districts are Republicans. Obviously, the party in power wants to redraw the lines in ways that hopefully favor keeping them the majority party.
The point is that any system change favors some and disfavors others. I'm not saying the current electoral college system is the best possible system. But it could be the best system possible (hopefully you catch the difference there). Anytime politicians advocate changing something we have, I am very sceptical. The motive is most often not related to the best interests of the average citizen.
fair_&_balance.
A President of the US must represent the interests of the people who live in all 50 states not just California and New York. Take an extreme hypothetical. Assume California and New York someday have 51% of the total population of the US and 100% of New Yorkers and Californians vote for candidate A. Under that scenario, you have a President representing the interests of the two largest states while the other 48 states (49 if you count Israel) have no representation of their interests.
Some would say that is OK because it's one man and one vote and candidate A got more votes. That would be one form of democracy to be sure. But that is not the form of democracy that we implemented over 200 years ago and I personally would not be in favor of implementing it now.
Faisal, the idea you speak of might very well play a big part in this years election. Colorado will decide this election if they want to divide their electoral votes starting with this presidential election. A persons vote would mean that much more under this system.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041018/ncolorado.html?cnn=yes
As much as I’d love to advocate my idea that states should not go for winner-takes-all, I do think it is extremely unfair to implement a change in Colorado (or any other state), this late in the game - or in case of Colorado, to vote for immediate application on November 2. Even if Colorado voters approve the change, it should be implemented in the next elections, and not this one.
Then again, as I said to myvoice early, the issue will crop up only if its an extremely close election. Usually the candidate getting the popular vote, also gets more electoral college votes. However, having states allocating their electoral college votes based on percentage of votes polled by each candidate will definitely make the process more transparent and each state and each voter will get his/her vote actually counted.
Let's see....how Kerry's "talking points" against Bush stand up?
Clinton awards Halliburton a no-bid contract in Yugoslavia --- good
Bush awards Halliburton a no-bid contract in Iraq --- bad
Clinton spends 77 billion dollars on the war in Serbia --- good
Bush spends 87 billion dollars on the war in Iraq --- bad
Clinton imposes leadership change in Serbia --- good
Bush imposes leadership change in Iraq --- bad
Clinton bombs Christians on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists --- good
Bush liberates 25 million Muslims from a genocidal dictator --- bad
Clinton bombs a Chinese embassy --- good
Bush bombs many terrorist camps --- bad
Clinton commits multiple felonies while in the Oval Office --- good
Bush lands on an aircraft carrier in jumpsuit --- bad
Clinton found no mass graves found in Serbia --- good
Bush found no WMDs found in Iraq --- bad
Under Clinton, the stock market crashes by 2000 --- good.
Under Bush, the economy on an upswing --- bad
Clinton refuses to take custody of Osama bin Laden --- good
Bush shows he is a leader when the World Trade Centers is destroyed
by Osama bin Laden --- bad
Clinton says Saddam has nukes --- good
Bush says Saddam has nukes --- bad
Clinton calls for a regime change in Iraq --- good
Bush imposes a regime change in Iraq --- bad
Under Clinton, terrorists are training in Afghanistan --- good
Bush destroys terrorists training camps in Afghanistan --- bad
Under Clinton, Milosevic is still not yet convicted --- good
Under Bush, Saddam already turned over for trial --- bad
Seems to me like the Democrats are either having a memory problem or a position problem.
But, it should be OK - Kerry's got a plan! Just ask Edwards! He's sure that stem cell research will cure it! Vote for John Kerry and get out of that wheelchair and walk! What a sick sod!
Four more years! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
:Salute: