Election Methodologies Discussion WARNING: HERE BE DRAGONS!!!

[jfrazierjr]

Hmmm... I thought it was based on population as Florida and California have gained some where some of the states in the North East have lost them, but you may be right.

It is based on population. Both Congressional seats and electoral college seats are based on per X people within the state. I cant say for sure that they are the exactly the same, but they are generally very close in number if not identical. As populations move around, states gain or loose both electoral college and congressional seats.

[Gamerprinter]

OK, I voted today, and for whom, well that's my business, however...

I'm all for online voting, by popular vote only and complete elimination of the electoral college. I still believe we need political professionals like senators and representatives to ply congressional muck to respond to their constituents, but shouldn't have overriding power to the popular vote.

With hacking, is there a possibility of fraud, sure but money is exchanged fairly securely online. The level of voting fraud is far less than the joke of local voting laws which allow for all kinds of manipulation, every state, often even every county within a state has its own method and requirements for voting - such that corruption is fairly easy.

By applying the popular vote, the big enemy (in my eyes), lobby groups would have far less power, since the real vote comes from individuals not the "college".

Oh, don't get me started on what's wrong with American politics - I don't want to go there!

GP

[jfrazierjr]

I still believe we need political professionals like senators and representatives to ply congressional muck to respond to their constituents, but shouldn't have overriding power to the popular vote.

I don't want to take your comments at any more than face value hence the underlined part, but I believe 100% opposite in that professional and politician are two words that should be far from ever associated with each other. I am a firm believer in term limits, and for me, the fewer, the better. They should get in, do their job, and get out and go home and get a job.

To me, career politicians are part of the problem with the power of lobby groups. Granted, term limits will not totally destroy this power, but if a person has no chance of being reelected, suddenly lobby/PAC campaign donations are much less of an issue. I think so many people who enter politics do so in good faith and end up being corrupted by the system to maintain power or social status they have manage to aquire.

[Gamerprinter]

When I said, "political pros", I did not mean career politicians, rather people spending at least a limited term in the full time job of politicking. I could see it as a way of community service that many people from many backgrounds could serve in these positions.

Still, someone with some familiarity and interest in the matters at hand. I'm still refering to such as "them" as in "not me".

I'm all for the democratic process in our government. I couldn't do it, I'd have to be a dictator to participate, I'm not good with "committees". I've some experience in a board of directors for an Art organization - I don't play well with other committee members. Its not for me...

GP

[jfrazierjr]

I'm all for the democratic process in our government. I couldn't do it, I'd have to be a dictator to participate, I'm not good with "committees". I've some experience in a board of directors for an Art organization - I don't play well with other committee members. Its not for me...

Heh... I have that disease. Every report card it got in schools had a failing mark beside "Plays well with others"!

[Karro]

OK, I voted today, and for whom, well that's my business, however...

I'm all for online voting, by popular vote only and complete elimination of the electoral college. I still believe we need political professionals like senators and representatives to ply congressional muck to respond to their constituents, but shouldn't have overriding power to the popular vote.

With hacking, is there a possibility of fraud, sure but money is exchanged fairly securely online. The level of voting fraud is far less than the joke of local voting laws which allow for all kinds of manipulation, every state, often even every county within a state has its own method and requirements for voting - such that corruption is fairly easy.

By applying the popular vote, the big enemy (in my eyes), lobby groups would have far less power, since the real vote comes from individuals not the "college".

Oh, don't get me started on what's wrong with American politics - I don't want to go there!

GP

I disagree that the Electoral College should be eliminated. It serves an important function, one of which is to ensure that the many do not trample the rights and beliefs of the few. One of the key successes of America is allowing the majority to have its way only after compromising with the minority in order to ensure that both are as satisfied as possible. The Electoral College enshrines this into the process of choosing a President by ensuring that smaller/more rural/low-population states still have some power--i.e. they are garaunteed 3 Electoral Votes, no matter how small their population, by virtue of having 2 Senators and a Representative in Congress, and no matter what happens to their population, they won't lose those 3 votes.

Conversely, however, I believe that Election procedures, laws, and rules ought to be standardized across the nation. However, this shouldn't be done at the Federal Level, but at the State level. This, for example, is how UPCs and Seat Belt Laws became ubiquitous: not by Federal mandate, but by States banding together and agreeing as one to adopt these standards. It's hard to get the individual States to agree, but it can and should be done, IMO.

Further, I think part of this standardization of the Electoral College process should involve Electoral Vote apportionment. The 2 Senate-based Electors should be pledged to the overall State winner and the remaining Electors in each State should roughly match the net popular vote in that State (This means that a State with only 3 Electors will have all three pledged to the overall winner in that State, but a large State like California with 50+ Electors would have a number of their Electors split between the two main Candidates).

I also think another major problem with American Politics is that we remain a 2 Party System. This ensures that only the most extreme views on either side are the ones nominated by each party: the only way to get Nominated by your Party is to pander to the basest and most reactionary elements at the fringe of your party. (That Obama was able to shift his campaign back somewhat toward the Center, where politically the vast majority of Americans lie, was likely a Herculean feat, and necessary for his final victory.)

I disagree, also that the Electoral College has anything to do with the power of lobbyists (though I agree with Joe that Term Limits on Senators and Representatives could help--especially Term Limits with Senators, who are less beholden to the voting public at large, being elected for 6 years at a time, and therefore more susceptible to the temptations and evils of wealthy lobbyists).

Unfortunately, I don't know a good solution to Lobbying, at the moment, since anything that wiped away the power of large corporate lobbyists would also eliminate the influence of groups of actual concerned citizens, constituents, and voters who had organized to get their opinion known by their Congresspersons. And finding something that would pass the muster of respecting Freedom of Speech would have to be delicately crafted. Unfortunately, our system is currently designed such that it is in our Congress' economic self interest not to craft any such legislation that would eliminate the power and influence of corporate lobbyists.

[jfrazierjr]

I also think another major problem with American Politics is that we remain a 2 Party System. This ensures that only the most extreme views on either side are the ones nominated by each party: the only way to get Nominated by your Party is to pander to the basest and most reactionary elements at the fringe of your party. (That Obama was able to shift his campaign back somewhat toward the Center, where politically the vast majority of Americans lie, was likely a Herculean feat, and necessary for his final victory.)

I agree that the 2 party power structure is a horrible thing. However, to play devils advocate for a second, multi party systems have not always worked out to well. As an example, my understanding is that there were over 100 political parties(200+ IIRC) in Germany after World War I. I want to state emphatically, that I am not a history major, nor should I be considered an expert. In any event, the German people were fairly destitute and the political infighting between so many parties pretty much meant nothing could get accomplished to help the average Joe in the country. Also, note that this was around the time of the US Great Depression so this whole time period was bad for everyone in the world. Ultimatly, this political infighting lead to a few parties banding together and this lead to the power rise of Hitler. Hitler then began creating his secret police force to silent opponents as well as increasing his military might (which was expressly forbidden by the WWI treaty).

Of course, history is always re-written by the winners of any conflict to make themselves look better, so take this all with a grain of salt and look into the facts and make up your own mind. Your conclusions could be different from mine.

[Karro]

I agree that the 2 party power structure is a horrible thing. However, to play devils advocate for a second, multi party systems have not always worked out to well. As an example, my understanding is that there were over 100 political parties(200+ IIRC) in Germany after World War I. I want to state emphatically, that I am not a history major, nor should I be considered an expert. In any event, the German people were fairly destitute and the political infighting between so many parties pretty much meant nothing could get accomplished to help the average Joe in the country. Also, note that this was around the time of the US Great Depression so this whole time period was bad for everyone in the world. Ultimatly, this political infighting lead to a few parties banding together and this lead to the power rise of Hitler. Hitler then began creating his secret police force to silent opponents as well as increasing his military might (which was expressly forbidden by the WWI treaty).

Of course, history is always re-written by the winners of any conflict to make themselves look better, so take this all with a grain of salt and look into the facts and make up your own mind. Your conclusions could be different from mine.

Neither am I a history major, just an occassional armchair enthusiast, but I think you're about right. And I agree... multi-party systems are also frought with problems--many problems of which I'm not keen on having crop up here in the USA. That said, I think it might be nice, perhaps ideal, to try having between 3 and 5 major parties.

(Effectively, we kind of do, but they are shrink-wrapped into two permanent party coalitions. On one side you have the Christian/Family Values party permanently tied to the Fiscal Conservative party and the Defense/Warhawk party. On the other side you have the Free-love and Liberal Values parties permanently tied to the Social Reform party, the Environmentalist party and the Government Regulations party [please let those sound mostly neutral to everyone else]. But there's really nothing inherrent to these two coalitions that ought to bind them together. What if, for instance, you have a voter who is a strong Christian Values voter, but who also believes in Social Reform and Environmentalism as well as Fiscal Conservatism... There's not a party that represents this voter's collection of values.)

[CC_JAR]

Neither am I a history major, just an occassional armchair enthusiast, but I think you're about right. And I agree... multi-party systems are also frought with problems--many problems of which I'm not keen on having crop up here in the USA. That said, I think it might be nice, perhaps ideal, to try having between 3 and 5 major parties.

(Effectively, we kind of do, but they are shrink-wrapped into two permanent party coalitions. On one side you have the Christian/Family Values party permanently tied to the Fiscal Conservative party and the Defense/Warhawk party. On the other side you have the Free-love and Liberal Values parties permanently tied to the Social Reform party, the Environmentalist party and the Government Regulations party [please let those sound mostly neutral to everyone else]. But there's really nothing inherrent to these two coalitions that ought to bind them together. What if, for instance, you have a voter who is a strong Christian Values voter, but who also believes in Social Reform and Environmentalism as well as Fiscal Conservatism... There's not a party that represents this voter's collection of values.)

another thing would be to have equal amounts of money for all candidates running, no fundraising, and limits set for how much they are allowed to spend campaigning.
(ie: no more than 1mil on paper ads, 2.5 mil on transportation, 3mil on tv ads) <thats an example, I have no clue what actual values would be, but just so you understand what I mean..

[jfrazierjr]

another thing would be to have equal amounts of money for all candidates running, no fundraising, and limits set for how much they are allowed to spend campaigning.
(ie: no more than 1mil on paper ads, 2.5 mil on transportation, 3mil on tv ads) <thats an example, I have no clue what actual values would be, but just so you understand what I mean..

I was thinking the exact same thing just yesterday. Would it be nice to see someone become elected that was not already a gazillionaire? Someone the average person could relate to, a dentist, a teacher, a highway construction worker, or a restaurant manager.