I also have not seen most of that mentioned in the popular vs. electoral debate.
Joel Send a noteboard - 01/03/2012 02:34:31 PM
Beyond the usual reasons there are others. In a straight up/down voluntary voting system a politician has extra reason to invest 'get out the vote' efforts in places where they have maximum effect... cities and college campuses, liberal territory basically. You could do straight up/down in a mandatory system but then you're deliberately including votes by people who are too lazy to go through the minimal effort to vote and thus probably are too lazy to be informed on issues and aren't really ideal voters.
In the US, older people have more effective say as a group since many more of them vote, and we like that as older people generally are better informed, your average 55 year old knowing more then an 18 year old. In a mandatory voting system there will be more 18 year olds then 55 year olds voting, as population grows, and that's not really a bias one might consider ideal. Absent that, in a voluntary system, it is simply far easier to grab those who would be unlikely to vote and get them to vote in a city or near a college then in the country, so you'd be creating a doubly non-ideal shift to the vote.
Currently, say, if the Governor of New York created a tax break or cash reward on the spot for voting, and pulled off say 80-90% vote totals, while the end sum might be a decent amount different then prior breakdowns, it wouldn't infect the national vote, NY has NY's votes based on their population nothing more. A 40% turnout in Indiana and a 70% turnout in Arizona, both population 6.5 million, will get the same result, even though one had 2.6 and the other 4.6 million voters. So the current system eliminates the advantage to any heavily republican or democrat state... the sort who would have a one-party state gov't... from having any reason to get their hands into the pot, those states have no motive to tamper with the EV as it is already a foregone conclusion, and those states are also the ones that could most easily pull off some sort of legitimate or fraudulent mass vote effort.
The billion or two spent on POTUS races is less than a percent of a percent of the economy, but effects far more, and a populace state with a candidate up for POTUS could easily find some way, in a pop vote system, to seriously spike the odds, even if simply by that state voting more on account of that person coming from there, so we might end up never seeing a candidate who didn't come from the top 5 most populous states. This is not to say our current system is wonderfully fair, but devil you know, and I don't think most pop vote fans or fence sitters have ever considered much of what I listed there.
In the US, older people have more effective say as a group since many more of them vote, and we like that as older people generally are better informed, your average 55 year old knowing more then an 18 year old. In a mandatory voting system there will be more 18 year olds then 55 year olds voting, as population grows, and that's not really a bias one might consider ideal. Absent that, in a voluntary system, it is simply far easier to grab those who would be unlikely to vote and get them to vote in a city or near a college then in the country, so you'd be creating a doubly non-ideal shift to the vote.
Currently, say, if the Governor of New York created a tax break or cash reward on the spot for voting, and pulled off say 80-90% vote totals, while the end sum might be a decent amount different then prior breakdowns, it wouldn't infect the national vote, NY has NY's votes based on their population nothing more. A 40% turnout in Indiana and a 70% turnout in Arizona, both population 6.5 million, will get the same result, even though one had 2.6 and the other 4.6 million voters. So the current system eliminates the advantage to any heavily republican or democrat state... the sort who would have a one-party state gov't... from having any reason to get their hands into the pot, those states have no motive to tamper with the EV as it is already a foregone conclusion, and those states are also the ones that could most easily pull off some sort of legitimate or fraudulent mass vote effort.
The billion or two spent on POTUS races is less than a percent of a percent of the economy, but effects far more, and a populace state with a candidate up for POTUS could easily find some way, in a pop vote system, to seriously spike the odds, even if simply by that state voting more on account of that person coming from there, so we might end up never seeing a candidate who didn't come from the top 5 most populous states. This is not to say our current system is wonderfully fair, but devil you know, and I don't think most pop vote fans or fence sitters have ever considered much of what I listed there.
Not directly, at least; the first and third paragraphs are ultimately consequences a popular systems tendency to marginalize low population areas. A popular vote system would not only allow a candidate to focus his efforts on fifty or so of the largest cities, but force his opponents to do the same, since they could not afford to sacrifice time and money needed to contest the 20 million NYC voters if the only payoff were half a million MT voters. Yet another reason not to fix what is not broken, but I am still going to give Tim the standard response even though he has surely already heard it.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Now That Romney Is Officially the Republican Presidential Nominee: Pick the President!
29/02/2012 08:29:02 PM
- 1246 Views
I agree Romney will be the candidate.
29/02/2012 08:54:52 PM
- 642 Views
I would say the math favors Romney over Obama, but it will probably be close either way.
01/03/2012 03:37:52 PM
- 692 Views
I have never understood the point of the Electoral College.
29/02/2012 11:39:11 PM
- 693 Views
You don't think like a politician then
01/03/2012 12:38:36 AM
- 734 Views
I certainly hadn't considered much of that. I'm glad you posted it. *NM*
01/03/2012 07:15:03 AM
- 311 Views
I also have not seen most of that mentioned in the popular vs. electoral debate.
01/03/2012 02:34:31 PM
- 620 Views
a bit simplistic and unrealistic
02/03/2012 11:44:02 PM
- 662 Views
When illustrating a point realism is not required and simplicity is a plus
03/03/2012 03:04:26 AM
- 677 Views
I have a couple quibbles.
03/03/2012 05:23:46 AM
- 703 Views
Oh, certainly, I'm over-generalizing but I was already getting long-winded
03/03/2012 06:52:04 AM
- 668 Views
What a bunch of waffle!
03/03/2012 10:47:19 AM
- 803 Views
Also I don't like this refrain that implies only the POTUS vote matters
03/03/2012 03:29:58 AM
- 823 Views
IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college.
03/03/2012 05:57:41 AM
- 624 Views
Re: IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college.
03/03/2012 07:02:30 AM
- 661 Views
*is learning*
04/03/2012 09:49:42 PM
- 653 Views
Re: *is learning*
04/03/2012 09:56:16 PM
- 665 Views
Re: *is learning*
05/03/2012 12:08:08 AM
- 703 Views
You could imitate the French.
07/03/2012 10:40:16 PM
- 635 Views
That seems... unlikely....
08/03/2012 03:03:54 PM
- 637 Views
It does, doesn't it?
08/03/2012 06:11:08 PM
- 834 Views
After I thought about it more, I realized France and the US are not so different in that respect.
08/03/2012 08:51:03 PM
- 615 Views
More similar than the other major Western democracies at least, agreed.
08/03/2012 09:32:55 PM
- 592 Views
I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet.
09/03/2012 12:27:31 AM
- 670 Views
I don't know much about Norwegian politics, but you seem to be wrong.
03/03/2012 06:18:08 PM
- 672 Views
Do you happen to have that link, please?
03/03/2012 06:46:31 PM
- 555 Views
Sure.
03/03/2012 06:58:07 PM
- 728 Views
Guess we did not read far enough.
03/03/2012 10:38:07 PM
- 671 Views
Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
03/03/2012 11:49:44 PM
- 874 Views
Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING!
04/03/2012 11:46:57 PM
- 894 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
05/03/2012 06:56:24 AM
- 675 Views
The thing is, regions often have national relevance far greater than their populations would suggest
05/03/2012 10:21:26 AM
- 626 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
08/03/2012 07:11:12 PM
- 625 Views
Many valid reasons, including those Isaac cited.
02/03/2012 02:26:37 AM
- 772 Views
Most states are ignored anyway
02/03/2012 11:56:12 PM
- 850 Views
Only because and to the extent they have already committed themselves.
03/03/2012 03:41:39 AM
- 697 Views
Why would we do something logical? Dude, you're utterly ridiculous. *NM*
05/03/2012 04:53:38 PM
- 366 Views
I'm kind of sad- does this mean Santorum won't be providing wonderful sound bites anymore?
01/03/2012 02:22:31 PM
- 614 Views
Romney or Obama, either way, America loses. *NM*
02/03/2012 01:10:26 AM
- 440 Views
Hard to dispute that either; six of one, half a dozen of the other.
02/03/2012 01:38:07 AM
- 596 Views
I'd agree hope and change was extremely unrealistic
02/03/2012 11:58:57 PM
- 589 Views
Well, you know my story there; I voted for Obama and got Hillary (at best.)
03/03/2012 01:43:20 AM
- 608 Views
Update: Despite rules requiring they be split, the MI GOP is giving Romney BOTH statewide delegates.
02/03/2012 11:10:56 PM
- 699 Views
Romney is damaged
02/03/2012 11:27:33 PM
- 607 Views
Obama is rather damaged also; it will probably come down to FL and OH, yet again.
03/03/2012 02:23:53 AM
- 711 Views
I'm hoping for Rubio as VP... then FL probably won't matter
03/03/2012 04:28:08 AM
- 596 Views
You should put that on your license plates.
03/03/2012 06:41:34 AM
- 720 Views
And what are you basing all of this on?
03/03/2012 09:54:06 PM
- 707 Views
The closeness of several states when Obama was far more popular, and UTs heavily Mormon neighbors.
03/03/2012 11:44:06 PM
- 659 Views
Wrong
04/03/2012 08:08:56 AM
- 782 Views
Higher turnout magnifies the Mormon effect.
04/03/2012 08:08:09 PM
- 818 Views
Your reasoning is flawed and if you can't see it there is no hope for you
05/03/2012 11:39:04 PM
- 723 Views
Yeah, I think we had that conversation already, several times, in fact.
07/03/2012 05:36:45 AM
- 561 Views
Do you have any knowledge of statistics at all?
07/03/2012 09:04:15 PM
- 721 Views
I hate this message board
07/03/2012 09:06:30 PM
- 516 Views
It would probably help if you deleted the stuff from two, three posts back?
07/03/2012 09:25:40 PM
- 632 Views