When illustrating a point realism is not required and simplicity is a plus
Isaac Send a noteboard - 03/03/2012 03:04:26 AM
I'm replying to a non-American about the EC, broad brush strokes are kinda required.
During the primaries the candidates spend a lot of time in the non-swing states. Iowa isn't one. Also swing states shift over the years, generally faster than major cities grow from small villages. Ohio wasn't even considered a swing state till 1980. You're also locking up on the concept of two-party rule where the parties don't change, as though this entire concept is only possibly valid in such a case. Consider a place like the UK, where the person I replied to comes from IIRC, which has a very significant third party and some others, or even the US, where more than one election in living memory had a third party candidate who acquired a bigger share of the popular vote than the amount separating the D and R and would get even more if they looked like 'throwing your vote away' might not apply this time. A regional third party that was fairly dominant has more effective bargaining power in EV then an equally numerous evenly distributed third party, and there is some logic to that, as one legitimately has more reason to worry about 10 % of the national population living in a region of the country being specifically dissatisfied then 10% distributed overall, they are in a position to nurse their grudges and contemplate breaking away. Consider if New England started becoming discontent, and proximity resulted in a lot of conversion in the area, a growing third party there would be a much larger threat of civil discord and breakaway then and equal number of people spread around... this has happened before after all, the north outnumbered the south 22-9 million IIRC and blacks couldn't vote. It would only take a majority of the white adult males of those 9 mill to effectively breakaway, the EV would probably help to minimize that if a given chunk of the country began becoming an effective third party in this day and age.
We can talk about red state blue state but there's really no such thing, a state with few exceptions is essentially red or blue based on its urban vs rural breakdown, cities are not really capable of rebellion, one could do it but not all of them at once. Cleveland isn't going to break off with NYC to form a new country.
You're stating an opinion that young people are disenfranchised which is simply not factual. A young person who can legally vote and do so as easily as an older one in the same circumstance can not be considered disenfranchised by any reasonable definition of the term.
Furthermore, what is this "not consistent with"? Of course a mandatory voting system would have more young than old people. In any human population which is static or growing there will be more 18 year olds than 60 year old, even in the static one there will be deaths by accident. Last I checked there were about 4 million births in the US versus 2.5 million deaths each year, hence a growing population, also immigrants tend not be senior citizens as much. If more people were born in 1993 than 1933 then there will be more 19 year old voters than 79 year old voters, even assuming general attrition and immigration haven't exacerbated that. The baby boom did produce a big bubble, but the current numbers now match that birthrate and the current 18-23 year olds also parallel that and they are the young voters. Regardless, on average a nation with a growing or static population will have more 18 year olds than 19 year olds, and they more than 20, and so on.
And you base that off what? Any particular clause of the Constitution or federal law? Also, do keep in mind I'm discussing general voting concepts to someone who is not an American. Concepts like paying voters, mandatory reg or voting, electoral holidays, etc all deserve commentary in the general theme of why the birthplace of modern Democracy does things differently then many who have taken up the practice and find our ways incomprehensible.
It is, FYI, entirely legal to pay people to register to vote. It is, however, illegal to pay people to vote for any given candidate in a Federal contest. Most states have laws on the matter too. This, however, really is quite meaningless. It is quite legal for a state to make Election Day a Holiday and if it so pleases it can probably set up state-funded party events near the polling sites. What's more, every so often individual states knock around the idea of making voting mandatory in their own state, and the constitutionality of that has, last I checked, never been ruled on and makes for various roughly evenly matched academic discussions. NY wouldn't have to pay people anything if it just made it mandatory, and to be honest some place like NY or Cali would be much more likely to be able to get that on the books then, say, Texas. You want realism then try this one, what if Cali passed that law right now, jammed right into the infamous Ninth Circuit, care to speculate on who would win the popular vote in any even vaguely close race?
Further this is where you become unrealistic, where there is a law, there is usually a way to duck around it. Let us say the law specifically banned paying people to vote for someone. Now, in such a case people could be paid to register and the group doing it could pay people to vote only certain areas, not even asking who they voted for or requiring proof. Do that in a hard blue area and it amounts to vote buying. Or if all that got banned or is banned, what about a state that decides to 'honor' voters with a sticker, as they do now, but which was good as a $20 gift certificate at various sponsor stores or even made out of some conveniently fungible material like copper.
"Hey, let's make it a holiday in our state, as we've a legal right to do, and we'll spend a bunch of money hosting concerts about patriotism in the parks near the biggest polling locations... and we'll keep sending out registration forms to everyone until they send one in, reminding them about the concert in their area, and all the really cool rides and other stuff people will be setting up to go in tandem with it."
or, "Let's just keep sending out registration forms and absentee ballot applications to everyone, every week until they register and apply" which they definitely have the legal right to do. If they wanted to be really obnoxious about they could even make it a bright orange package with a sad face on it that had to be signed for, so all their neighbors knew they didn't care about democracy or wasting tax money on monthly deliveries. That last might be a bit overt and unrealistic but there's tons of more subtle ways to do it and it all comes down to stats and cost benefit. If you're the Dem Governor of a big blue, you're not likely to see too much objection from your legislature or even the populace if you start going apeshit trying to get the youth vote out. Right now only swing states have serious motivation to try these sorts of shenanigans and they typically have a fairly even balance in their own state gov'ts to resist one side or the other playing games.
Every vote would matter, is it? If all votes are truly equal what candidate in their right mind would ever hold a rally anywhere that wasn't within easy driving distance of a a few million people? And incidentally I would not believe the popular vote winner should be president over the EV winner. If I thought that, I wouldn't believe in having the EV, as you clearly do not. I like our current system just fine, every state gets its pop+2 and every state apportions it's votes under its own rules, this gives states significance in of themselves, not as some arbitrary designation on a map. We're the United States not the United Cities or the United Counties or the Union of Free Americans.
Yes, the person I replied to is not from America and lives within spitting distance of two places that have it. Furthermore, many of those who argue for popular vote over EV also favor mandatory voting or election day holidays and so on.
three quarters of the country are essentially left out of the campaign. Texas will not swing, New York will not California will not etc etc. So the democrats will try to run up their margins in the bigger cities etc whilst republicans will try to run it up out in the suburbs.
During the primaries the candidates spend a lot of time in the non-swing states. Iowa isn't one. Also swing states shift over the years, generally faster than major cities grow from small villages. Ohio wasn't even considered a swing state till 1980. You're also locking up on the concept of two-party rule where the parties don't change, as though this entire concept is only possibly valid in such a case. Consider a place like the UK, where the person I replied to comes from IIRC, which has a very significant third party and some others, or even the US, where more than one election in living memory had a third party candidate who acquired a bigger share of the popular vote than the amount separating the D and R and would get even more if they looked like 'throwing your vote away' might not apply this time. A regional third party that was fairly dominant has more effective bargaining power in EV then an equally numerous evenly distributed third party, and there is some logic to that, as one legitimately has more reason to worry about 10 % of the national population living in a region of the country being specifically dissatisfied then 10% distributed overall, they are in a position to nurse their grudges and contemplate breaking away. Consider if New England started becoming discontent, and proximity resulted in a lot of conversion in the area, a growing third party there would be a much larger threat of civil discord and breakaway then and equal number of people spread around... this has happened before after all, the north outnumbered the south 22-9 million IIRC and blacks couldn't vote. It would only take a majority of the white adult males of those 9 mill to effectively breakaway, the EV would probably help to minimize that if a given chunk of the country began becoming an effective third party in this day and age.
We can talk about red state blue state but there's really no such thing, a state with few exceptions is essentially red or blue based on its urban vs rural breakdown, cities are not really capable of rebellion, one could do it but not all of them at once. Cleveland isn't going to break off with NYC to form a new country.
Saying that older people are usually more informed may be true but then having them being the ones that are voting leads to its own problems. They tend to have an outsized influence on policy. Younger people are disenfranchised and generally don't feel part of the political process. Not to mention that just being informed about the issues doesn't really count anyway as the ones that are most informed aren't going to be changing their votes. It's the swing voters that aren't really engaged that end up deciding most elections. Then of course if you do get a whole load of people on one side who are engaged then you get things like the republican house. Oh and suggesting that you would end up with more younger people than older people voting is not consistent with demographic trends.
You're stating an opinion that young people are disenfranchised which is simply not factual. A young person who can legally vote and do so as easily as an older one in the same circumstance can not be considered disenfranchised by any reasonable definition of the term.
Furthermore, what is this "not consistent with"? Of course a mandatory voting system would have more young than old people. In any human population which is static or growing there will be more 18 year olds than 60 year old, even in the static one there will be deaths by accident. Last I checked there were about 4 million births in the US versus 2.5 million deaths each year, hence a growing population, also immigrants tend not be senior citizens as much. If more people were born in 1993 than 1933 then there will be more 19 year old voters than 79 year old voters, even assuming general attrition and immigration haven't exacerbated that. The baby boom did produce a big bubble, but the current numbers now match that birthrate and the current 18-23 year olds also parallel that and they are the young voters. Regardless, on average a nation with a growing or static population will have more 18 year olds than 19 year olds, and they more than 20, and so on.
Btw I am fairly certain that paying people to vote or giving them tax breaks would be illegal.
And you base that off what? Any particular clause of the Constitution or federal law? Also, do keep in mind I'm discussing general voting concepts to someone who is not an American. Concepts like paying voters, mandatory reg or voting, electoral holidays, etc all deserve commentary in the general theme of why the birthplace of modern Democracy does things differently then many who have taken up the practice and find our ways incomprehensible.
It is, FYI, entirely legal to pay people to register to vote. It is, however, illegal to pay people to vote for any given candidate in a Federal contest. Most states have laws on the matter too. This, however, really is quite meaningless. It is quite legal for a state to make Election Day a Holiday and if it so pleases it can probably set up state-funded party events near the polling sites. What's more, every so often individual states knock around the idea of making voting mandatory in their own state, and the constitutionality of that has, last I checked, never been ruled on and makes for various roughly evenly matched academic discussions. NY wouldn't have to pay people anything if it just made it mandatory, and to be honest some place like NY or Cali would be much more likely to be able to get that on the books then, say, Texas. You want realism then try this one, what if Cali passed that law right now, jammed right into the infamous Ninth Circuit, care to speculate on who would win the popular vote in any even vaguely close race?
Further this is where you become unrealistic, where there is a law, there is usually a way to duck around it. Let us say the law specifically banned paying people to vote for someone. Now, in such a case people could be paid to register and the group doing it could pay people to vote only certain areas, not even asking who they voted for or requiring proof. Do that in a hard blue area and it amounts to vote buying. Or if all that got banned or is banned, what about a state that decides to 'honor' voters with a sticker, as they do now, but which was good as a $20 gift certificate at various sponsor stores or even made out of some conveniently fungible material like copper.
"Hey, let's make it a holiday in our state, as we've a legal right to do, and we'll spend a bunch of money hosting concerts about patriotism in the parks near the biggest polling locations... and we'll keep sending out registration forms to everyone until they send one in, reminding them about the concert in their area, and all the really cool rides and other stuff people will be setting up to go in tandem with it."
or, "Let's just keep sending out registration forms and absentee ballot applications to everyone, every week until they register and apply" which they definitely have the legal right to do. If they wanted to be really obnoxious about they could even make it a bright orange package with a sad face on it that had to be signed for, so all their neighbors knew they didn't care about democracy or wasting tax money on monthly deliveries. That last might be a bit overt and unrealistic but there's tons of more subtle ways to do it and it all comes down to stats and cost benefit. If you're the Dem Governor of a big blue, you're not likely to see too much objection from your legislature or even the populace if you start going apeshit trying to get the youth vote out. Right now only swing states have serious motivation to try these sorts of shenanigans and they typically have a fairly even balance in their own state gov'ts to resist one side or the other playing games.
a simple popular vote would be encouraging candidates and parties to have nationwide organisations. Every vote would matter. Not to mention the fact though that under the current system whoever wins the popular vote wins the presidency unless it is extremely close. In which case you would imagine that the popular vote winner should get the presidency rather than the electoral college winner.
Every vote would matter, is it? If all votes are truly equal what candidate in their right mind would ever hold a rally anywhere that wasn't within easy driving distance of a a few million people? And incidentally I would not believe the popular vote winner should be president over the EV winner. If I thought that, I wouldn't believe in having the EV, as you clearly do not. I like our current system just fine, every state gets its pop+2 and every state apportions it's votes under its own rules, this gives states significance in of themselves, not as some arbitrary designation on a map. We're the United States not the United Cities or the United Counties or the Union of Free Americans.
btw you really broadened the argument from a simple electoral college and popular vote measure to one where you were including compulsory voting.
Yes, the person I replied to is not from America and lives within spitting distance of two places that have it. Furthermore, many of those who argue for popular vote over EV also favor mandatory voting or election day holidays and so on.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Now That Romney Is Officially the Republican Presidential Nominee: Pick the President!
29/02/2012 08:29:02 PM
- 1240 Views
I agree Romney will be the candidate.
29/02/2012 08:54:52 PM
- 639 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
- 685 Views
I have never understood the point of the Electoral College.
29/02/2012 11:39:11 PM
- 688 Views
You don't think like a politician then
01/03/2012 12:38:36 AM
- 730 Views
I certainly hadn't considered much of that. I'm glad you posted it. *NM*
01/03/2012 07:15:03 AM
- 310 Views
I also have not seen most of that mentioned in the popular vs. electoral debate.
01/03/2012 02:34:31 PM
- 615 Views
a bit simplistic and unrealistic
02/03/2012 11:44:02 PM
- 658 Views
When illustrating a point realism is not required and simplicity is a plus
03/03/2012 03:04:26 AM
- 672 Views
I have a couple quibbles.
03/03/2012 05:23:46 AM
- 699 Views
Oh, certainly, I'm over-generalizing but I was already getting long-winded
03/03/2012 06:52:04 AM
- 662 Views
What a bunch of waffle!
03/03/2012 10:47:19 AM
- 799 Views
Also I don't like this refrain that implies only the POTUS vote matters
03/03/2012 03:29:58 AM
- 816 Views
IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college.
03/03/2012 05:57:41 AM
- 619 Views
Re: IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college.
03/03/2012 07:02:30 AM
- 656 Views
*is learning*
04/03/2012 09:49:42 PM
- 647 Views
Re: *is learning*
04/03/2012 09:56:16 PM
- 661 Views
Re: *is learning*
05/03/2012 12:08:08 AM
- 699 Views
You could imitate the French.
07/03/2012 10:40:16 PM
- 628 Views
That seems... unlikely....
08/03/2012 03:03:54 PM
- 635 Views
It does, doesn't it?
08/03/2012 06:11:08 PM
- 831 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
- 611 Views
More similar than the other major Western democracies at least, agreed.
08/03/2012 09:32:55 PM
- 588 Views
I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet.
09/03/2012 12:27:31 AM
- 667 Views
I don't know much about Norwegian politics, but you seem to be wrong.
03/03/2012 06:18:08 PM
- 668 Views
Do you happen to have that link, please?
03/03/2012 06:46:31 PM
- 550 Views
Sure.
03/03/2012 06:58:07 PM
- 722 Views
Guess we did not read far enough.
03/03/2012 10:38:07 PM
- 668 Views
Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
03/03/2012 11:49:44 PM
- 870 Views
Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING!
04/03/2012 11:46:57 PM
- 892 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
05/03/2012 06:56:24 AM
- 672 Views
The thing is, regions often have national relevance far greater than their populations would suggest
05/03/2012 10:21:26 AM
- 620 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
08/03/2012 07:11:12 PM
- 621 Views
Many valid reasons, including those Isaac cited.
02/03/2012 02:26:37 AM
- 768 Views
Most states are ignored anyway
02/03/2012 11:56:12 PM
- 845 Views
Only because and to the extent they have already committed themselves.
03/03/2012 03:41:39 AM
- 692 Views
Why would we do something logical? Dude, you're utterly ridiculous. *NM*
05/03/2012 04:53:38 PM
- 365 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
- 613 Views
Romney or Obama, either way, America loses. *NM*
02/03/2012 01:10:26 AM
- 438 Views
Hard to dispute that either; six of one, half a dozen of the other.
02/03/2012 01:38:07 AM
- 590 Views
I'd agree hope and change was extremely unrealistic
02/03/2012 11:58:57 PM
- 586 Views
Well, you know my story there; I voted for Obama and got Hillary (at best.)
03/03/2012 01:43:20 AM
- 605 Views
Update: Despite rules requiring they be split, the MI GOP is giving Romney BOTH statewide delegates.
02/03/2012 11:10:56 PM
- 696 Views
Romney is damaged
02/03/2012 11:27:33 PM
- 602 Views
Obama is rather damaged also; it will probably come down to FL and OH, yet again.
03/03/2012 02:23:53 AM
- 705 Views
I'm hoping for Rubio as VP... then FL probably won't matter
03/03/2012 04:28:08 AM
- 592 Views
You should put that on your license plates.
03/03/2012 06:41:34 AM
- 716 Views
And what are you basing all of this on?
03/03/2012 09:54:06 PM
- 704 Views
The closeness of several states when Obama was far more popular, and UTs heavily Mormon neighbors.
03/03/2012 11:44:06 PM
- 651 Views
Wrong
04/03/2012 08:08:56 AM
- 776 Views
Higher turnout magnifies the Mormon effect.
04/03/2012 08:08:09 PM
- 813 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
- 722 Views
Yeah, I think we had that conversation already, several times, in fact.
07/03/2012 05:36:45 AM
- 556 Views
Do you have any knowledge of statistics at all?
07/03/2012 09:04:15 PM
- 717 Views
I hate this message board
07/03/2012 09:06:30 PM
- 511 Views
It would probably help if you deleted the stuff from two, three posts back?
07/03/2012 09:25:40 PM
- 628 Views