Comments on: QotD: Electoral College http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college The Weblog of Erik J. Barzeski Wed, 23 May 2012 23:05:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: David http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college#comment-11331 David Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:05:28 +0000 http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college/#comment-11331 M, whoever you are, I like your idea of using a Concordet, but it too is riddled with problems. The main problem would arise from media's involvement in elections. The media acts as a filter for the information that almost all of us receive on candidates. If they tried to be unbiased and put the picture of everyone running on their front cover they still have the opportunity to choose which picture they place there. No matter what they wanted to do certain figures would get more attention from media sources than others. I'd like a system that addresses the following issues/problems, but I haven't managed to think of one just yet. -Tactical voting (Voting to have more influence rather than stating true preference or opinion) (I think that this is why Kerry is the dem nominee this year) -Media Influence -Ignorance of issues -Apathy -General ignorance / lack of intelligence -Plato and Aristotle's point that some people are better educated and can therefore make more informed decisions, but still their vote is counted the same as someone completely ignorant and possibly even duped. M, whoever you are, I like your idea of using a Concordet, but it too is riddled with problems. The main problem would arise from media's involvement in elections.

The media acts as a filter for the information that almost all of us receive on candidates. If they tried to be unbiased and put the picture of everyone running on their front cover they still have the opportunity to choose which picture they place there. No matter what they wanted to do certain figures would get more attention from media sources than others.

I'd like a system that addresses the following issues/problems, but I haven't managed to think of one just yet.

-Tactical voting (Voting to have more influence rather than stating true preference or opinion) (I think that this is why Kerry is the dem nominee this year)

-Media Influence

-Ignorance of issues

-Apathy

-General ignorance / lack of intelligence

-Plato and Aristotle's point that some people are better educated and can therefore make more informed decisions, but still their vote is counted the same as someone completely ignorant and possibly even duped.

]]> By: Erik J. Barzeski http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college#comment-11330 Erik J. Barzeski Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:03:49 +0000 http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college/#comment-11330 "M," until you learn proper HTML and/or begin leaving a real name and email address, further comments from you will be removed. Leave a URL - even if it's apple.com - to mask your email from spambots. But, as it says in bold just above this form, <strong>Have some guts and use a real name, email, and URL.</strong> "M," until you learn proper HTML and/or begin leaving a real name and email address, further comments from you will be removed. Leave a URL - even if it's apple.com - to mask your email from spambots. But, as it says in bold just above this form, Have some guts and use a real name, email, and URL.

]]> By: M http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college#comment-11329 M Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:51:30 +0000 http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college/#comment-11329 Oops, 'is' for 'us' -and if you want to add a comma somewhere in 2b. CH said: <blockquote>Besides, given our two-party system, "winner take all" probably hurts each candidate as much as it helps.</blockquote> 'Winner take all' is <strong>why</strong> we have a two party system and why candidates pander to the extremists in their own party to get nominated then 'run to the center' for the general election. And the justification the winner uses to claim a "mandate" for his programs. 'Wow, 40% of the 25% of people who voted chose you over the other schmucks, you must be a god among men, command and I will obey.' The best way to elect a President would be a direct election using a Condorcet method (try Google or Wikipedia). In a nutshell, each voter lists each candidate for a position in order from best to worst as they see it, then the tallying (loosely a series of two person runoffs between each pair of candidates) chooses the one who is most preferred overall. Personally, I'd also suggest adding a Nobody option to the ticket to be ranked with the candidates. It's nice to be able to reject a ticket full of losers [for example the 2000 or 2004 U.S. Presidential elections] and to spell out clearly to a candidate, can you say Buchanan, that they are unwanted. Oops, 'is' for 'us' -and if you want to add a comma somewhere in 2b. CH said:

Besides, given our two-party system, "winner take all" probably hurts each candidate as much as it helps.

'Winner take all' is why we have a two party system and why candidates pander to the extremists in their own party to get nominated then 'run to the center' for the general election. And the justification the winner uses to claim a "mandate" for his programs. 'Wow, 40% of the 25% of people who voted chose you over the other schmucks, you must be a god among men, command and I will obey.'

The best way to elect a President would be a direct election using a Condorcet method (try Google or Wikipedia). In a nutshell, each voter lists each candidate for a position in order from best to worst as they see it, then the tallying (loosely a series of two person runoffs between each pair of candidates) chooses the one who is most preferred overall. Personally, I'd also suggest adding a Nobody option to the ticket to be ranked with the candidates. It's nice to be able to reject a ticket full of losers [for example the 2000 or 2004 U.S. Presidential elections] and to spell out clearly to a candidate, can you say Buchanan, that they are unwanted.

]]> By: M http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college#comment-11328 M Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:13:37 +0000 http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college/#comment-11328 I probably wouldn't have an electoral college. The eighteenth century us so over.If I did, then I'd want to do something like:Allocate a state's electoral votes to candidates in proportion to their standing in the popular vote. You get 51% of the great state Of's voters then you get about 51% of their electoral votes.Prorate them according to voter turn out. The more a state's voters care the more their vote counts. I probably wouldn't have an electoral college. The eighteenth century us so over.If I did, then I'd want to do something like:Allocate a state's electoral votes to candidates in proportion to their standing in the popular vote. You get 51% of the great state Of's voters then you get about 51% of their electoral votes.Prorate them according to voter turn out. The more a state's voters care the more their vote counts.

]]> By: Matt Krause http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college#comment-11327 Matt Krause Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:10:12 +0000 http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college/#comment-11327 Phil Libin actually did the math out for each state, and while it's not quite as bad as you make it sound (Maine is, after all, a whole lot smaller than California), the results are still pretty interesting. Anyway, he writes better than I can, so read his post here: http://www.vastlyimportant.com/vastly/2004/09/balanced_ticket.html Phil Libin actually did the math out for each state, and while it's not quite as bad as you make it sound (Maine is, after all, a whole lot smaller than California), the results are still pretty interesting.

Anyway, he writes better than I can, so read his post here:

http://www.vastlyimportant.com/vastly/2004/09/balanced_ticket.html

]]> By: Steve Streza http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college#comment-11326 Steve Streza Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:51:46 +0000 http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college/#comment-11326 <a href="http://www.amazingsyco.com/archives/000085.html">Here's a fun article</a> I just got around to writing. Here's a fun article I just got around to writing.

]]> By: Steve Streza http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college#comment-11325 Steve Streza Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:52:09 +0000 http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college/#comment-11325 The EC was designed in a day and age when information proliferation hardly existed, and people were largely uneducated. Since that is no longer really the case, we could probably do away with the EC and go popular vote. However, rallies would still go on mostly in the same places as they are now, because thats still where the population centers are. The EC was designed in a day and age when information proliferation hardly existed, and people were largely uneducated. Since that is no longer really the case, we could probably do away with the EC and go popular vote. However, rallies would still go on mostly in the same places as they are now, because thats still where the population centers are.

]]> By: John Johnson http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college#comment-11324 John Johnson Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:30:36 +0000 http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college/#comment-11324 At one point (and technically this is still the case) we are a republic. The electoral college system was set up so that states could elect the President, because the federal government was designed to govern certain aspects of the relationships between states. In fact, at one point, until an amendment altered it, it was state legislatures that elected senators. Frankly, I wish we still had this structure in place, because our federal government is involved too deeply in local affairs and cannot possibly tend all of them well. I'm opposed to a direct popular vote because I'd rather not give too much power to the urban areas. If nothing else, our current system forces candidates to get out of the major population centers if only for a little bit. Of course, districts are so gerrymandered right now that most Congressional races are virtually uncontested, and politicking has come down to "swing states." Quite disgusting, because true debate on issues that matter (i.e. the goals each candidate has, and the specific actions that will be taken to meet those goals) get buried. At one point (and technically this is still the case) we are a republic. The electoral college system was set up so that states could elect the President, because the federal government was designed to govern certain aspects of the relationships between states. In fact, at one point, until an amendment altered it, it was state legislatures that elected senators. Frankly, I wish we still had this structure in place, because our federal government is involved too deeply in local affairs and cannot possibly tend all of them well.

I'm opposed to a direct popular vote because I'd rather not give too much power to the urban areas. If nothing else, our current system forces candidates to get out of the major population centers if only for a little bit. Of course, districts are so gerrymandered right now that most Congressional races are virtually uncontested, and politicking has come down to "swing states." Quite disgusting, because true debate on issues that matter (i.e. the goals each candidate has, and the specific actions that will be taken to meet those goals) get buried.

]]> By: Charles Higginbotham http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college#comment-11323 Charles Higginbotham Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:10:04 +0000 http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college/#comment-11323 It's up to CALIFORNIA (or any other state) to choose for itself whether it wants a "winner take all" approach. That's the law. And forty-eight states like that approach. There's a lot of resistance to change, because any deviation from "winner take all" will clearly favor the less dominant party for each particular state. The party in power wouldn't want to start sharing its presumptive 100% share of Electors, would it? Besides, given our two-party system, "winner take all" probably hurts each candidate as much as it helps. It's up to CALIFORNIA (or any other state) to choose for itself whether it wants a "winner take all" approach. That's the law. And forty-eight states like that approach. There's a lot of resistance to change, because any deviation from "winner take all" will clearly favor the less dominant party for each particular state. The party in power wouldn't want to start sharing its presumptive 100% share of Electors, would it?

Besides, given our two-party system, "winner take all" probably hurts each candidate as much as it helps.

]]> By: David http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college#comment-11322 David Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:45:38 +0000 http://nslog.com/2004/09/12/qotd_electoral_college/#comment-11322 Why not just propose a system similar to what the Daily Show had, where those pesky blue states on the outer edge of the U.S. provided a "buffer" against terrorists and to make up for those states inability to vote, the red states in the middle would receive double the votes. As ridiculous as it sounds, the way the system is currently setup is similar to the three-fifths compromise counting slaves as 3/5 of a person! I don't see how we can argue that in this country that is supposed to lead the world in democracy can allow this system to continue. In the elections of senators, house representatives, governors on down, it is done by popular vote. Why would it be so horrible to elect the president of the free world by popular vote? Why not just propose a system similar to what the Daily Show had, where those pesky blue states on the outer edge of the U.S. provided a "buffer" against terrorists and to make up for those states inability to vote, the red states in the middle would receive double the votes.

As ridiculous as it sounds, the way the system is currently setup is similar to the three-fifths compromise counting slaves as 3/5 of a person! I don't see how we can argue that in this country that is supposed to lead the world in democracy can allow this system to continue. In the elections of senators, house representatives, governors on down, it is done by popular vote. Why would it be so horrible to elect the president of the free world by popular vote?

]]>