POL - A movement for direct election of the president

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Agreed, but being an opinion piece doesn't excuse laziness in writing to me. Then again, I'm a lazy hypocrite.

I'd like to see the results of a poll showing that the change has a 2/3 majority of the overall poll (representing the House), and a majority in at least 38 states (the state approval process plus the Senate aspect). That's what an Amendment would require.

I would like to know if "overwhelmingly" is or is not 67% or more.

If the poll shows a 2/3 majority I'd say the source is likely QuikSand so I'd ask him for the site.

[QuikSand]

QuikSand does not use the internally inconsistent phrase "2/3 majority" despite his clear fondness for said fraction.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think he's more responding to Jim's point than yours.

Gotcha. Thanks.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

QuikSand does not use the internally inconsistent phrase "2/3 majority" despite his clear fondness for said fraction.

Nice. I thought QuikSand once mentioned that if one needed to highlight certain phrases in his sentences for emphasis then said writer should construct his sentences better.

All joking aside, I think you were specifically talking about UPPER CASE but that is some of the best, most useful advise I've ever been given.

[Huckleberry]

How is it internally inconsistent?

[larrymcg421]

BTW, I'd have to say this is definitely the best political thread that I've seen here in a long time.

[Dutch]

The electoral college was created as a *compromise* so that smaller states would agree to join the union with the big states. Over the course of our nation; the compromise has granted the smaller states an election outcome change maybe 5% of the time (at best). A small price to pay for the larger states if you ask me.

Regardless, it takes 3/4 of the states to agree. Lot's of small states out there.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

BTW, I'd have to say this is definitely the best political thread that I've seen here in a long time.

'

Give it time...give it time.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sabotai

The people who created it lived in a time where there was no television, no radio, no internet and news stories took days, even weeks, to get from one part of the nation to another. The reason the electorial college was created was because all of the electorates would be in one place, know all of the news and issues, and be generally well informed on the politics of the day while their constituants back on the farm with no electricity in the middle of nowhere wouldn't.

Those reasons are quite outdated. Especially now that the vast majority of states have laws that state all electorates must vote the way their state's popular vote goes. The way the electorial college is set up is not the same as it was back then. The electorial college has only got one more step in a line of several steps to go before it's abolished for good.

It is the other reasons that aren't outdated. You know the ones where low population areas wouldn't agree to another system. That is what will preserve the electoral college system in the end.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The electoral college was created as a *compromise* so that smaller states would agree to join the union with the big states. Over the course of our nation; the compromise has granted the smaller states an election outcome change maybe 5% of the time (at best). A small price to pay for the larger states if you ask me.

Regardless, it takes 3/4 of the states to agree. Lot's of small states out there.

Again, why would small states currently support the electoral college? It does absolutely nothing for Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana Vermont, Mississippi, etc.

And the compromise had to do with the Senate and House representation, not the electoral college.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Again, why would small states currently support the electoral college? It does absolutely nothing for Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana Vermont, Mississippi, etc.

And the compromise had to do with the Senate and House representation, not the electoral college.

This isn't a concept that these states share obviously.

It's controversial and the prevailing wisdom seems to be that they are better served by the current system. This is a belief that I agree with but if I took the opposing view I'd likely say that it's a lot easier to change than to change back so barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the status quo is easier to maintain, and safer. That's human nature.

[Dutch]

I'm not sure which states benefit from the electoral college outside of the vague definition of "small" vs "large". Anybody care to fill me in?

The electoral college was created two-fold.

1. To give small states some representation against the powerhouses like New York and Virginia (in the day, of course).

2. To ensure the population wasn't 'hoodwinked' by a dictator of some sort.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

...

Overall, though, it's very simple: Twice in the modern era, the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the candidate who received fewer votes. Basically, that's wrong. ...

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho should have said

...

Overall, though, it's very simple: Twice in the modern era, the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the candidate who received fewer popular votes, but the most electoral college votes. Basically, that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. ...

At least that's how I see it.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not sure which states benefit from the electoral college outside of the vague definition of "small" vs "large". Anybody care to fill me in?

The electoral college was created two-fold.

1. To give small states some representation against the powerhouses like New York and Virginia (in the day, of course).

2. To ensure the population wasn't 'hoodwinked' by a dictator of some sort.

I have just started reading this article but it's long and starts well.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._3/ai_n6142000

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

At least that's how I see it.

Agreed.

[larrymcg421]

Um, I don't understand that post at all. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't have won (at least not in this thread). We're arguing that it should be changed.

So yeah, the person with the most electoral votes winning is exactly how it's supposed to work. Nobody disagrees with that. We're arguing that it should be changed.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, I don't understand that post at all. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't have won (at least not in this thread). We're arguing that it should be changed.

Oh, I'd argue that he shouldn't have won either election but like you said, that's for a different thread.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, I don't understand that post at all. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't have won (at least not in this thread). We're arguing that it should be changed.

So yeah, the person with the most electoral votes winning is exactly how it's supposed to work. Nobody disagrees with that. We're arguing that it should be changed.

I think he's referrring to the last line in this quote

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
...

Overall, though, it's very simple: Twice in the modern era, the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the candidate who received fewer votes. Basically, that's wrong. ...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, I don't understand that post at all. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't have won (at least not in this thread). We're arguing that it should be changed.

So yeah, the person with the most electoral votes winning is exactly how it's supposed to work. Nobody disagrees with that. We're arguing that it should be changed.

Do the smaller states get the option of ceding from the union if you take back the compromise that joined the states to begin with?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, I don't understand that post at all. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't have won (at least not in this thread). We're arguing that it should be changed.

So yeah, the person with the most electoral votes winning is exactly how it's supposed to work. Nobody disagrees with that. We're arguing that it should be changed.

I'm arguing that it shouldn't change. The same I did before the 2000 election when the theory that Gore might win the electoral college and lose the popular vote was proposed. I think the system works perfectly fine.

Edit: I should note that I was sort of pulling for Gore in 2000.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think it'll be funny in 20 years when all the red states are full of immigrants who are then citizens. 10 or 15 percent of a population is a lot more than people realize, especially if they're organized and they vote in blocs.

Things are gonna change a lot. And I don't mean to the left or the right. I just think that the rules for what parties dominate and how the power structure is setup is going to change...a lot sooner than people think.

Yup.

Well, under a direct-vote system, it doesn't even have to be all the red states or all the blue states. In theory, you could see more regional parties pop up, or yes, possibly "immigrant" parties. It would require one heck of a block vote, but I suppose it's not entirely out of the question. A candidate wouldn't need to be on 50 ballots (if the criteria even stayed the same) to be considered a "national" candidate. If there was a Dem, a Rep, a Latino candidate and a Black candidate for instance, I wonder if the vote could be sufficiently segmented to be interesting...

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The notion that urban areas are somehow too dominant in elections is fascinating to me. It's not like the representation is apportioned based on the number of tall buildings or anything... the reason that Chicago and Detroit and New York City dominate their state elections is pretty straightforward -- that's where the people are.

This reminds me of the hubbub made over the red-and-blue map showing who won each county in the USA. Great, very valuable information. The 30,000 people living in some geographically gigantic county out west voted red, and shows up as a big red square. Some dense conclave of a major city with 800,000 people voted blue, and gets a tiny speck of blue. Outrage! Outrage!

Other than just disagreeing with the politics of people who live in big cities, what does this accomplish?

So, you'd do away with cities and states as political boundaries entirely then?

That argument could be made as the fairest of all solutions.

I feel bad for the residents of, for example, a city of maybe 30,000 that's in the same congressional district and county as a huge city in a medium-to-large state. They get zero representation on the national level, the state level and the county level. It's likely that their state has gone through educational "reform," which means the local tax rate is even out of their hands. That adds up to almost complete disenfranchisement.

Many of us can't choose exactly where we live. I can, and I appreciate that. For those of us who can, why do we make the choices we make? Aren't there significant differences in just a few miles of land?

[Barkeep49]

I think there are really good reasons to break down our country into small administrative units. We do this, quite successfully I may add, with states. The states also allow for some political experimentation which can then be adopted, or not, on a national level. Of course if we were starting with a blank slate today I'm not sure we'd end up with the same 50 states we actually have today.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do the smaller states get the option of ceding from the union if you take back the compromise that joined the states to begin with?

Except as I've already discussed, the compromise you are talking about dealt with House/Senate representation and not the Electoral College.

And still, no one has convinced me that smaller states would be screwed under a direct vote system. Part of the reason I'm arguing for it is because I think it would help smaller states (like the many I listed before).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I think he's referrring to the last line in this quote

Right I get that, but I think he was talking about it being wrong on a philosophical level (i.e. the way the system is set up is wrong) while the response seemed to imply he was saying that the result itself was wrong.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Oh, I'd argue that he shouldn't have won either election but like you said, that's for a different thread.

Well I meant no one is arguing he shouldn't have been declared the winner because of the popular vote. But yeah I agree there are many other reasons, but we can get into that a different time.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I feel bad for the residents of, for example, a city of maybe 30,000 that's in the same congressional district and county as a huge city in a medium-to-large state. They get zero representation on the national level, the state level and the county level.

I see that differently... I see each voter getting exactly the same representation on those levels as any other voter. It's not like (as I think you even suggested earlier) that a slight majority of people in that adjoining big city means that the city's cotes all get cast in one big block. Each person casts one vote, and they all count the same to elect someone district-wide.

I see your point... but there are always going to be minority views in any representative system. We vote, and the winner takes the seat, that's how it works. The notion that "urban" versus "rural" is somehow so significantly different than any of the myriad differences among voters in any election is beyond me... unless, once again, we're just trying to concoct an argument to lessen the influence of people we disagee with politically.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

How is it internally inconsistent?

The term "majority" simply means more on the prevailing side than on the losing side, period. More than 50%, that is a majority.

Two-thirds is a sort of super-majority, which inhenrlty is saying that a majority is not enough -- the standard is set higher. The standard is a two-third vote.

Technically, there is no melding of the two standards -- in this context, they are exclusive. Some things call for a majority, some call for a two-thirds vote, there is no such thing as a "two thirds majority."

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So, you'd do away with cities and states as political boundaries entirely then?

That argument could be made as the fairest of all solutions.

I fail to see how that follows from anything I have argued... but no, I wouldn't argue that. What I wouold argue, however, is that when an office represents a certain area, that the simplest and most effective way to elect that representative is to give every voter an equal vote, count them up, and award the office to the person who got the most votes.

For city Alderman of District 4 in Podunktown, that means direct election by the voters of District 4. For Mayor of Podunktown, that means direct election by the voters of the whole city. For the Congressman who represents Podunktown and several adjoining areas, that means direct election by all the people in town and in the rest of the district, all lumped together. For president, that means all Americans, lumped together. I don't think there's anything internally inconsistent about that view.

In my mind, that has to be your starting point. Certainly it's imaginable that a certain sort of political compromise might be necessary to get everyone to buy into a system at some point... I can recognize the realities of such things. But from where we sit, just fiddling around on a message board, it seems fair to me to have this be an open discussion about "what woudl be best." To me, you start with: the winner is the just one with the most votes.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I think there are really good reasons to break down our country into small administrative units. We do this, quite successfully I may add, with states. The states also allow for some political experimentation which can then be adopted, or not, on a national level. Of course if we were starting with a blank slate today I'm not sure we'd end up with the same 50 states we actually have today.

Scariest post in this thread, maybe ever. The perfect spokesman for the 'New World Order.' In fact this idea points very dramatically to the future path of this country.

Will we continue to be a Federal system of soverign states ruled (in theory) bottom up by the people? Or, as this poster advocates, junk the Constitution and reform this country as the ultimate 'state' being run top-down from Washington thru a series of buearacratic 'departments' charged with nothing more than carrying out the will of 'those in charge' at the top?

Sir, when your vision of the future occurs you will see why the 2nd Amendment is such a good idea.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I fail to see how that follows from anything I have argued... but no, I wouldn't argue that. What I wouold argue, however, is that when an office represents a certain area, that the simplest and most effective way to elect that representative is to give every voter an equal vote, count them up, and award the office to the person who got the most votes.

For city Alderman of District 4 in Podunktown, that means direct election by the voters of District 4. For Mayor of Podunktown, that means direct election by the voters of the whole city. For the Congressman who represents Podunktown and several adjoining areas, that means direct election by all the people in town and in the rest of the district, all lumped together. For president, that means all Americans, lumped together. I don't think there's anything internally inconsistent about that view.

In my mind, that has to be your starting point. Certainly it's imaginable that a certain sort of political compromise might be necessary to get everyone to buy into a system at some point... I can recognize the realities of such things. But from where we sit, just fiddling around on a message board, it seems fair to me to have this be an open discussion about "what woudl be best." To me, you start with: the winner is the just one with the most votes.

But how divide people into these political districts, and how much power each district has, is extremely important.

While dividing urban and rural per se might not seem all that relevant, should voters who are nowhere near and will never use an expensive light rail system be forced to pay for the system? Should an entire state have to pay for a large city's $400 million baseball park? Should the entire country pay for the New Orleans city planners' failure to anticipate flooding?

Problems arise when items that should be paid locally end up coming from larger budgets.

So, how do you divide the people in a fair manner? Some would say racial gerrymandering is necessary because only a black person can represent a group of black voters (of course, to suggest the opposite gets you branded as a KKK member). It's not practical to run a true democracy, where every item is put to the people.

To me, one of the most important distinctions is between urban and suburban. And the suburban middle class in large states dominated by one or two large cities just doesn't have much of a voice in America right now. It's not exactly a popular cause (in fact, rallying against it is a Democrat specialty right now, which is why I'm not a Democrat even though George Bush is about as far from ideal as any leader I could imagine). Because of the way things are set up, this entire demographic is safely ignored by both parties on a national level.

There's no easy way to divide things. And maybe there's no way to divide things that's both fair and practical. If anything, I just wish there was a viable third party in America today.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Scariest post in this thread, maybe ever. The perfect spokesman for the 'New World Order.' In fact this idea points very dramatically to the future path of this country.

Will we continue to be a Federal system of soverign states ruled (in theory) bottom up by the people? Or, as this poster advocates, junk the Constitution and reform this country as the ultimate 'state' being run top-down from Washington thru a series of buearacratic 'departments' charged with nothing more than carrying out the will of 'those in charge' at the top?

Sir, when your vision of the future occurs you will see why the 2nd Amendment is such a good idea.

And just yesterday you told us that we're out of touch with mainstream America. You're out of touch with mainstream Earth.

[ISiddiqui]

I do like how Bubba totally takes Barkeep's post and twists it as hard as he can, so at the end, it resembles nothing close to what he said.

Anyway, as stated before, I think abolishing the EC is a good idea because people in states "not in play" may actually have an incentive to get out there and vote! I mean what real incentive is there for a Democrat in Georgia or a Republican in New York get out and vote for President? However, if it counts equally with everyone in the country, rather than everyone in the state, there is a far better reason to get out there and vote.

And isn't that what we should be promoting? More people voting? Our voter turnout is horrendus for the world's pre-eminent democracy.

[st.cronin]

I have always thought poor voter turnout was a symptom of a healthy country, not an unhealthy one.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I have always thought poor voter turnout was a symptom of a healthy country, not an unhealthy one.

I think absolutely the opposite. Low voter turnout scares me more than anything else really about our country, because of what it says about us. It ain't like voting takes a long time, but somehow along the way we've decided our civic duty wasn't worth the effort. Add that to the fact that a good deal of Americans think that the two parties don't represent them and that third parties have no chance at victory, I think some major change is needed.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think absolutely the opposite. Low voter turnout scares me more than anything else really about our country, because of what it says about us. It ain't like voting takes a long time, but somehow along the way we've decided our civic duty wasn't worth the effort. Add that to the fact that a good deal of Americans think that the two parties don't represent them and that third parties have no chance at victory, I think some major change is needed.

Low voter turnout means people are more concerned with living their lives than with the governance of their country, which I think is as it should be. In certain conditions, where people are very opressed and elections are transparently fraudulent, I can see it as a bad sign. But in our country, where people are as free as they are anywhere in the world, I think it means that most people just aren't effected by the government much - which, I think, is ideal.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Low voter turnout means people are more concerned with living their lives than with the governance of their country

Which is absolutely incredibly scary. It is this attitude that allows our leaders to shit on the Constitution and the docile sheep like citizenry will just take it because they are more concerned with 'living their lives' (and how much more selfish can you get [not you personally], if you care more about living your life than taking part in the civic duty of voting).

We are violating what the founders wanted, which was a citizenry that was the final, and greatest check on government excess.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Which is absolutely incredibly scary. It is this attitude that allows our leaders to shit on the Constitution and the docile sheep like citizenry will just take it because they are more concerned with 'living their lives' (and how much more selfish can you get [not you personally], if you care more about living your life than taking part in the civic duty of voting).

We are violating what the founders wanted, which was a citizenry that was the final, and greatest check on government excess.

But my point is that if our government were to become truly oppressive or repugnant, the voters would turn up. I mean, if you really think our government is oppressive, I just don't know what to say to you.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I have always thought poor voter turnout was a symptom of a healthy country, not an unhealthy one.

I think it can be both in some ways... but I agree with your central point. It would be a good thing if more people actually voted, but the fact that they can and don't is almost certainly representative of general contentment with the state of things.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

But my point is that if our government were to become truly oppressive or repugnant, the voters would turn up. I mean, if you really think our government is oppressive, I just don't know what to say to you.

So, what, voting is something to be excersized only when the government becomes oppressive or repugnant? I think the future of the country/state/etc would be a compelling reason to come out and vote, but apparently, people are too apathetic to even give a damn about their government. And when they do, they find the two main parties don't give a damn about them.

As every day passes by, I'm starting to like the idea of proportional representation in the House and compulsory voting (as in Australia).

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I don't get this supposed unfairness to rural and small cities theory. The will of the people should decide who is president. More people live in big cities; therefore they should have a bigger say. But the bigger say is only because more people live there. Someone please explain to me why a certain segment of the population should get a bigger say, not because they have more people, but because they don't live in a city.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Bubba, you're in the wrong thread. Although that's true most of the time.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I don't get this supposed unfairness to rural and small cities theory. The will of the people should decide who is president. More people live in big cities; therefore they should have a bigger say. But the bigger say is only because more people live there. Someone please explain to me why a certain segment of the population should get a bigger say, not because they have more people, but because they don't live in a city.

It's not a bigger say vs a smaller say. It's a smaller say vs no say.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So, what, voting is something to be excersized only when the government becomes oppressive or repugnant? I think the future of the country/state/etc would be a compelling reason to come out and vote, but apparently, people are too apathetic to even give a damn about their government. And when they do, they find the two main parties don't give a damn about them.

As every day passes by, I'm starting to like the idea of proportional representation in the House and compulsory voting (as in Australia).

I'm so tired of elections being reduced to sound bites and overly simplistic platforms which play only to fears and hot buttons.

Compulsory voting would only exacerbate this problem.

We do have proportional representation in the House. Not in the Senate. Probably a good compromise there, too. A strong third party would make things much more interesting.

I don't agree that voting is only necessary to fight off an oppressive government. If anything, a truly oppressive government is going to reduce voting participation or reduce it to a formality.

We need to be more involved. Because we're not, our participation has been reduced to selecting from one of two cadres of pretty people who can't even begin to grasp the issues themselves. We are all to blame for Iraq.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I don't get this supposed unfairness to rural and small cities theory. The will of the people should decide who is president. More people live in big cities; therefore they should have a bigger say. But the bigger say is only because more people live there. Someone please explain to me why a certain segment of the population should get a bigger say, not because they have more people, but because they don't live in a city.

You could say one state, one vote with roughly similar moral authority. States were originally desinged to be semi-autonomous entitites under one guiding principle.

Right now, one state, one vote would pretty much lock the presidency for the Republicans. Not a great idea, of course.

I see the point about about all having an equal vote. The dissent is all about whether you believe authority should be spread out or concentrated. Our framers chose to compromise. I'm fine with that. Votes still count.

If a Democratic candidate ignores the needs of the big cities, he does risk apathy keeping his supporters away from the polls. Or he risks a significant third party formation (I wish). It almost happened in the early '90s. Too bad Perot was possessed by aliens.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm so tired of elections being reduced to sound bites and overly simplistic platforms which play only to fears and hot buttons.

Compulsory voting would only exacerbate this problem.

Being a college student I know lots of people who have the right to vote and don't. Quite honestly, even if they care they aren't very informed, and if they don't want to exercise the effort I don't really want them voting.

We do have proportional representation in the House. Not in the Senate. Probably a good compromise there, too. A strong third party would make things much more interesting.

But what about if it breaks down in the Senate to 45 Democrats, 45 Republicans and 10 3rd-Party candidates? Then all the power goes to Party 3, and while that may seem to be a good idea if they are centrists, what if they won on an anti-immigration platform? Or an impeach Bush platform? (To pick an extreme from each side.) Do you then want that 3rd party deciding the national platform for Medicare, or for Drug policy, or for monetary policy?


I'm not sure if either of these caveats were brought up on the overall point, which I see and agree with somewhat, but one downside is imagine if you had to have a national recount. With different standards everywhere. The other downside is that it could lead to candidates appealing to their base even more - Republicans focusing on getting as many Texans/Southerners out and Democrats going into big cities on the coasts instead of forcing them to appeal to a wide cross-section of voters in a few states like Florida and Ohio and Missouri that better represent America as a whole than their respective strongholds.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

But what about if it breaks down in the Senate to 45 Democrats, 45 Republicans and 10 3rd-Party candidates? Then all the power goes to Party 3, and while that may seem to be a good idea if they are centrists, what if they won on an anti-immigration platform? Or an impeach Bush platform? (To pick an extreme from each side.)

That's easy. If an extreme issue comes up, the Dems and Repubs will get together to shut out the 3rd party. Theoretically. Hopefully.

I think the most likely scenario for a 3rd party is not on the fringe, though - I think it's in the center, coming up in the space left as the Ass and the Elephant move to their respective right and left.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

And just yesterday you told us that we're out of touch with mainstream America. You're out of touch with mainstream Earth.

More evidence of your inadequate education. The U.S. being 'out of step' with the rest of the planet is why the 'rest of the planet' wants to come here.

See, that's the point, we don't want to be like the rest of 'mainstream Earth."

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

More evidence of your inadequate education. The U.S. being 'out of step' with the rest of the planet is why the 'rest of the planet' wants to come here.

See, that's the point, we don't want to be like the rest of 'mainstream Earth."

I was actually referring to you reading Barkeep's post and somehow concluding that he was endorsing a "New World Order," which I believe is, in fact, more evidence that you are deranged. Hence the joke that you are out of touch with "Earth," as in reality.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'm not sure if either of these caveats were brought up on the overall point, which I see and agree with somewhat, but one downside is imagine if you had to have a national recount. With different standards everywhere.

Right there would be my biggest argument against direct representation. It's bad enough if we have to do a recount within one state. Florida gave an idea of what a nightmare that is. Multiply that by 50? And there is a huge difference between how elections are handled in each state (hell, within different cities and counties in each state). A uniform system would have to be introduced throughout the country.

Ultimately though, it is one person, one vote. How much say have California or New York had in the last two elections? Very little if you are looking at how much attention those states received. A small population, rural state just is not going to get attention in a presidential election. But they are given a voice in the Senate equal to all other states. That's a pretty good compromise.

If anything, I'd probably prefer a plan similar to Colorado's(?). One electoral vote for the winner of each congressional district and the other two electoral votes in each state for the winner of the state.