POL - A movement for direct election of the president

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Why is it better to have a system that rewards pandering to "swing states" any better than a system that rewards you for pandering to populated states? And still, even if Bush did pander to union voters, that's still not going to get him 51% nationwide. Most people won't buy it anyways, just like they don't buy it when Kerry tries to pander to religious voters.

Pandering is part of the game and we tend to be cynical but most politicians do pay some lip service to promises that they made to be elected as they want to be reelected. Pork does exist.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Originally, the concept was created to limit the ability of someone to gain election by focusing on one geographic area.

By adding the two electoral votes per state, it essentially eliminated the chance that a candidate could represent the mid-Atlantic alone (as California wasn't a factor) and never leave that area.

For its time, it was a good concept. Today, we have the same problem on a more local level. Most states have urban centers that dictate politics to the rest of the state. Take Washington and Michigan, for example. Without Seattle and Detroit, these states would be Republican strongholds. With them, the Democrats control each state.

Communications improvements have largely eliminated regional biases as well. Are you a red state or a blue state? It depends on how spread out your population has become.

So the question isn't whether the Electoral College is doing what it was designed to do. It isn't. Only a small number of states are in serious play. They get all the attention. And I'm not even sure attention is worth while. New Hampshire still gets very little back for each tax dollar it sends to the feds. I doubt anyone here even imagined that either Bush or Kerry cared one whit about New Hampshire issues.

One man, one vote sounds great in theory. But what do you do when your area is completely ignored? What do you do if you're in Washington, and you see ultra-liberal Seattle controlling the entire state - siphoning your tax dollars for projects you don't want or benefit from? Ignoring your issues completely?

Do we further break things down? Do we allow the rest of Washington to secede from Seattle? Do we allow New York to split? Because that would be the fairest thing to do, too.

There's a lot of disenfranchisement going on. But, by and large, the urban centers are sucking a lot of money and support from the rest of us, so they should be more than satisfied with the status quo. If they want even more, they should be prepared for the backlash.

Well it works both ways. For example, there are lots of progressive areas isolated in southern states that have the rest of the state dictating politics to them. I don't understand why everyone approaches this from a "Urban area-bad" perspective. I can understand if people have a problem with the values of those in urban areas (as I also understand those having a problem with the values of rural people), but I would submit that an electoral system shouldn't be designed based on whether you like the politics of a certain group of people. That's the same kind of thinking that keeps D.C. from getting representation.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

You seem to be operating under the premise that it costs the same amount of money to run an advertisement in a huge market like New York City as it does to run one in a small market like, say, Mopntgomery Alabama. You raise the matter of "cost effective" without even considering the matter of cost in even a simple way. Without resorting to your tone. I'd simply disagree.

You idea of "still focus [on one thing]" but then "focus even more [on another]" also suggests to me that your use of the term "focus" isn't the same as mine. So it goes, I guess.

I'm sorry if you are offended by my tone. I only saw one spot where my tone was incendiary and I retracted that before your post, though admittedly not necessarily before you were composing it. If you saw more to my tone it was not intended.

Also, I have mentioned the cost effectiveness of time which everyone has ignored and to me it's the more limiting factor. Money isn't that big a deal really in that even the lesser funding of the parties isn't hurting to advertise where they want. You can't be in two places at the same time though and there is a limited campaign season.

My use of the term focus is based on allocating limited resources in certain areas. What's yours? Maybe we aren't talking the same thing.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well it works both ways. For example, there are lots of progressive areas isolated in southern states that have the rest of the state dictating politics to them. I don't understand why everyone approaches this from a "Urban area-bad" perspective. I can understand if people have a problem with the values of those in urban areas (as I also understand those having a problem with the values of rural people), but I would submit that an electoral system shouldn't be designed based on whether you like the politics of a certain group of people. That's the same kind of thinking that keeps D.C. from getting representation.

I would never say urban area = bad but I would say that rural area issues are valid issues and these issues may get short shrift if they're underrepresented. My opinion is based on representation not who is right or who is wrong.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But, by and large, the urban centers are sucking a lot of money and support from the rest of us, so they should be more than satisfied with the status quo. If they want even more, they should be prepared for the backlash.

I'd like to see some numbers on this, especially since I'd assume the vast majority of tax revenue comes from urban centers.

[QuikSand]

Not to worry about tone.


As for resources... I think that a national campaign does indeed value money first, and time second. And that's in the context where only a limited number of locations really "matter" -- when each side can quickly decided not to spend any money of consequence (and time also, admittedly) in maybe 35 out of 50 states... and later in the campaign, even more than that. But even in the current system, money is still king. Television is still what moves the numbers, and television isn't about time, it's about money.

Expand the campaig to everywhere, where every vote really does count, and the media/money challenge expands multifold. You can't just ignore Illinois or Georgia anymore, just because it's expected to go 58/42... you'd still get credit for those votes if you move 50,000 people in that state. So many many more media markets, and a far greater need for money, first and foremost.

As I said above... I don't think the specifics of the candidate's location at any particular time are that important in a national election. You get your candidate to go stand in front of a steel plant and talk about tariffs, and get it picked up on the national network of your choice... it doesn't really matter whether the plant itself is in Pennsylvania or Minnesota all that much, in my view.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I would never say urban area = bad but I would say that rural area issues are valid issues and these issues may get short shrift if they're underrepresented. My opinion is based on representation not who is right or who is wrong.

But again, Bush won the popular vote even though he appealed more to rural area issues. So that tells me that there are enough rural issue voters to counteract urban issue voters.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well it works both ways. For example, there are lots of progressive areas isolated in southern states that have the rest of the state dictating politics to them. I don't understand why everyone approaches this from a "Urban area-bad" perspective. I can understand if people have a problem with the values of those in urban areas (as I also understand those having a problem with the values of rural people), but I would submit that an electoral system shouldn't be designed based on whether you like the politics of a certain group of people. That's the same kind of thinking that keeps D.C. from getting representation.

Of course it works both ways. My point is that our country's major urban centers already have huge associated political perks. As someone who doesn't want to live in a major city, I would like to imagine a situation where my vote will count, where my issues will be heard. I see things as "urban area = bad" because of money issues. People who live in states that happen to have a huge urban area pay a huge tax for that. And they have very little representation in state politics.

I think the EC is a good compromise, even though it doesn't do what it originally set out to do. I think states should do the same thing, by county or by township.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd like to see some numbers on this, especially since I'd assume the vast majority of tax revenue comes from urban centers.

A quick google shows the following:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20001204/200/148

which references a report I don't really want to read right now.

The contention is

"There's a myth, perpetuated by upstate newspapers, that New York City is draining money out of the state treasury," said Assemblyman Edward C. Sullivan.

But statistics point otherwise. The Center for Governmental Research released a recent report that showed that New York City "contributes significantly more in revenue than it receives in state funds."

Upstate areas receive $1.41 in state aid for every tax dollar contributed, while New York City breaks even, the report states. Likewise, the upstate area, with the exception of Rochester County, receives much more than their share of state spending.

Since I am also curious and instinctively feel you are correct this is as far as I'm googling. It was the first result I got.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

No, but a democrat could and maybe more. Direct elections would certainly provide them an incentive to continue to strive to reach this point.

But there is a wall. As I've said, people get sick of you after a while. Their is only so much you can say. There is a level of diminishing returns the longer you stay in a state because people have already heard what you have to offer.

Originally Posted by Axxon

So, you really just want more personal attention from the candidate you support? I can understand the sentiment. We all want to feel the politicians care about us.

Not really, this isn't about me and I don't see what led you to that conclusion. I'm simply refuting the assertion that a direct election system would necessarily favor urban areas over rural areas by pointing out the fact that rural areas get extremely screwed under the current system.

[JPhillips]

QS- This is somewhat of a tangent, but you're leaving out all the free media a candidate gets with a visit. The real advantage of going to Peoria or Columbus or wherever is that the local media will give the candidate plenty of free air time covering the visit. In our modern system that's the main benefit of a visit.

Of course this doesn't effect the argument about the electoral college as its true no matter what system is in place.

[QuikSand]

I understand the value of local media... and I'd argue it's not at all what it once was. Television campaigns, and major sweeping issues, are what decide national elections. Visits to the local nursing home are fine, but don't end up moving real numbers.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think the EC is a good compromise, even though it doesn't do what it originally set out to do. I think states should do the same thing, by county or by township.

Can't do it on a state level. SCOTUS would strike it down, per Baker v. Carr.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But again, Bush won the popular vote even though he appealed more to rural area issues. So that tells me that there are enough rural issue voters to counteract urban issue voters.

He'd have never had that chance under your system since he lost in 2k. In 2k4 he was the incumbant which gets a bump and fighting a war ( we've never failed to reelect an incumbant who ran for reelection during a war ) which was also huge. It wasn't about urban vs rural in 2k4.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But there is a wall. As I've said, people get sick of you after a while. Their is only so much you can say. There is a level of diminishing returns the longer you stay in a state because people have already heard what you have to offer.

But it's not one state. It's several big states. There's not enough time to overstay your welcome in all the bigger states necessitating your visiting the small ones.

Not really, this isn't about me and I don't see what led you to that conclusion. I'm simply refuting the assertion that a direct election system would necessarily favor urban areas over rural areas by pointing out the fact that rural areas get extremely screwed under the current system.

It was the following quote.

Under the electoral college system, there is much less incentive for Bush to go to Alabama or Idaho. Going there wouldn't have done him a thing in 2000 or 2004. But spending all that time in Florida and Ohio did make sense and it's what got him elected.

I said you meaning your state but admittedly that may not be what you meant. I contend that under either system he would still go to Fl and Ohio over Alabama and Idaho and that's what my point was about.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

He'd have never had that chance under your system since he lost in 2k. In 2k4 he was the incumbant which gets a bump and fighting a war ( we've never failed to reelect an incumbant who ran for reelection during a war ) which was also huge. It wasn't about urban vs rural in 2k4.

Look at the vote distribution in 2004. Bush won the most rural areas and Kerry won the most urban areas. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just who they appeal to.

In your 2000 example, the election was so close that it's hard to tell who would have won in a direct election format. But I will note that Gore was already campaigning in the populous areas due to the electoral college format, because those were the states where he had the best chance. Bush had more to gain by opening up extra states than Gore did.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Can't do it on a state level. SCOTUS would strike it down, per Baker v. Carr.

States are entitled to apportion their EC slate as they see fit -- Baker v. Carr doesn't preclude a proportional system, where each state sends delegates in the closest propostion to the popular vote. True, you can't just send one person per county or something that is glaringly imbalanced... but you certainly could have a system where each congressional district sends a delegate whose candidate won the popular vote in that district, and then sends two at-large delegates decided either by the popular vote, or (if they prefer) split to more fairly reflect the state's actual vote count.

States have a lot of leeway, within the "one [person] one vote" context.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I understand the value of local media... and I'd argue it's not at all what it once was. Television campaigns, and major sweeping issues, are what decide national elections. Visits to the local nursing home are fine, but don't end up moving real numbers.

Are you factoring in the third party spending which doesn't count against a campaign's spending limit? I don't have numbers on this so I may be wrong but it seems this money is making the whole cost of advertising thing more moot and it's a factor in what I'm saying about time being a more limiting factor.

Also, since no one has really provided numbers I fall with GrantDawg in feeling

Not to comment on the rest of your post, but the answer to this question is "yes." I don't know who these people are (I'm not one of them) but there is always a swing of support that follows a visit. That (and campaign money) is the reason the candidates make so many stops during an election cycle. There are no commercials, posters, radio ads etc. that equals the bump a candidate gets from a visit.

which explains a lot about why we disagree in this argument.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

States are entitled to apportion their EC slate as they see fit -- Baker v. Carr doesn't preclude a proportional system, where each state sends delegates in the closest propostion to the popular vote. True, you can't just send one person per county or something that is glaringly imbalanced... but you certainly could have a system where each congressional district sends a delegate whose candidate won the popular vote in that district, and then sends two at-large delegates decided either by the popular vote, or (if they prefer) split to more fairly reflect the state's actual vote count.

State's have a lot of leeway, within the "one [person] one vote" context.

I wasn't talking about the Electoral College slate. Of course they can choose their own method. The consitution gives that authority to the legislature.

Jim was talking about setting up state government in an EC system (i.e. the state legislature where each city/town gets a certain amount of EC votes). That's the system that was used in the south for a long time to disenfranchise blacks and is what Baker v. Carr was all about.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I contend that under either system he would still go to Fl and Ohio over Alabama and Idaho and that's what my point was about.

I think you're benefitting from the coincidence here that the big/small state split also happens to be the same as the swing/lock state split in that example. Under the EC, in a modern election, both Alabama and Idaho are solidly red, and thus out of anyone's focus -- but it's not because they are small states.

A fairer comparison might be Florida versus Illinois. Both aree large states rich with votes. Under the EC, Illinois is pretty solidly blue, and therefore largely ignored -- to the benefot of a state like Florida, which is a "swing" state. Both candidates bang on Florida like crazy, and rightfully so. Switch to direct elections, and suddenly those voters in Illinois are worth reaching, since movememnt there counts just as much as movement anywhere else.


Actually, if we were to go to pure direct election, I think the real shift would be toward more national focus -- more issue-based national media campaigns, and more focus on swing issues, rather than swing locations. I think the geographic oddities would break down largely, since there would be votes to move everywhere, not just in certain places (either based on big/small states or swing/lock states).

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Look at the vote distribution in 2004. Bush won the most rural areas and Kerry won the most urban areas. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just who they appeal to.

In your 2000 example, the election was so close that it's hard to tell who would have won in a direct election format. But I will note that Gore was already campaigning in the populous areas due to the electoral college format, because those were the states where he had the best chance. Bush had more to gain by opening up extra states than Gore did.

From the government itself

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

If we're goint to say that Gore didn't win the popular vote and thus wuold have won a direct election then I really don't see how we can proceed in this discussion since you want to use the numbers when they suit you 2k4 but dispute them when they don't.

Fact is, they're all we have to go on. If we say we don't know what would have happened in 2k in a direct election format we also don't know how 2k4 would have turned out under the same formula so we either use both examples or deny both of them. Can't have it both ways.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Jim was talking about setting up state government in an EC system (i.e. the state legislature where each city/town gets a certain amount of EC votes). That's the system that was used in the south for a long time to disenfranchise blacks and is what Baker v. Carr was all about.

Gotcha... and agreed. I missed his point originally.

[larrymcg421]

Of course it works both ways. My point is that our country's major urban centers already have huge associated political perks. As someone who doesn't want to live in a major city, I would like to imagine a situation where my vote will count, where my issues will be heard. I see things as "urban area = bad" because of money issues. People who live in states that happen to have a huge urban area pay a huge tax for that. And they have very little representation in state politics.

But even in your scenario, the same thing would happen, just on a smaller scale. A city or town could be heavily divided and the 49.9% would have to deal with their values/money whatever being decided in a way that offends their own beliefs.

I mean, here in Georgia, I don't like having the rural part of the state legislating their morality. But I'm clearly in the minority on that.

[flere-imsaho]

Everyone arguing that the Electoral College gives small states a say is ignoring reality. Every election the "battleground" states are populus states anyway (Florida & Ohio this last time around, with Pennsylvania close behind). Even if Small State A is split 50-50, you're still not going to see a lot of Presidential campaigning there because it's just 2 electoral votes.

With direct election, these small states still might not get a lot of attention, but the Presidential election will be a lot more relevant for, say, voters living in rural Illinois (or, heck, even suburban Chicago).

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. In 2000, the Electoral College said "Because you appealed to slightly more people in Ohio and Florida than the other guy, who appealed to considerably more people nationwide, you get to be President." You can construct a similar quote for Nixon/Kennedy if you wanted to look up the states in question.

Edit: Gah, beaten to my points by the fast-moving thread.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think you're benefitting from the coincidence here that the big/small state split also happens to be the same as the swing/lock state split in that example. Under the EC, in a modern election, both Alabama and Idaho are solidly red, and thus out of anyone's focus -- but it's not because they are small states.

A fairer comparison might be Florida versus Illinois. Both aree large states rich with votes. Under the EC, Illinois is pretty solidly blue, and therefore largely ignored -- to the benefot of a state like Florida, which is a "swing" state. Both candidates bang on Florida like crazy, and rightfully so. Switch to direct elections, and suddenly those voters in Illinois are worth reaching, since movememnt there counts just as much as movement anywhere else.

One of my objections I touched on earlier is the use of the word ignored. These states aren't ignored. Years of organization and hard work and local focus goes into their parties becoming entrenched and becoming locked down states. In a two party system this is as valid a part of the election campaign as anything else.

Actually, if we were to go to pure direct election, I think the real shift would be toward more national focus -- more issue-based national media campaigns, and more focus on swing issues, rather than swing locations. I think the geographic oddities would break down largely, since there would be votes to move everywhere, not just in certain places (either based on big/small states or swing/lock states).

It's an interesting concept and has merit but it puts a lot of faith in people not putting their own personal issues ahead of more altruistic issues and I don't necessarily see that happening. Again, I'm not speaking of the campaigns but of the voters which the campaigns must after all win over.

[timmynausea]

I like the idea of a direct election. I'd be very interested to see the turnout of the minority party in states that lean heavily one way or the other. It'd be the first time in a long time that a liberal in Utah or a conservative in Maryland feel like they have a reason to vote. As it is one party or the other gets credit for the entire state, so a lot of votes don't "count".

I think that's a more significant point than the idea that candidates won't visit some areas as much during the campaign.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Everyone arguing that the Electoral College gives small states a say is ignoring reality. Every election the "battleground" states are populus states anyway (Florida & Ohio this last time around, with Pennsylvania close behind). Even if Small State A is split 50-50, you're still not going to see a lot of Presidential campaigning there because it's just 2 electoral votes.

With direct election, these small states still might not get a lot of attention, but the Presidential election will be a lot more relevant for, say, voters living in rural Illinois (or, heck, even suburban Chicago).

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. In 2000, the Electoral College said "Because you appealed to slightly more people in Ohio and Florida than the other guy, who appealed to considerably more people nationwide, you get to be President." You can construct a similar quote for Nixon/Kennedy if you wanted to look up the states in question.

IMHO, that's not seeing the forest for the trees. The only reason that these states are swing states now is because enough small states are red that they balance the more populous blue states leaving these larger more moderate states as the deciders.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

From the government itself

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

If we're goint to say that Gore didn't win the popular vote and thus wuold have won a direct election then I really don't see how we can proceed in this discussion since you want to use the numbers when they suit you 2k4 but dispute them when they don't.

Fact is, they're all we have to go on. If we say we don't know what would have happened in 2k in a direct election format we also don't know how 2k4 would have turned out under the same formula so we either use both examples or deny both of them. Can't have it both ways.

But I don't think the results in 2000 go against my argument. Of course a candidate appealing to a urban issues would win some times under a direct election system. But the fact that the last two elections were so close show that there are enough rural issues out there to counteract the urban voters. If anything, I'd argue that the reason Gore won the popular vote is because he had more appeal to rural voters than Kerry did. This would even further my point.

[Axxon]

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. In 2000, the Electoral College said "Because you appealed to slightly more people in Ohio and Florida than the other guy, who appealed to considerably more people nationwide, you get to be President." You can construct a similar quote for Nixon/Kennedy if you wanted to look up the states in question.

Hmm, roughly 500k more voters out of 100m is considerably more? Seems suspect to me. I had the numbers already googled.

Better stop this now because defending this administration isn't something I want to do but I do hate obviously slanted semantics like this.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Hmm, roughly 50k more voters out of 100m is considerably more? Seems suspect to me. I had the numbers already googled.

Better stop this now because defending this administration isn't something I want to do but I do hate obviously slanted semantics like this.

The % difference in Florida was much smaller than the % difference nationwide, which is what I think he was talking about.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Axxon

IMHO, that's not seeing the forest for the trees. The only reason that these states are swing states now is because enough small states are red that they balance the more populous blue states leaving these larger more moderate states as the deciders.

No, there are plenty of small (population-wise) blue states.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If anything, I'd argue that the reason Gore won the popular vote is because he had more appeal to rural voters than Kerry did. This would even further my point.

Maybe but I think the factors I cited for Bush's win are far more significant and the fact that he barely won given those advantages didn't bode well for his second term.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Hmm, roughly 50k more voters out of 100m is considerably more? Seems suspect to me. I had the numbers already googled.

You mean 500k, right? It was 543,895 according to the link you provided.

[larrymcg421]

To follow up my last post. The % difference in Florida was .01% and the nationwide difference was .5%

That's actually a pretty big difference.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Hmm, roughly 50k more voters out of 100m is considerably more? Seems suspect to me. I had the numbers already googled.

You're missing my point. In each case (Bush/Gore in 2000, Nixon/Kennedy in 1960) the Electoral College made it so that the choices of small numbers of voters in particular states overrode the choices of the majority of voters nationwide. It's about the choices of the few dictating the choice of the many.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No, there are plenty of small (population-wise) blue states.

I'm missing where I said all. Are you seriously going to argue that there wasn't a substantial difference between who won the urban vote vs who won the heartland?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

You mean 500k, right? It was 543,895 according to the link you provided.

Yep. I mistyped. Couldn't cut and paste. I'll fix it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You're missing my point. In each case (Bush/Gore in 2000, Nixon/Kennedy in 1960) the Electoral College made it so that the choices of small numbers of voters in particular states overrode the choices of the majority of voters nationwide. It's about the choices of the few dictating the choice of the many.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but Kennedy won the popular vote.

Presidential Candidate	Party	Home State	Popular Vote		Electoral Vote	Running Mate	Running Mate's Home State	Running Mate's Electoral Vote
			Count	Percentage
John Fitzgerald Kennedy	Democratic	Massachusetts	34,220,984(a)	49.9%	303	Lyndon Baines Johnson	Texas	303
Richard Milhous Nixon	Republican	California	34,108,157	49.6%	21

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You're missing my point. In each case (Bush/Gore in 2000, Nixon/Kennedy in 1960) the Electoral College made it so that the choices of small numbers of voters in particular states overrode the choices of the majority of voters nationwide. It's about the choices of the few dictating the choice of the many.

I can understand the point and agree with it but the way you stated it seemed misleading to me.

Oh, and it's not the few, it's the slightly fewer. Don't continue to use the over exaggerations. .5% is not the few, it's the slightly fewer.

Of course, that's exactly what the electoral college was set up to allow.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by The Sacramento Bee

The election of the U.S. president should reflect the directly expressed will of the American people.

But it doesn't.

The current Electoral College system can produce perverse results: A candidate can lose the popular vote and win the Electoral College vote and, thus, the presidency. That has happened several times in American history, most recently in 2000. With the nation so closely divided politically, this is likely to be an ongoing problem, undermining the legitimacy of our presidential elections.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Polls for the last 30 years have shown that Americans overwhelmingly support direct election of the president, but Congress hasn't budged on a constitutional amendment.

Funny that the writer doesn't elaborate on this statement. What polls? I'd be willing to bet that they are "popular vote" polls where a large percentage of those polled are from large population centers that would benefit from a change.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but Kennedy won the popular vote.

Ouch, but that election was rigged anyway.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But even in your scenario, the same thing would happen, just on a smaller scale. A city or town could be heavily divided and the 49.9% would have to deal with their values/money whatever being decided in a way that offends their own beliefs.

I mean, here in Georgia, I don't like having the rural part of the state legislating their morality. But I'm clearly in the minority on that.

You have to find that compromise point. Do you declare sovereignty to the world, to the country, to the state, to the county, to the town or to the neighborhood?

A little of each is the best solution. Right now, I believe states are grabbing too much power because of the dynamic that one large city has so much voting control.

It's difficult to find a breakdown of tax revenue/spending. In Michigan, it's pretty obvious that Detroit eats revenue. They can't even collect their own taxes, the local government is so ineffective.

But how do you count big cities that have efficiency, like NYC? Since these are destinations, they generate revenue spent by people from other areas. How do you count the revenue from those businesses?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Ouch, but that election was rigged anyway.

So was 2000, but I think that's outside the scope of our argument.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Funny that the writer doesn't elaborate on this statement. What polls? I'd be willing to bet that they are "popular vote" polls where a large percentage of those polled are from large population centers that would benefit from a change.

Well, as the original poster pointed out it is an opinion piece so it's not that unusual for him not to elaborate on this.

On your point, I'd be willing to bet that there are popular vote polls where a large percentage of those polled believe professional wrestling is real.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So was 2000, but I think that's outside the scope of our argument.

Yeah, but in 1960 the right candidate won.

[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?

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Well, as the original poster pointed out it is an opinion piece so it's not that unusual for him not to elaborate on this.

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.

[larrymcg421]

Right. I don't see why it matters if 8 million people live close together or if the same 8 million lived far apart.

[Axxon]

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?

For clarity, I am not saying that national politics are too dominated by urban areas. Then again, I'm not the one advocating change.

I think the system works fairly well now. I think that a change to a direct election could result in urban dominance. That's why I'm against it.

I don't know how everyone else feels but I think there is a misconception here about what is being discussed and everyone is runnng with it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

For clarity, I am not saying that national politics are too dominated by urban areas. Then again, I'm not the one advocating change.

I think the system works fairly well now. I think that a change to a direct election could result in urban dominance. That's why I'm against it.

I don't know how everyone else feels but I think there is a misconception here about what is being discussed and everyone is runnng with it.

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