Thoughts on Proportional Representation?

digerati · Sep 15, 2004, 07:48 PM

Colorado is putting the idea of propportional representation on the ballot. This means that the percentage of the votes that the candidates receive will be divided up in the electoral college votes.

This = good for 3rd parties.

Source
http://www.leanleft.com/archives/003414.html

Nacht · Sep 15, 2004, 07:53 PM

hmmm...idk, that seems like it might be a bit complicated. i think we should all move to popular vote, or keep it where it is. the problem with popular vote though is it basically becomes mob rule...

pr0digal jenius · Sep 16, 2004, 12:10 AM

popular vote doesn't work as it doesn't force the candidates to appeal to a large audience...if it goes to popular vote, the onyl states they would campaign in would be CA, NY, IL, FL, and TX...or they could also appeal to one demographic branch and win that way

the electoral college is the way to go...and splitting it i don't think works either, as it essentially translates into popular vote

GutterPunk · Sep 16, 2004, 12:34 AM

that just means we cant stand as 1 as a state, contraversial and divided imho

Matth · Sep 16, 2004, 07:06 AM

The London Mayor and assembly elections were a right mess.

First and second preferences for the Mayor - and it went to a top two runoff on second choices, but with no change in the result.

For the assembly, there were directly elected members, plus additional seats allocated proportionally on a list basis - that part of the system, I would say, worked reasonably well.

In general, I'd favour PR for Britain, as it would counter the undeserved majorities that both main parties have enjoyed, and be fairer to the 3rd and minority parties.

The drawback, if it pulls the major parties into, say, a 45% / 45% balance, is that instead of forging a rational middle ground, one of them will horse-trade for support from the odds and ends, most likely those on the more extreme side of their own position.

Alistair · Sep 16, 2004, 08:12 AM

A popular vote would leave the cities calling the shots for the country. I seem to remember a time back in oh say tha 1700's when the cities were telling the farm folk what to do... I could be wrong but I've just got this strange itch that says there was a revolution that came as a result.

pr0digal jenius · Sep 16, 2004, 01:01 PM

yea...los angeles would cast most of the votes in a popular system...lol

the college is the way to go

Nacht · Sep 16, 2004, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

popular vote doesn't work as it doesn't force the candidates to appeal to a large audience...if it goes to popular vote, the onyl states they would campaign in would be CA, NY, IL, FL, and TX...or they could also appeal to one demographic branch and win that way

the electoral college is the way to go...and splitting it i don't think works either, as it essentially translates into popular vote

couldnt have said it better myself

GutterPunk · Sep 16, 2004, 04:43 PM

i have to agree, after reading ur post the 2nd time u make a great point pj

pr0digal jenius · Sep 16, 2004, 05:23 PM

i try

although i can't take all the credit for that explanation...we discussed it very much in history class the other day and while that is all my thoughts, i borrowed some of my professor's wording as it makes very good sense

digerati · Sep 16, 2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

popular vote doesn't work as it doesn't force the candidates to appeal to a large audience...if it goes to popular vote, the onyl states they would campaign in would be CA, NY, IL, FL, and TX...or they could also appeal to one demographic branch and win that way

the electoral college is the way to go...and splitting it i don't think works either, as it essentially translates into popular vote

It was Jefferson who set the ideology that the popular vote should determine the states use of their electoral college as it was felt the electoral college were wealthy people who would put in Presidents that supported the wealthy *cough cough Adams*

And your logic is inherently flawed. That image shows the amount of electoral votes of last election, and who won what states. If a person only campaigned those states they would come up with 166 votes, that's only like what? 104 short of taking office? And the south always votes republican, ever since Kennedy and LBJ did the civil rights the south went from voting Democrat to Republican, so those votes are always Republican, wouldn't it be more fair to let some other votes come out of there?

The electoral vote structure is set to be all or nothing. This has strifled the chances of third parties for a long period of time. If you ever feel the need to complain that having only two choices for president sucks, then you've got to let 3rd parties get their chance as well.

Mmmm.... I want Mac & Cheese for dinner.. The blue box!

*Edited for spelling*

Nacht · Sep 16, 2004, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ^_^

It was Jefferson who set the ideology that the popular vote should determine the states use of their electoral college as it was felt the electoral college were wealthy people who would put in Presidents that supported the wealthy *cough cough Adams

what do you mean by that? the electoral college is not a group of people that actually votes..

pr0digal jenius · Sep 16, 2004, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacht

what do you mean by that? the electoral college is not a group of people that actually votes..

actually it is..they randomly select 'elector's every year for each state and they are told who to vote for.....there is no rule stating they all AVE to vote the same way tho, i don't think.

but electoral votes are nto secret ballot, so they would get lynched...lol

Vampyromaniac · Sep 17, 2004, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

if it goes to popular vote, the onyl states they would campaign in would be CA, NY, IL, FL, and TX...

that's the same as it is now, they have the most electoral votes.

Quote:

or they could also appeal to one demographic branch and win that way

that would be different from now, but what's wrong with that?

Quote:

actually it is..they randomly select 'elector's every year for each state and they are told who to vote for.....there is no rule stating they all AVE to vote the same way tho, i don't think.

this is true. now I ask, why the hell do we need this? has any elector voted differently from the popular vote of his state? if they always vote the same, then we can at least get rid of this middle-man crap, and just say: OK, whoever gets the popular vote of the state, gets all of that state's electoral points. not some stupid arrangement of: 1st a popular election, then an electoral college "election".

Vampyromaniac · Sep 17, 2004, 01:36 AM

I don't like the electoral college system. It doesn't make sense to me. If I live in a state which votes for one party every time, then I feel like my vote doesn't matter. If I vote for that party, then so what, they would have won anyway. If I vote against it, it's just plain futility. On election day, I'm just going through the motions. Sooner or later, I won't be motivated to vote at all.

Now all you need to win an election is what, 11 states? That means if you can get 50% + 1 vote in the those 11 states, the whole rest of the country (roughly 75% of the voters) can vote for the other party, and you'll still end up President. A system where anything like that is possible, just does not make sense to me. You can get 74% of the votes, but lose, just because those voters happen to live in the wrong place for you. With the electoral college system, your address can be as important than how you vote. Does that make sense, that your address plays that big a part in who ends up President?

digerati · Sep 17, 2004, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyromaniac

I don't like the electoral college system. It doesn't make sense to me. If I live in a state which votes for one party every time, then I feel like my vote doesn't matter. If I vote for that party, then so what, they would have won anyway. If I vote against it, it's just plain futility. On election day, I'm just going through the motions. Sooner or later, I won't be motivated to vote at all.

Now all you need to win an election is what, 11 states? That means if you can get 50% + 1 vote in the those 11 states, the whole rest of the country (roughly 75% of the voters) can vote for the other party, and you'll still end up President. A system where anything like that is possible, just does not make sense to me. You can get 74% of the votes, but lose, just because those voters happen to live in the wrong place for you. With the electoral college system, your address can be as important than how you vote. Does that make sense, that your address plays that big a part in who ends up President?

The electoral college is based on state population. It was set in place because they worried about stupid uneducted people voting for the president, the electoral college was supposed to be more educated individuals.

I believe 3 times in history the electoral votes have gone against the state popular vote.

It doesn't make much sense, and yes your vote is actually useless. Education has come a long way in this country, but not in the sense of politics. Which is why it SO pissed me off when Kerry went on MTV, he was tapping into the un-political pool of people to try and get their vote.

I think the system needs to be re-designed, we're strictly a two party country and that's just not enough options for me. I don't perticularly see this as being right, but I see it as a direction for change, and that is something that brings hope to me.

Vampyromaniac · Sep 17, 2004, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ^_^

The electoral college is based on state population. It was set in place because they worried about stupid uneducted people voting for the president, the electoral college was supposed to be more educated individuals.

Yes, I know. It's very archaic and antiquated by today's standards of education.

pr0digal jenius · Sep 17, 2004, 08:30 AM

not really, if you think about it.

the electoral college is much more fair then a popular vote would be. popular votes are pure democracy, which in 99% of the cases can be compaired to bedlam at best.

under the popular vote MANY groups can easily get shafted out fo having any say in the voting due to numbers. These groups include farmers, minorities, certain economic classes, etc. In the popular vote the president that white suburbia elects is the president who everyone else is ruled by.

uner the EC, farm communities and such(take the state of kansas for example) get 6 votes in a system where 270 is needed, and often an election is decided by very small margins(read: 2000 election)

the EC really does force candidates to appeal to a broader range of demographics then a straight up democratic head count would, which i feel is a good thing.

kp59583 · Sep 17, 2004, 10:44 AM

I think that it should be based on the number of states you win because no state should have more power than another state. Thats what the electoral college does.

pr0digal jenius · Sep 17, 2004, 10:55 AM

i think the college is fine..there should be a way to account for places like CA having mroe people then msot without making them all dominating in the voting process, and i feel the EC does a fairly good job of that, actually

ToshiroOC · Sep 18, 2004, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kp59583

I think that it should be based on the number of states you win because no state should have more power than another state. Thats what the electoral college does.

So a voter in California should count less than a voter in Montana?

Vampyromaniac · Sep 20, 2004, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

In the popular vote the president that white suburbia elects is the president who everyone else is ruled by.

It's not like "white suburbia" has certain opinions, and everyone else has the opposite opinions. A lot of people outside of "white suburbia" share opinions with people in it. And even "white suburbia" doesn't agree within itself most of the time.

How about at least reducing the all-or-nothing effect that EC creates? How about we change it to be: instead of one party getting all the EC votes of a state, they get "blocks" of say 5 votes, depending on the percentage of the popular vote of the state.
Or something similar, where it's not pure popular vote to EC vote correlation, and not all-or-nothing like we have now, but in "blocks" somehow which are only roughly correlated to the popular vote.