Skip to comments.The Multiplier Effect: How the Popular Vote Translates into Electoral Votes
Posted on 10/30/2004 2:08:09 AM PDT by Stoat
bump for a 5 point lead. Bump it to an 8 point lead.
Flawed analysis. First, as they noted themselves, they don't have enough data points. Second, and much more important, computer technology and modern communications make it possible for candidates to zero in on potential voters literally down to the city block. There is no longer any need to try to boost the national popular vote and hope that the tide brings enough states to your column; you can pick your states and campaign accordingly. Winning the national popular vote, while nice, is strictly secondary, since everyone knows that 270 EVs is what it takes to win. I'm afraid we may be in for more close elections, and more PV/EV discrepancies, because of the changing campaign environment.
"Winning the national popular vote, while nice, is strictly secondary,"
I think this statement alone sums up why we need to ditch the electoral college to elect our President. And I thought it was "government for the people by the people"!
I think this statement makes it pretty clear you don't get it. Go back to the basics. Read the Founding Fathers and gain an appreciation for the trouble they went through in order to save us from a pure democracy. Not just with Pres but with the Congress as well. Read. Learn. See a bigger picture. You'll come round.
If we're going to tweak the EC, I would favor the district plan, as is used in Maine and Nebraska -- but ONLY if it was done uniformly, nationwide. It would actually enlarge the battleground, because Republicans could hope to pick up some EVs in Cali and NY, while Dems could hope for some in Texas and the Deep South.
All that said, there will be no Constitutional amendment on this issue for the foreseeable future. It only takes one house in each of thirteen state legislatures to block a Constitutional amendment, and there are more than thirteen states with only three, four or five EVs.
This still doesn't count the massive voter fraud and intimidation on the part of the hate-america left.
FreeRadical I'm sure you didn't mean to sound patronizing but thats how you come across. Look the Electoral College came around through compromise based on the limitations of technology/knowledge at the time (over 200 years ago). Direct election was rejected in part because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. In todays world of 24 hour news things are a lot different. We all now live in a global village.
Regardless of this I dont believe the Founding Fathers would not have liked a President elected with a minority of votes. Government for the people by the people. We need to change the electoral system to bring it into the 21st century.
Yes I largely agree with you tweeking the system would be better than what we have now. Adopting the district plan used in Maine and Nebraska would be a fantastic idea/start. Then republicans like me in New York wouldn't feel that their vote is wasted.
The main problem with the current system is that only a small fraction of the country (Ohio, Florida, New Mexico etc, etc) matter to both parties. In effect our national election has been reduced to a few regional battles which is a shame- something I'm sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have envisaged.
I also share your pessimism in the electoral system ever being changed due to the number of states with a few electoral votes.
Leave the EC alone. For goodness sakes, it would mean every baby killer and bubba would directly elect. Pure democracy doesnt work, read some history. Egads... most of these ppl have a maximum of two brain cells and they are always using one of them to figure out whats on the tube tonite. They are unable to analyze the issues in a logical manner, its just the thing the breck girls would love.
Nah, the EC is great! No tweaking. Keep voting in NY, and everywhere else.
Most Dims dont understand the EC, lets keep it that way.
"most of these ppl have a maximum of two brain cells and they are always using one of them to figure out whats on the tube tonite. They are unable to analyze the issues in a logical manner, its just the thing the breck girls would love. "
That's this argument is similar to what Stalin, Hitler- hell even Saddam would have argued.
The EC at the very least needs to be tweeked- where college votes in each state are shared according to the percentage of votes- this winner takes all model is too flawed.
Uh.. you misquoted. It's ...
"Government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people...."
And no offense, but as #6 says, "go back to the basics".
The USA is not a democracy. Never was, never will be. We are a Constitutional Republic. And we have a "Representative" form of 'democracy' (small 'd' intentional). That's why we have Representatives, Senators and the Electoral College. We choose them to vote in our interests. And that is 100% consistent with the quote above.
And again as #6 says, our Founding Fathers put a lot of thought INTO what form of government we'd have. One thing they realized was that every "Direct Democracy" in the history of the world had failed miserably. It's also why our governmet was based more along the type in ancient Sparta than the 'democracy' of Athens.
Now as to eliminating the Electoral College, the socialist RATS would love that. As the POTUS would then be determined by NY City, Chicago, Detroit, LA, i.e: the Metro areas.
Furthermore, if we did have a "Direct Democracy", we would then be voting on everything. There'd be no need for any reps or senators - on any level. That would result in CHAOS. We'd be having 'elections' almost (votes) every week.
An aside, the full quote you mention is from the last sentence of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (but you knew that) given on Nov. 19, 1863 and reads in full:
"...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Do you want the six largest cities in the country to select the president every time?
That's what you'd get with straight popular vote.
We are a republic.
The states literally elect the president.
It will never change.
I agree with you!
Let the EC alone!
Some of the cities that would in effect elect the President, should there not be an EC, would be; Ny, Philadelphia, LA, Seattle, DC, Chicago, San Fran, Boston, there are others..........
These are some of the ones that come into mind.
These........every one are liberal and rat infested.
Changing the EC would plummet us into rat holes!
... I'm sure you didn't mean to sound patronizing but thats how you come across.
Well, I do want to get your attention. :-) I am not alone in believing a disdain for the electoral college is a tell that one does not understand some of the basics. If that is patronizing, so be it. I only mean to steer you towards an appreciation for what our founders did to insulate us from the horrors of pure democracy. ... the Electoral College came around through compromise based on the limitations of technology/knowledge at the time (over 200 years ago)...
... the Electoral College came around through compromise based on the limitations of technology/knowledge at the time (over 200 years ago)...
The electoral college came from astute & wise thinking based on an incredibly deft sense of history, people, politics and government. To say the Founders were limited in knowledge, or technology for that matter, is wrong. The Founders had unbelievable amounts of knowledge and wisdom and they used leading edge technology, often of their own creation, daily. Anyway, the Founders were anything but lacking in knowledge and technology. Direct election was rejected in part because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region.
Direct election was rejected in part because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region.
I'll go away and read some things, but at first glance this "naturally vote for a local boy" argument doesn't ring consistent with what little bit I do know. I'm no expert, but not tilting towards pure democracy is a hot button of mine so I'll learn more thanks to your prompt.
Regardless of this I dont believe the Founding Fathers would not have liked a President elected with a minority of votes.
If they did not like this, they would not have implemented the electoral college. Sorry, I know that sounds like a smart ass. But it is true. Why would they have fought hard to define and implement something they would not have liked? Government for the people by the people.
Government for the people by the people.
This is not germaine to the argument. It feels good, but it doesn't explain why the Founders were somehow flawed in the creation of the electoral college. (Update: Thanks to Condor51 in #14 for finalizing the reality check on this as far as the EC goes.)
In todays world of 24 hour news things are a lot different.
Uh, no, things are not any different. Pure democracy continues to be an inferior, highly flawed method of governing. Two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner is a timeless way of defining democracy for the very fact it doesn't matter what century the critters are in. The list of things different today, versus then, about people, history, politics, government and man is small. Profoundly small.
We all now live in a global village.
No, we live in the United States of America. A place where the govt bows to the people and the people answer to God and the rights of the people are properly recognized as God given not govt given. There is a reason the global village has a hard time with the USA, they understand we are better. It drives the rest of the world bonkers we had Founders bright enough to understand governments, history, politics and man. ... Ah, heck, enough. Frankly, patronizing or not, bringing the global village into an electoral college debate is silly. We need to change the electoral system to bring it into the 21st century.
We need to change the electoral system to bring it into the 21st century.
The century is absolutely, teetotally, 110% irrelevant.
To finish, back to the start: The Founding Fathers understood the problems with democracy and fought hard to eliminate/reduce them. They designed the Republic with specific, arguably brilliant, checks against democracy in the way Congress is elected and empowered and the way the President is chosen. Our system is not perfect, and some things may be indeed be broken, but the electoral college is not broken and does not need fixing. Especially when the suggested fix is pure democracy.
After thought: One tell the electoral college is not broken is found by looking at those screaming for it to be eliminated. When Socialists/Progressives/Democrats and other Godless, Leftist, Govt Loving Scum are squealing, you can be sure you've done something correctly.
Update: Right of Center, after seeing the latest posts, I am all but piling on here. Don't take it badly. You just stepped in it, that's all. We all do it every now and again.
And finally, here's a quote from Hamilton. Parens added to clarify.
The process of election (referring to EC) affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. Federalist No. 68 March 14, 1788
Hmm, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not sold on this idea of "pure democracy".
There is a smell of something undemocratic when a president wins an election without taking the largest number of votes- whether we as conservatives like the outcome or not.
But my main gripe against the current system is the huge disincentive for voter turnout in states where one of the parties is clearly dominant- this is why, at the very least each state should adopt the system used by Maine and Nebraska, college votes are allocated by legislative district rather than at the statewide level. If anything this would stop the Ohio-Florida frenzy we are experiencing now. I've seen one quote from Karl Rove who said, at times, that this election was virtually akin to running for the Govenor of Ohio (due to the fact they've been there so many times)!!!
I want a truly national election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.