The Next Four Years

[carlfense]

I don't really like the EC the way it is currently. It is supposed to provide a little more voice to less populous states. It happens to be synonomous with how we are represented in congress and I don't think our electoral voice needs to be significantly different than how we are represented. I just think that with the way our republic is setup (or the way it should be setup) that the individuals vote should maybe go through this filter. I don't think in an extremely close election, say a ten or twenty thousand simple countrywide majority vote, that our rights as citizens of a particular state may be well expressed without the EC. The problem I see with it is that a behemoth like Cali could split the vote 51/49 and still award all 55 to one candidate. Maybe if they went 28 & 27 in that scenario, it would work better by simultaneously giving the individual voter more of a voice as well as maintaining some voice for the states. there haven't been too many instances, 5 times I believe, where the EC was different than the majority anyway. I just kind of hate conceding all the decision making to a few overgrown states. I'm sure some of my feeling is due to my political bent. It's no secret that the liberal left coincides strongly with the more urban population centers. That isn't just a demographic anomily, it's because those are the places where more citizens want the government to provide and take care of them. I don't like looking at a county by county map that is 90% red area wise and then realizing that little bit of blue is all that matters.

I guess I can see why Republicans are growing fond of this idea:

Didn't we stake this vampire already? Most states allow whatever party holds power at the start of each decade to map their congressional districts. In this data-heavy era, parties take the opportunity to pack their opponents into a small number of districts, and spread their own voter over a maximum number of marginally safe districts. The result: It's possible for the other party to win most of the votes for House in a state, but take away only a few districts.

 

See Pennsylvania, which actually debated an electoral vote split concept last year. Democrats narrowly won more votes in House races than the Republicans won. That netted them five of the state's 18 seats, because their vote was packed into gerrmanders in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the Lehigh Valley. Barack Obama won the popular vote in, apparently, six districts. Had an electoral vote-by-district plan been in place, most Pennsylvanians would have voted for Barack Obama, but Mitt Romney would have won 12 of the state's 20 votes. Had this been in place across all states gerrymandered by parties last year, Obama would have won four votes in North Carolina despite losing it. And Romney would have won 10 votes in Ohio, despite losing it.

 

I can't overstate how disastrous this would be. Instead of a small chance of a popular vote/electoral vote split, you'd have, every four years, multiple chances for a majority of voters to support one candidate, but partisan gerrymanders handing the election to the loser. It would slant the election away from urban areas and give disproportionate powers to rural areas. You couldn't come up with a more tenacious assault on one-man-one-vote. Don't do it, people.

http://www.slate.com...l_district.html

 

One man, one vote. A vote from a Nebraskan should carry the exact same weight as the vote of a New Yorker. No more and no less.

[bhamHusker]

I guess I can see why Republicans are growing fond of this idea:

Didn't we stake this vampire already? Most states allow whatever party holds power at the start of each decade to map their congressional districts. In this data-heavy era, parties take the opportunity to pack their opponents into a small number of districts, and spread their own voter over a maximum number of marginally safe districts. The result: It's possible for the other party to win most of the votes for House in a state, but take away only a few districts.

 

See Pennsylvania, which actually debated an electoral vote split concept last year. Democrats narrowly won more votes in House races than the Republicans won. That netted them five of the state's 18 seats, because their vote was packed into gerrmanders in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the Lehigh Valley. Barack Obama won the popular vote in, apparently, six districts. Had an electoral vote-by-district plan been in place, most Pennsylvanians would have voted for Barack Obama, but Mitt Romney would have won 12 of the state's 20 votes. Had this been in place across all states gerrymandered by parties last year, Obama would have won four votes in North Carolina despite losing it. And Romney would have won 10 votes in Ohio, despite losing it.

 

I can't overstate how disastrous this would be. Instead of a small chance of a popular vote/electoral vote split, you'd have, every four years, multiple chances for a majority of voters to support one candidate, but partisan gerrymanders handing the election to the loser. It would slant the election away from urban areas and give disproportionate powers to rural areas. You couldn't come up with a more tenacious assault on one-man-one-vote. Don't do it, people.

http://www.slate.com...l_district.html

 

One man, one vote. A vote from a Nebraskan should carry the exact same weight as the vote of a New Yorker. No more and no less.

+∞ - I was just about to chime in to make this exact point before reading through the rest of the responses. Glad I waited. Unless the fundamentally anti-democratic practice of gerrymandering is eliminated, there can be no more disastrous an idea than awarding electoral votes by district rather than state.

[sd'sker]

#3- Modify Obamacare to make it better. Not repeal it but tweak it to accomplish the number one problem; out of control healthcare and insurance costs. they glossed over that most critical issue when they originally rammed it through in haste.

#8- Wholeheartedly agree that elections and campaign finance needs to be addressed. Not convinced eliminating the electoral college is the way to go. However, modifying the EC would be a very good idea. Instead of a state, like California, awarding all their EC votes to one candidate, how about they divide them up commensurate with the ppercentage of votes? Sort of like Maine and Nebraska do. I don't think there is an inherent problem with using the EC method of the same number as in the senate and house, just with making it an all or nothing deal.

i agree that the whole nation should be like nebraska and maine, their method (sans gerrymandering) is far more democratic.

i also agree with reigning in healthcare costs. they are just killing us:

 

The single best graph on what’s driving our deficits

 

What these three charts tell you is simple: It’s all about health care. Spending on Social Security is expected to rise, but not particularly quickly. Spending on everything else is actually falling. It’s health care that contains most all of our future deficit problems. And the situation is even worse than it looks on this graph: Private health spending is racing upwards even faster than public health spending, so the problem the federal government is showing in its budget projections is mirrored on the budgets of every family and business that purchases health insurance.

<snip>

If we just continue on the way we’re going, then “spending for Social Security, Medicare, other major health programs, defense, and interest payments” will “nearly equal all of the government’s revenues in 2020 and would exceed them from 2022 onward — leaving no revenues to cover any other federal activities, such as income security programs, retirement benefits for federal civilian and military employees, transportation, research, education, law enforcement, and many other programs.”

So we need to get health-care costs down. But because we can only do that so quickly, we’re also going to need to get taxes up.

[Whistlebritches]

In theory I agree with JJ about splitting states into sections but gerrymandering would be a huge and never ending problem.

[sd'sker]

In theory I agree with JJ about splitting states into sections but gerrymandering would be a huge and never ending problem.

seems like it already is. i agree though, that would have to be addressed.

[JJ Husker]

I understand the simplicity and rationale for "one man-one vote" but that sort of ignores how our whole form of representative government and "United States" was put together. We have the Senate as a check and balance on sheer majority, size, and population. Our current representation does not boil down to one man-one vote on any legislation at the federal level. I don't mean to go overboard defending the electoral college because I do think it has it's flaws but I think with a little tweaking it could serve a viable purpose for equalizing things. And yes gerrymandering is a real problem but, I am not convinced it is any more of a problem than would be presented if most of the country resigned any voice solely to the likes of California, Texas, Florida, etc. Without the EC, less populous states would never see or hear from another politician ever. (possibly not a bad thing but you can see what I'm getting at). One thing I am sure of is that no matter the system, somebody will find a way to screw over somebody else. That ain't going away.

 

And BTW, I was not suggesting that we split states into sections. Merely that we allot the electoral votes in ratio to how the popular vote went in that state. so, if you have 10 electoral votes and 60% vote Obama and 40% vote Romney, Obama gets 6 & Romney gets 4, instead of the current situation where Obama gets all 10. I haven't put pen to paper and figured all the ramifications, just kind of thinking out loud.

[beanman]

Random thoughts about what should happen now:

 

First: Pass a grand bargain that reduces the deficit through a combination of spending cuts, closing of loopholes, and the expiration of the Bush tax cut for the highest earners. The GOP will absolutely howl about the latter . . . but despite their bluster they really don't have any leverage. The rate will go up automatically. Filibuster away . . . and it will still happen.

 

Second: Immigration reform. Do it now! If possible, avoid demagoguery and actually get something done. This demographic is killing the GOP's electoral hopes and their best option is to remove it as a wedge issue. A lot of people don't want to hear this . . . but some form of amnesty must be part of the package. There is just no other feasible option. (And yes, I do understand the argument about how it in some instances rewards criminal behavior.)

 

Third: Obamacare is here to stay. Period. Let's get together and make it work.

 

Fourth: The GOP really needs to do something about their Tea Party problem. It's killing their credibility and probably cost them control of the Senate.

 

Fifth: Let's get out of Afghanistan, eh?

 

Sixth: As a matter of fact . . . how about we don't invade Iran, either? (Unless absolutely and truly necessary of course.)

 

Seventh: Let's fix the war on drugs. (Outlined further in a different thread in this forum.)

 

Eighth: Let's fix our national elections. Eliminate the electoral college. Standardize poll hours and early voting. Make sure that no one has to wait hours to exercise their right to vote. Standardize voter registration and voter identification. Make registering to vote simple, secure, and free.

 

 

 

What am I missing? And yes . . . I'd put the line at things that we will actually accomplish from this list at about 2.5.

 

Pretty good list. I don't follow politics much so I'm not as well informed as most but I would also like to see more focus on alternative energy policies (smart ones, not forcing bullsh#t like corn ethanol down our throats) such as pushing for more nuclear(MSRs so we don't have to worry about meltdowns), etc. The Obamacare thing scares me, but admittedly I'm not well informed of what it will involve. I spent the whole last week working with an Engineer from Ontario and if we gravitate to what Canada has for healthcare based on what he described I'd be nervous.

 

As an Engineer I don't understand the obsession with the space program. I'd prefer we focus our efforts on issues on this planet, most of which are solveable but the solutions are often never pursued because of the monetary problem. Now with the problems our country faces financially it's only going to get more difficult.

 

Also, irresponsible defense spending is a big contributor to our problems. That needs continued focus and I think Obama has tried to address some of those issues.

[carlfense]

I understand the simplicity and rationale for "one man-one vote" but that sort of ignores how our whole form of representative government and "United States" was put together. We have the Senate as a check and balance on sheer majority, size, and population. Our current representation does not boil down to one man-one vote on any legislation at the federal level.

The difference being that I'm not talking about the Senate or legislation . . . I'm talking about electing the President.

 

I don't mean to go overboard defending the electoral college because I do think it has it's flaws but I think with a little tweaking it could serve a viable purpose for equalizing things. And yes gerrymandering is a real problem but, I am not convinced it is any more of a problem than would be presented if most of the country resigned any voice solely to the likes of California, Texas, Florida, etc. Without the EC, less populous states would never see or hear from another politician ever. (possibly not a bad thing but you can see what I'm getting at). One thing I am sure of is that no matter the system, somebody will find a way to screw over somebody else. That ain't going away.

 

And BTW, I was not suggesting that we split states into sections. Merely that we allot the electoral votes in ratio to how the popular vote went in that state. so, if you have 10 electoral votes and 60% vote Obama and 40% vote Romney, Obama gets 6 & Romney gets 4, instead of the current situation where Obama gets all 10. I haven't put pen to paper and figured all the ramifications, just kind of thinking out loud.

We all share the same president and we should all have an equal share in choosing that single president.

[beanman]

I understand the simplicity and rationale for "one man-one vote" but that sort of ignores how our whole form of representative government and "United States" was put together. We have the Senate as a check and balance on sheer majority, size, and population. Our current representation does not boil down to one man-one vote on any legislation at the federal level.

The difference being that I'm not talking about the Senate or legislation . . . I'm talking about electing the President.

 

I don't mean to go overboard defending the electoral college because I do think it has it's flaws but I think with a little tweaking it could serve a viable purpose for equalizing things. And yes gerrymandering is a real problem but, I am not convinced it is any more of a problem than would be presented if most of the country resigned any voice solely to the likes of California, Texas, Florida, etc. Without the EC, less populous states would never see or hear from another politician ever. (possibly not a bad thing but you can see what I'm getting at). One thing I am sure of is that no matter the system, somebody will find a way to screw over somebody else. That ain't going away.

 

And BTW, I was not suggesting that we split states into sections. Merely that we allot the electoral votes in ratio to how the popular vote went in that state. so, if you have 10 electoral votes and 60% vote Obama and 40% vote Romney, Obama gets 6 & Romney gets 4, instead of the current situation where Obama gets all 10. I haven't put pen to paper and figured all the ramifications, just kind of thinking out loud.

We all share the same president and we should all have an equal share in choosing that single president.

Exactly

[TGHusker]

Surprisingly, I agree with most of this. the amendments I would make;

 

#3- Modify Obamacare to make it better. Not repeal it but tweak it to accomplish the number one problem; out of control healthcare and insurance costs. they glossed over that most critical issue when they originally rammed it through in haste.

 

#4- Is not really an issue that anything concrete can be done about. I don't think that is major and, if it is a problem, it only takes a little distancing from the extreme elements. Dealing with #2 would go a long way in that regard.

 

#7- Not something that needs to be dealt with urgently. the war on drugs will shift and go away naturally given time and changing attitudes. Not convinced ignoring things like heroine or meth would be in our best interest. And IMO, we can't just let drugs go willy nilly without also removing the social safety net for those who go off the tracks. We may waste a bunch on enforcement now but how frustrating would it be to have to pick up the tab for even more burnouts that can't support themselves because of their problem?

 

#8- Wholeheartedly agree that elections and campaign finance needs to be addressed. Not convinced eliminating the electoral college is the way to go. However, modifying the EC would be a very good idea. Instead of a state, like California, awarding all their EC votes to one candidate, how about they divide them up commensurate with the ppercentage of votes? Sort of like Maine and Nebraska do. I don't think there is an inherent problem with using the EC method of the same number as in the senate and house, just with making it an all or nothing deal.

 

If they got #1, #2, and my #3 done, I'd be pleasantly surprised. #8 would just be icing on the cake.

 

I agree with this and Carl did a good job of framing the points.

I don't think we get rid of the EC - it is still the great equalizer - candidates cannot affort to ignore the less populated states. Otherwise alll campaigning my be done in Calif, NY, Texas and Ill (come to think of it that may be a good thing ) But I would like us move away from a winner take all - that way the EC is more representative.

If we take care of immegration and tweek Obama Care to address the important issues we would settle much of the Tea Party complaints - except run away gov't spending. We have to become more fiscally responsible.

We got to get out of Afgan, find a non-military solution to Iran (or let Israel take care of it). If we can decrease our defense spending by asking other nations (we no longer need a huge presence in Europe, S. Korea & Japan are prosperous enought nations to defend themselves) to take more of the load and reign in our health care costs/entitlement costs, we would be able to take care of a lot of our budget issues.