Wanna win an election? Just change the rules

[purplefrog]

Gotta luv our political system. If you're smart and savvy you can almost always find a way to win. I don't agree with this approach but you have to admit it's entertaining to watch the strategists attempt to gain an edge for their party. Why not just get rid of the electoral system altogether.
______________________________________
GOP Team Revives Electoral Vote Initiative
By Dan Morain and Joe Mathews
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 23 October 2007

The intent is to change California's winner-take-all system, which would give Republicans an edge in the presidential race.

Sacramento - Veteran GOP consultants said Monday that they were relaunching a drive to change the way California allocates its electoral college votes, aimed at helping the 2008 Republican presidential nominee capture the White House.

Political strategist David Gilliard said he was taking over the ballot initiative campaign, along with strategist Ed Rollins and fundraiser Anne Dunsmore. Consultant Mike Arno will oversee the signature-gathering effort.

"Our budget is going to be whatever it takes to make the June ballot," said Gilliard, who played a key role in getting the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis onto the 2003 ballot.

The proposed initiative would change California's method of allocating its 55 electoral votes from a winner-take-all basis, which favors Democrats, to a congressional district-based approach. Republicans hold 19 congressional seats, so presumably the GOP nominee could win a similar number of electoral votes.

The effort stalled last month when its original organizers failed to raise the $2 million needed to place the initiative on the June ballot.

Until recently, Dunsmore oversaw fundraising for Rudolph W. Giuliani's presidential campaign - prompting Democrats to charge that the former New York mayor was behind the initiative drive. A major Giuliani benefactor, Wall Street mogul Paul E. Singer, donated $175,000 to fund the original effort.

Giuliani's campaign has denied any involvement. Gilliard said he was not associated with any of the presidential campaigns and predicted that donors to all of the major Republicans would chip in for the initiative drive.

On Monday, Democrats were gearing up to battle the measure.

"Republicans seem to be pursuing a strategy where they will lose at the polls and, along the way, define the GOP as the party of electoral fraudster," said Chris Lehane, a former Clinton White House aide who was organizing the opposition.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen has set Nov. 13 as the deadline for submitting signatures to place the measure on the June ballot. Backers must gather 434,000 valid signatures of registered voters. Because many signatures are typically deemed invalid, circulators will probably seek at least 650,000. The initial campaign had gathered about 100,000 signatures.

[dude1394]

Actually there are a few states that do assign their electoral votes this way. It's their "state" their choice.

There are a lot of republicans in california (and democrats in texas) who's votes don't count a lot. If california wants to do this (and of course the political party will help them) more power to 'em.

Same with texas.

What IS funny imo, is when someone attempts to keep a referendum off a ballot, that's a little bit beyond the pale imo.

[rabbitproof]

I favor this. Whatever we can do to better represent the actual real votes would be a good thing. I assume this measure would also ensure that 3rd and independent candidates get their share of the electoral votes - so that it is not just cut into red or blue.

Of course, even better would be removing the electoral system. Is there a reason why the system exists anyways?

[dude1394]

Sure so that all states are represented no matter their size. If you want to get rid of the electoral college you should also support getting rid of two senators from every state, same concept.

[rabbitproof]

Why would they not get represented if we went to the popular vote? Their votes would still count..

[purplefrog]

Wouldn't this approach put even more pressure on the drawing of our congressional districts? We all know that's typically done without controversy.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Why would they not get represented if we went to the popular vote? Their votes would still count..

They would be in the noise and irrelevant.

[rabbitproof]

I have been reading more about this and I'm coming to the conclusion it's fucked up. So, in essence, a state such as Wyoming gets 3x the representation we (Texas or California) get. Or, their vote is 3x as powerful as yours or mine.

Is this ok??

What about the minority residing in a more populous area who is not on the same level on various issues with his/her fellow statesmen in California or Texas? It seems injust that people like these minorities just become a pawn/vote for the majority in their geographical area.

Their voices are further in the noise and more irrelevant than anyone else (less representation on a electoral level, less representation from a minority stand point). IMO, minorities will always unite but it is not possible in this system.

Geographical representation seems way too old school and pre-industrial revolution.

[purplefrog]

I don't object to the principle of congressional-district based allocation of electoral votes, but I do have some problems with the timing of this initiative. It is too close to the general election to be changing the battle lines. I would feel more comfortable if this would be put into effect for the 2012 election if approved by the voters. That would give other states an opportunity to follow suit if they wished.

The method of how we draw congressional districts still concerns me though.

[rabbitproof]

purple,

can you expound on how congressional distracts are drawn, what concerns you about it and what you would change?

[dude1394]

Congressional districts are drawn by the party in power and then voted on it. Just like any other law. The difference is that the districts are then reviewed for civil-rights violations. It's a very gerrymandered process usually creating extremely safe districts for the two parties.

I mean who wants to run in a republican district if you are a democrat and vice-versa.

With respect to the electoral college. If there were none then the votes of Idaho for example would be irrelevant. Idaho has 1.3 million people, Dallas has 5 million for example.

So the people of Idaho's votes would count for little (they don't count for a lot right now as I think they only have 4 electoral college votes versus 55 for California for example. Certainly politicians would pay even less attention to them than they do now.

They have 1 congressman and 2 senators. If they had the population porportionate they may not have any senators for example. They would have little say in what the federal government does with their lands and taxes etc. In fact easily the larger coastal states could declare that all western lands are federal lands and cannot be exploited for example.

It was the same with the founding fathers, the states wouldn't agree to have a federal government at ALL unless the could be guaranteed to have a voice at the table no matter their size. They would have just voted down the constitution and stayed independant states.

[rabbitproof]

Thanks for explaining that, Dude.

Regarding the electoral college, it's dicey and I see the founders' motives and the benefits to not making it proportionate to population.

I also see flaws though.

1) It seems dicey that just because you live near a lot of people, your vote counts less and your voice is shortened on a per capita basis.
2) Moreover, if you have a minority stance in a populous region, a potentially significant portion of the population (say 2 of the 5 mil in Dallas or 20 of the 55 votes' worth in California) gets blanketed. This is especially frustrating because that 2 million or 20 votes worth, their population weight, is put into the machine as a 5 million or 55 vote voice.

So I definitely feel the splitting of the electoral votes is a step in the right direction towards addressing issue 2. Issue 1 is a trickier mess and in a way, the splitting of the votes helps addresses issue 1 some. I don't want Idaho getting shut out but marginalizing millions of voters because they live near each other doesn't seem fair either. I know we want to hear Idaho and Wyoming's voice but look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...nAttention.png

I realize it's not just about the electoral system (getting more bang for your campaign buck or TV handshake) and states being more competitive politically, but the amount of attention and money being put on these guys is incredibly disproportionate to the number of people there. Texas and California basically get shut out even though there are a lot of alternate voices.

[dude1394]

I'm not completely sure that having all of that advertising and politicians traipsing around your state is a good thing.

I know I'm very happy to be in texas and immune to that deluge.

[rabbitproof]

That's fine for you, dude. It's still a flaw. Some policies and programs will be dictated to appease people (and win votes) in those highlighted areas.

Potentially millions of voices being ignored because they're in an area where there are "only" 5 million of them to 10 million of the others and yet the 1.5 million in No People State in the Midwest will receive several hundredfolds worth of campaign and attention towards whatever issues they may have.

Something is fundamentally wrong here. There's no clean cut solution, atleast I haven't ran into one or heard one, but it doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders.

Anyways, just needling discussion.

[Rhylan]

The USA is a federal system. This means the states have some sovereignty.

So the state as an entity was intended to have some electoral significance greater than just the sum of its population. This is also why senators were originally supposed to be chosen by state legislatures.

It's an outgrowth of the federal system. Some people can't related to it because they're so damn urbanized, but on many levels, California and Idaho are complete equals per the constitution. Deal with it!

[chumdawg]

The trouble is, though, that practically speaking the states have lost their voice in many things. As federal programs have grown and grown, so too have states rights been diminished in many respects. As an example, a state can set their drinking age or their speed limits at whatever they like, but they can only receive federal funding if they fall in line. In essence, on matters like these the federal goverment IS the state government for every state.

Now, we still have state government for certain issues, like abortion (possibly) and gay marriage. But the minute these get tied to the federal teat in the way that other issues have, for all intents and purposes states rights become merely a matter of theory and not of practice.

The truth is that we now have almost an entirely federal system of government on many issues. If you like it, you do. If you don't...well, then I guess you deal with it!

[dude1394]

Pretty sweet gig if you can get it isn't it. The guvment takes your money away and then gives it back to you only if you do what they want.

[rabbitproof]

My primary issue: if people's votes aren't equal, as in one person's vote gets more representation per capita than another, I'm not sure how people can be equal in the eyes of the government.

I see the state side and what the Founders planned for but I'm also seeing a problem with the system as is. Not sure a perfect system exists.. and if not, I'll "deal".

On another side, I would think a farmer in Idaho and a farmer in California have more in common than a urbanite in LA and a farmer in California. I think geographical division is way too old school. With our technological advances in transportation and communication over the last century-plus, we find allies and opponents with much less regard to proximity than before. Using geography as a divider will only become more and more obsolete as time goes on.

Nevertheless, perhaps still too early.... take this as more idealogical pondering, as it's not realistic with our government today.

ADD: Though doing away with the winner-take-all is a step in the right direction for capturing the non-majority voices as it will at least put people whose voices have been over run election after election on the map. This policy should also improve voter turnout. Wish the changes would be synchronized and uniform to take political agendas out of the picture though. I guess I'm just a dreamer.

[dude1394]

I think the bottom line is that they aren't equal and never will be. By definition since we are not a democracy but a federal system, then concessions to the states are made but not to the individual people.

Within the states themselves those people are all equal but even there the majority rules and makes the rules. The minority can attempt to change them but after a vote, the winner is the rule-maker.

[rabbitproof]

Yes, I see that now.

I believe in the majority making the rules, which is why I asked the questions I did and feel a national popular vote has weight.

In another time, I suppose..

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Using geography as a divider will only become more and more obsolete as time goes on.

Geography will never be obsolete. It takes space to live. Space is the lowest common denominator for living purposes. Therefore, it is the simplest area for compromise and agreement for dividing up major areas of responsibility. To the extent that there are dividers, the first division will be by geography. Though farmers in CA might have plenty in common with farmers in Utah, relative to city taxi drivers in Los Angeles, the Californians have to share much more than the farmers will. By geography, they'll have to share the same water resources, the same air, the same roads, the same police forces, the same border issues, the same earthquakes, hospitals, schools, etc. They have to decide together how to share those things that they will necessarily have to experience together that the Utahans (Utah-ites?) will never experience. In the same vein, if I lived in Utah, I sure as heck wouldn't want each individual in CA to have the same vote I did in deciding whether LA and San Francisco trash would get dumped in the Great Salt Lake.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

My primary issue: if people's votes aren't equal, as in one person's vote gets more representation per capita than another, I'm not sure how people can be equal in the eyes of the government.

I see the state side and what the Founders planned for but I'm also seeing a problem with the system as is. Not sure a perfect system exists.. and if not, I'll "deal".

On another side, I would think a farmer in Idaho and a farmer in California have more in common than a urbanite in LA and a farmer in California. I think geographical division is way too old school. With our technological advances in transportation and communication over the last century-plus, we find allies and opponents with much less regard to proximity than before. Using geography as a divider will only become more and more obsolete as time goes on.

Nevertheless, perhaps still too early.... take this as more idealogical pondering, as it's not realistic with our government today.

ADD: Though doing away with the winner-take-all is a step in the right direction for capturing the non-majority voices as it will at least put people whose voices have been over run election after election on the map. This policy should also improve voter turnout. Wish the changes would be synchronized and uniform to take political agendas out of the picture though. I guess I'm just a dreamer.

the electoral college is indeed a very strange vehicle to select our president and vice president, but at the same time it has worked well. at least most years it has...

did you know that the delegates are not actually bound to vote for the candidate they were linked to? iow a delegate can say he is voting for candidate X but when they go to the college they can vote however they please. there's no way to stop them once they are selected at the state level.

the idea that the state's electors are given in a "winner take all" environment seems to be contrary to the concept of proportional representation, but then when we have elections we don't have the candidates serve according to how many votes they received. the winner of the popular vote occupies that office for their entire term not for 55% of the time if that was their vote total of the whole total votes cast.

I'm favorable to the proportional distribution of the electoral votes, that would limit the probability of a candidate getting the majority of popular votes but losing the electoral college vote (remember 2000?). that will also make the election much more interesting in a state that tends to always vote one party over the other, for instance we didn't have much democratic campaigning here in tx the last two elections, but with a proportional division we would have seen the candidates here a time or two.

but it is a state issue, and each state gets to decide what they want.

and btw dude, we are a representitve republic.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

and btw dude, we are a representitve republic.

Thanks...I'm pretty sure I know how it works but I was struggling with the exact terminology.