Are we ready for one citizen one vote?

Bird of Prey · Oct 10, 2007

Pretty concise review of the purpose of the electoral college here: http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

I think the electoral college is failing us. I think it puts too much distance between the citizens and the president and gives rise to corruption on the highest level of government.

I also no longer believe that smaller states are protected by the system, as was once thought. Because we seemingly have a two party system, and the country appears to be polarized on several major issues, I see a great psychological disadvantage for the average American that realizes that his vote may not be actually counted. I think the electoral college is designed to impair the will of the average American to expect the highest office to respond to the people as it should, and with the best interest of the majority of Americans at heart. I think we the people need a direct line to our highest representatives.

I think the time has come. . .one person: one vote.

Abolish the electoral college.

InfinityGoddess · Oct 10, 2007

Amen.

William Haskins · Oct 10, 2007

Bird of Prey said:
I also no longer believe that smaller states are protected by the system, as was once thought.

you can't just gloss over this issue on the basis of what you "believe". we're not talking about the tooth fairy or baby jesus.

what evidence can you present that smaller states won't suffer under EC abolition?

Bird of Prey · Oct 10, 2007

Well, let me reverse this, William, and ask you how they will be hurt?

Because with the advent of mass communication and huge corporate stakes, states are losing their identity as, for example: "a farming community" or "a ranching community." A state's character and community has been eclipsed by national/corporate.

States have taken on the corporate identities headquartered within. As such the individual will - even on the state level - is diminished in comparison to corporate lobbyists.

If we abolish the electorial, we put power back in the hands of individuals. We transmit - if you will - the real agenda of the country: individual interests.

donroc · Oct 10, 2007

Back in the hands of individuals = multi-party system, which may well create a real tyrrany of a religious or ethnic party and more lack of a will to politically compromise within a political party. We are the United STATES of America, not the United INDIVIDUALS of America. Those dead white Christian and Deistic males did a fine job given the alternatives. I am for keeping the Electoral system as is.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

whistlelock · Oct 10, 2007

Personally, I want it gone. Let each voice be counted. I dislike the electoral college, and especially the all or nothing set up it is now.

If the people elect a theocrat, fine. The people have spoken. Don't expect me to sit quietly and not speak out about what I believe.

Senators and Representatives are already on the one person= one vote system, and I don't think it's done (much) harm.

I'm a die-hard liberal living in a die-hard red state. It's doubtful that anyone with a liberal mindset will be elected to a major political office in Texas for many many years.

and I still want one person= one vote.

Bird of Prey · Oct 10, 2007

At this juncture, I think the electoral college sends a dangerous message to a presidential candidate, which is: don't worry, you can lie a little, let the lobbyists sway you a little, even to the point of not putting America's best interests ahead of everything else. . .because, well you don't exactly represent the people.

I mean there's this bizarre arm's length from the population, almost as if the president is a monarch. . . as if the founding fathers couldn't quite let go of the idea. And I think it worked for awhile when the country was smaller and not an industrialized nation, but that was then and this is now.

William Haskins · Oct 10, 2007

fortunately, it would require smaller states to vote against their own interests in an act of political suicide in order to amend the constitution. so this remains an academic discussion.

SC Harrison · Oct 10, 2007

Bird of Prey said:
Well, let me reverse this, William, and ask you how they will be hurt?

This is just a hypothetical, but what if:

a Presidential candidate wanted to reform property taxes by Federalizing them, and then changing the criteria from % of property value to actual land footprint per person.

Urbanites would realize a huge benefit from this, suburbanites might come out slightly better, while rural landowners would suffer a great deal. Going strictly from the popular count and no geographical considerations, those rural landowners would have to rely on the sympathies of city-dwellers.

Which they already do anyway to a certain extent, but that doesn't fit into my crazy scenario, so ignore it.

Bird of Prey · Oct 10, 2007

William Haskins said:
fortunately, it would require smaller states to vote against their own interests in an act of political suicide in order to amend the constitution. so this remains an academic discussion.

Excuse me but in this day and age, that's ridiculous.

InfinityGoddess · Oct 10, 2007

William Haskins said:
fortunately, it would require smaller states to vote against their own interests in an act of political suicide in order to amend the constitution. so this remains an academic discussion.

Speaking as someone from a very small state (and the most densely populated, I might add), I don't see how it would be voting against my own best interests to be rid of the Electoral College.

Bird of Prey · Oct 10, 2007

SC Harrison said:
This is just a hypothetical, but what if:

a Presidential candidate wanted to reform property taxes by Federalizing them, and then changing the criteria from % of property value to actual land footprint per person.

Urbanites would realize a huge benefit from this, suburbanites might come out slightly better, while rural landowners would suffer a great deal. Going strictly from the popular count and no geographical considerations, those rural landowners would have to rely on the sympathies of city-dwellers.

Which they already do anyway to a certain extent, but that doesn't fit into my crazy scenario, so ignore it.

Let me give you a reverse example: farm subsidies as in say, crp.

Used to be the little farmer somewhere say in rural Illinois would reap an ample benefit for not growing grain, etc. to supposedly maintain a healthy soil and preserve wildlife, etc.

You know who reaps the benefit of that program now on HUGE tracts of land? Yeah, ag corporations and immensely wealthy real estate investors.

SC Harrison · Oct 10, 2007

Bird of Prey said:
You know who reaps the benefit of that program now on HUGE tracts of land? Yeah, ag corporations and immensely wealthy real estate investors.

Right. But look, try to stick to my crazy scenario, alright?

A couple living in a suburban house on a 1/2 acre lot valued at $250,000, versus a couple living in the sticks in a house on 4 acres, property value $65,000. By popular vote, the country folks pay eight times as much in property taxes as their suburban counterpart, and probably 40 times as much as their urban counterpart.

William Haskins · Oct 10, 2007

Bird of Prey said:
Excuse me but in this day and age, that's ridiculous.

perhaps you'd like to speculate on which 38 states would decide that such an amendment would be in their best interest?

it'll never happen.

Bird of Prey · Oct 10, 2007

SC Harrison said:
Right. But look, try to stick to my crazy scenario, alright?

A couple living in a suburban house on a 1/2 acre lot valued at $250,000, versus a couple living in the sticks in a house on 4 acres, property value $65,000. By popular vote, the country folks pay eight times as much in property taxes as their suburban counterpart, and probably 40 times as much as their urban counterpart.

But that's what makes you so endearingly crazy, SC!!

I don't think it can happen that way.

Because. . . state's rights are and will continue to preside over property tax? But Federal subsidies are another matter.

I kinda see where you're going with this in terms of districts, but I think it's fairly obvious that people will simply abandon their rural houses and the tax burden would by default be rearranged because those same people - if they chose to stay and pay - would probably pay no income tax at all because of their property tax deduction? . . . and it's such a crazy scenario that I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it?

Bird of Prey · Oct 10, 2007

William Haskins said:
perhaps you'd like to speculate on which 38 states would decide that such an amendment would be in their best interest?

it'll never happen.

It's in the individual's best interests, Mr. Haskins. And the individual - recognizing that it empowers him/her as a citizen and an individual - will be all for it.

Individuals will override state control interests.

William Haskins · Oct 10, 2007

i'll leave you to your soapbox.

it's not going to happen, and in my opinion, that's a good thing.

i've got james madison on my side, and i can rest easy with that.

davids · Oct 10, 2007

To rest easily with the bones of aged men is to sit in mire and discontent.

One hundred percent agree with everything you said so eloquently BOP!

Bird of Prey · Oct 10, 2007

William Haskins said:
i'll leave you to your soapbox.

it's not going to happen, and in my opinion, that's a good thing.

i've got james madison on my side, and i can rest easy with that.

Oh. Well, um . .

he's dead.

And so he has remained for nearly two hundred years.

Susan Gable · Oct 10, 2007

I'm an individual. But since I understand that the purpose of the Electoral College is to "even" things out so that the states with lesser populations have as much to do with electing the President as do the populous areas, I'm in favor of keeping the system as it is.

Otherwise, the city folks will totally be telling everyone else in the country how things are going to go.

Here's an example on a smaller scale. Here where I live (just outside of Erie) the city of Erie wants one of the other local suburbs, Millcreek, to "join" Erie. They say it will be SO much better to combine so that there is only ONE set of police, one school system, one fire department (never mind that the Millcreek fire departments are volunteer and the city's are paid. Never mind that the city's school distric pales in comparison to Millcreek's.)

This will more than likely never happen. Because the city folks outnumber the suburb folks. So if the suburb "joins" the city, the interests of the people who live in the suburb of Millcreek will be overrun by the city folks. Because they have the numbers.

So, the Millcreek people will never vote to join the city. Because once they do that, their voices will not be heard again. Their numbers will no longer matter.

Same thing with the Electoral College. If it goes away, all the big population centers will be the only ones whose voices/votes will matter in the Presidental election. The votes of the individuals in the other areas won't matter at all. Because they don't have the numbers.

This is why the Founding Fathers set up this system. Just like they set up both the House (representation based on population) and the Senate (representation based on EQUAL voices for every state.)

Electoral College is not the demon some people might want to make it out to be.

Susan G.

William Haskins · Oct 10, 2007

davids said:
To rest easily with the bones of aged men is to sit in mire and discontent.

One hundred percent agree with everything you said so eloquently BOP!

he helped build a nation.

these low-rent punks today can't even solicit gay sex without fucking it up...

davids · Oct 10, 2007

William Haskins said:
he helped build a nation.

these low-rent punks today can't even solicit gay sex without fucking it up...

Well said indeed!

Rolling Thunder · Oct 10, 2007

Bird of Prey said:
But that's what makes you so endearingly crazy, SC!!

I don't think it can happen that way.

Because. . . state's rights are and will continue to preside over property tax? But Federal subsidies are another matter.

I kinda see where you're going with this in terms of districts, but I think it's fairly obvious that people will simply abandon their rural houses and the tax burden would by default be rearranged because those same people - if they chose to stay and pay - would probably pay no income tax at all because of their property tax deduction? . . . and it's such a crazy scenario that I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it?

You really can't believe this, can you, BoP? I live in a rural area in a tiny 1200 sqft house. People all around me are building expensive 3500+ sqft homes. You wouldn't expect me to leave because I choose to live with less, right?

I don't get what you mean about the income tax deduction though.

plnelson · Oct 10, 2007

Bird of Prey said:
I think the time has come. . .one person: one vote.

Abolish the electoral college.

I agree. Anyone who does not live in a swing state is effectively disenfranchised by the EC. I can't remember when the last time was that we had an election where the Massachusetts outcome wasn't fully predictable months in advance. So effectively, our votes don't count!

Jamesaritchie · Oct 10, 2007

Bird of Prey said:
Abolish the electoral college.

Never. It would be the death of elections, and about 60% of the country would lose all reason to go to the polls and vote at all. Despite the problems with the electoral college, doing away with it would essentially mean every President would be elected by four states. There's nothing good about that in any way.

Are we ready for one citizen one vote?

Benefactor Member

Goddess of Infinity

poet

Benefactor Member

Historicals and Horror rule

Whiskey Rebel

Benefactor Member

poet

Dances With Hamsters

Benefactor Member

Goddess of Infinity

Benefactor Member

Dances With Hamsters

poet

Benefactor Member

Benefactor Member

poet

Benefactor Member

Dreamer of dreams, teller of tales

poet