Political: Could 2004 be worse than 2000 ?

[doubletrouble_vb]

...Methinks the small states may have a bigger overrepresentation now than they should have. Right now candidates don't bother going to, or advertising in states they believe they have in the bag ...or have lost decisively.

They do need to carry a greater punch than their numbers but not to the degree it is now.

If I ruled the world...

You wouldn't need an electoral college but let's say I'd let it go along anyway... I'd encourage states to shift away from winner take all. I can see why the small states want it but it doesn't make sense for the voters in the biggest states.

 

[AirForceRocks]

You wouldn't need an electoral college but let's say I'd let it go along anyway... I'd encourage states to shift away from winner take all.

As would I. I believe that a couple of states have already abandoned the winner takes all strategy. If memory serves, there are two (I think Maine and somewhere else?) where electoral votes are apportioned by Congressional district, with the statewide winner getting the two statewide electoral votes.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
As would I. I believe that a couple of states have already abandoned the winner takes all strategy. If memory serves, there are two (I think Maine and somewhere else?) where electoral votes are apportioned by Congressional district, with the statewide winner getting the two statewide electoral votes.

Maine and Nebraska

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Bob Slydell
Maine and Nebraska

And Colorado is voting on a referendum to change their policy to match this in November.

Does an electoral vote in California not represent considerably more people than an electoral vote in, say West Virginia ? That being the case, why is it that my vote, as a West Virginian, should count for more than someone who lives in CA ? Or NY ? Or anywhere else, for that matter ?

I have no problem with an electoral college, if it's a fair system. Just make it simple: 1 vote for every x number of people.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Does an electoral vote in California not represent considerably more people than an electoral vote in, say West Virginia ?

About 50,000 more people per electoral vote in CA than in WV.

 

[jimmiej]

I heard a report Friday AM on some national news show (I think it was CNN Radio?) that said based on recent polling results, Bush appeared to be ahead by about 50 electoral votes. Speculation I know.

Several people I've heard on TV & radio have predicted a significant victory by one of the candidates & not the close vote we may be expecting. Should be interesting...

 

[wvrevy]

AFR...That's what I thought. So I, as a WV voter, have more say in who gets elected than a voter in California or New York, and I don't think that's fair. The problem is, it will never change because the Republicans know that those populace areas lean HEAVILY towards the democrats.

jimmiej - You heard wrong. According to this site , Bush has a lead by about 18 electoral votes, with razor thin margins (less than 5%) for either candidate in Nevada, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and both Colorado and Iowa are completely deadlocked. All of those states could easily swing one way or another by election day.

Great site for information, by the way...Keeps up with the most recent polls in each state and only reports the information, not any commentary.

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by wvrevy
AFR...That's what I thought. So I, as a WV voter, have more say in who gets elected than a voter in California or New York, and I don't think that's fair. The problem is, it will never change because the Republicans know that those populace areas lean HEAVILY towards the democrats.

I see your point, but if you go to any system based purely on population, the effect would be that the big cities would elect the preseident and the people in the heartland would lose their voice as they would not represent enough votes for any candidate to care what about their concerns. This is exactly what the electorial college is designed to avoid.

 

[AirForceRocks]

The problem is, it will never change because the Republicans know that those populace areas lean HEAVILY towards the democrats.

I wouldn't be so quick to lay the lack of change only at the feet of the Republicans. There are potential drawbacks to both parties if the current system is changed.

You mentioned one, i.e., changing to the method you mentioned will favor Democrats. That aside, I don't think it is feasible, logistically. There would have to be two amendments to the Constitution - one to change the way electors are assigned to the states (based on 1 elector per x people v. the current method) and a change to how often the census is taken. I can't imagine the expense and hassle of doinga census every four years instead of every ten years.

By the same token, the method currently used by Maine and Nebraska wouldn't be favored by the Democrats. Right now, they can pretty much count on all of the electoral votes in New York and California. Start handing out those electors by Congressional district, and they stand to lose quite a few electors.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by WDWHound
I see your point, but if you go to any system based purely on population, the effect would be that the big cities would elect the preseident and the people in the heartland would lose their voice as they would not represent enough votes for any candidate to care what about their concerns. This is exactly what the electorial college is designed to avoid.

Again, i have no problem with a system that fairly awards electoral votes based on the number of people. But why should 1 vote in West Virginia (or Alaska or Hawaii or any number of other states) matter more than 1 vote in California ? How is that not placing more emphasis on the "rural" vote and less on the cities ?

 

[AirForceRocks]

But why should 1 vote in West Virginia (or Alaska or Hawaii or any number of other states) matter more than 1 vote in California ?

Because the states are electing the President, not the individual citizens. And under the current system, though you are correct in saying that an individual vote in WV counts more than an individual vote in CA, this is somewhat leveled out by the fact that winning CA yields 18 times as many electors as winning WV.