Electoral College

Post Reply New Topic

He's referring to the fact that it's possible to win the Presidency with just under a quarter of the popular votes; i.e., you could win by a razor-thin margin in 270 votes' worth of states, and lose unamimously in all the other states.

And I have never heard one good reason why such a candidate should win.

Good point - but I was actually referring to the fact that only around half of your electorate ever bothers to vote (as the rest are given nothing to vote for by your utterly corrupted political system, and so doesn't bother - you can vote for a multi-millionaire, special-interest backed, white, male, middle class, right wing nutcase..... or another multi-millionaire, special-interest backed, white, male, middle class, slightly less right wing nutcase..... if you want to call that "democracy", then you're free to do so - self-delusion isn't illegal) - Presidents generally get around half of the votes of people who actually do vote, therefore a quarter of the available popular votes.

It seems that this fact is always overlooked in the American psyche - "Bush got more than half the vote" I've been told on these boards..... No he didn't - he got around a quarter, which is a very different thing.....

TAFKASH wrote

Cheers mate!

cigars all round!

Perhaps that is the bigger problem, but he did get over half the vote. If someone chooses not to vote then that is part of the system, you can't say he did not get over half, if the other chose not to vote, he got half of the ones that did and those are the ones that cared enough about the political system to vote. I don't know that any nation ever gets a vast majority of the eligable voters to vote, polls don't count everyone either but they are supposed be accurate to within 3-5% all the time and that is with about what 1000 polsters on average, if 50 million vote that is a far more accurate respresenation. As I was saying that those that don't vote may be the bigger problem as why only a select few as you say manage to run, but then I would have to say it can't be that bad, because there is still primaries and elections and that is alot of scrutinty for a what you would say a rich non deserving person to go through successfully even with money. Ross Perot was very rich, but money alone does not buy the election, so your argument therefore loses a lot of its leverage with that example alone, and he ran at least twice. I would not classify Lincoln, Truman, Nixon, Ford, or even Carter as being super rich. I am sure there are plenty of examples of non elitists in the U.S. Goverenment and a few presidents. And it will gradually change, but that change will come ever so slowly if people simply complain, but don't attempt to make any actual improvements.

Why are you expressing such anti american sentiments TAFKASH? The americans have not had any serious problems with Britain since 1815, and here you and some other Brits are telling us, in no uncertain words your system is better, though not much. That is hardly the way allies behave. You seem to have more sentiment for the fanactical nutcases that started all this back in what the 1960's when they could not crush Israel by outright force so they did the chicken cowardly backstabing wussy tactic of terrorism. Gee and I would think the British would have had enough of their own terrorist experience with Ireland. I would have expected a bit more sympathy and understanding. We have been isolationist before, just like China and Japan, and would probably love to go back to that, but with the far reaching impact of their acts that is out of our hands right now.

I get Bush is a nut because he is crazy enough to think that Iraq might want freedom and not to be ruled by a brutal, warmongering, empire seeking, selfish, murdering, hitman, freak like Saddam. Yes, he should have let the jerk continue to slaughter his own people, defy U.N. sanctions and resolutions in light of a lost war he started, rebuild his army, build chem and bio weapons once he conned the U.N. into thinking he was nice and peace loving, research nukes, attack Turkey, Chechnya, Jordan, and Syra because he had not tried them yet, build a hostile and vast Arabian empire, and thus become a bigger threat than the Soviets ever were. Yeah, thats a way to go. Maybe if we are lucky we can get many more nations to become hostile empire building nations just like the old colonial days, that makes sense. Just think about it, millions or billions dead, wow, no more overpopulation worries then, and eventually we would be forced to become muslims, and the violence and terrorism still would not end, since they really only seak blackmail, money, power, or some other selfish and one or a few guys, reasons.

I guess Bush is nuts, he did not eradicate Iraq and keep millions of U.S. troops in Iraq and then start colonizing it with millions of Americans so we can get a new territory, instead he wants to rebuild Iraq and give power back to the people, what is he thinking? And holy cow, he gave millions of Americans taxbreaks, what government give money back to its citizens and lowers taxes, they should always increase taxes well beyond double our income, of course, now I see the light.

They don't vote because they have nothing to vote for - they are not allowed to have anything to vote for in your system. If I gave you a "choice" between being shot in the head or being shot in the heart, I doubt you would call that a choice, and I somehow doubt that you would readily vote for either..... Your political system allows for no choice and no democracy to the extent that most of your population is disenfranchised and is incapable of voting, and to a vastly greater extent than happens in other "democracies" (e.g. in the UK general election turnouts are generally around 70% to 75%). Yes, voter apathy and non-turnout is a major problem in all countries, but that is not the main reason behind low turnout in the States.....

Ross Perot wasn't allowed to be elected because your media wouldn't let anyone take him seriously - that's another major anti-democratic factor in your system......

And what in the blue hell does being "allies" have to do with anything? And while we're on the subject of the IRA, what about Noraid, hmmmmm?

Epimonandas:

And this is what I was saying!
the US cabinet have no electoral mandate yet exercise huge POLITICAL power, taking descisions which affect policy.

In the UK every mamber of the cabinet must be a member of the commons or lords (only about 3 from the lords), most are MPs in their own right and HAVE BEEN ELECTED!



Our system is better cause it has had 200 years of evolution over yours!

When the colonies rebelled/ fought for independance the system you created was basically a copy of the British system of the time.
Powerful King taking most foreign policy descisions, Bicameral legislature controlling the cash.
you just called the king a president.
But we had George3 go loopy and bit by bit the power has moved from the monarch/ president to the parliament

The main problem is that American presidents have almost no real domestic power therefore want to "stride the world stage", but refuse to agree a set of rules for the game.
You want to be the world policeman?
Well policemen have to obey the law too!

Perhaps, TAFKASH, but that is the freedom of our nation. The Press have the freedom to be biased and namecall whoever they want to, but they have limits in expressing facts that they must be backed up when down so in public because then they can be sued for libel or slander, but politicians rarely do this whether or not they could. It could be an image thing. The people have the freedom to be lassez faire and let others make their decisions for them or they can find a candidate among them, write, petition, affect laws and policies if enough votes can be gathered among the so-called dissaffected. (I have a hard time saying that, it will never change if they do nothing but complain, they must act, they must vote and voice their opinions, sitting back and complaining that you have no choice is ridiculous if you never do anything to try to affect those changes you seek), they have the power they just choose not to use it, that is not the same as being unable, so you cannot use that argument, anyone can raise money to compete with the rich or garner attention to get those votes or make changes. It might be difficult to do, but it is not impossible as you seem to imply, difficult is not the same as impossible and lots of things in life are difficult, if you think that something like that is impossible than I can presume you think anything with a minor challenge is too hard and not worth doing.

Neotopian,
I don't know why you seem so concerned about our cabinet, it is not the same as yours. I don't care that they aren't elected. They are not supposed to be, we vote for presidents and they appoint those they can trust to advise them as the cabinet, they don't generally act without the presidents approval anyway, but that would not mean they could not mislead him, which happened in Warren G. Harding's case, that is why it is rarely a problem, because they choose people they can trust, and if they can't or lose that trust, they can be FIRED and another appointed. Not all our offices are elected or even supposed to be, it is good to have a mix. You don't elect a McDonalds crewman, or a postal worker, or a police officer, the last two being government positions.


Whoopie doo- you had 200 years. You also made more blunders then we did, especially on the worldwide stage and the time your nation behave like world policman. Lets list some examples: 150 years as a nationwide drug cartel, murdering natives and stealing their land (something else Americans picked up from U.K.), Slave trade, subjecting many nations, allowing jealousy to dictate entrance into a war started by terrorists, kidnapping foreigners and forcing their servitude, being vengeful and heartless enough to subject a losing nation in war to a peace so harsh they flocked to the first idiot that promised better days, breaking up nations based on imagined borders instead of listening to good advice thereby setting the stage for decades of wars and terrorist acts. Yep you guys have quite a history and that 200 years of development really helped to become better oppressors.

Epimonandas

we outlawed it before you did



You mean Germany after WW1? weren't you involved in that one too?
and effectivly dictated many of the peace terms.



And your "war on Drugs is going soo well! Just how many dictators do you support in south america? i lose count. At least we made a profit.
most of the problems with drugs are either caused or made worse BECAUSE of prohibition.


and so can ours, but they have some kind of mandat to be there in the first place over that one goy who is in hock to so many party donors that he has to repay the favour with influence in govt.
cough cough haliburton cough cough.



Yes, and it gives us some perspective.

America (under both paties, though worse under the republicans) acts like a self rightous teenager.

I am reminded of all those school shootings you have.

some kid with no real pain in the world (not starving, being forced to fight in a war) feels outrage and anger at percived injustices against him so lashes out indiscriminatly, just to feel powerful.
big weapon, big man.

as the old saying goes
"when I was 17 I was shocked at how little my father knew, by the time I was 25 I was amazed at how much he had learned."

You are a young nation still, and we as you parent lost control of you. and now you're just to powerful.

the rest of the world just hopes you can grow up soon.

That is the single most ridiculous argument I have ever heard..... (no offence) Pravda had the freedom and right to namecall whoever they wanted to ensure the survival of the Soviet political system...... Allowing rich and powerful men to have unlimited power to control election results through the press is the most inordinately anti-democratic thing imaginable, and yet you try to claim it as a strength of US "democracy" that this is allowed as a fundamental cornerstone of your system?????????????????????????? Sorry, can't quite get my head around that one, old chap.......



It was actually the French who were the main drivers behind Versailles - the British wanted to be much more lenient to Germany in the peace terms, but France wanted revenge for the Franco-Prussian War......

Maybe, but didn't you start it and have before us?

Yes, but Wilson did warned Britain and France and urged them not to be so harsh on Germany.

But that 150 years of Drug pushing and wars Britain was involved in killed at least 20 million in wars as a result of your nation's drug pushing and addicted at least half a nation.

So. Ours was created to help make the presidents job more manageable, like assistents, not elected officials. There is no comparison, yours might be elected and might have been designed that way. So what? Ours was designed by our nation for our president.

And yet you criticize us so harshly despite having far less time to learn that and yet make fewer mistakes and fewer deaths and wars.


No. (No.) And if it were so, our nation is not as old as yours. But I still say no. Your nation perhaps acts like and overbearing father.

So. You have kids killing kids in your nation too.
as the old saying goes
"when I was 17 I was shocked at how little my father knew, by the time I was 25 I was amazed at how much he had learned."

You are a young nation still, and we as you parent lost control of you. and now you're just to powerful.
[/quote]
Nag, nag, nag. See what I mean, overbearing.

Yes, they have the right to print whatever they want, but if you read the rest of my statement, if the press goes over the line or prints inaccurate information, they can be charged or sued, hence they have such things as retractions and going out of business.

Epimonandas

Before then you Were us!! !



Isn't that what every teenager thinks about his parents?

and then when they grow up they realise it was actually good advice

Enough. This is well off topic and is becoming tiresome on both sides. One more snide comment aimed at each other's countries and this topic will be locked.

Bringing this thread back on topic:

From a mathematical point of view, the Electoral College is the worst election system ever devised. For example:

• It's possible for a candidate to win 71% of the popular vote, including unanimous victories in 39 states and DC, and still lose the election!
• Suppose that just before the 2000 census, a million people moved to California, and all of them voted for Bush in 2004. All other things being equal, this would have caused Bush to lose an electoral vote to Kerry! (California would still be a blue state, but it would gain an electoral vote at the expense of North Carolina.)
• The size of the House of Representatives, which determines the size of the Electoral College, is not specified in the Constitution, but by an ordinary law that could be changed at Congress' whims. Bush owes his 2000 victory to the 62nd Congress (1911-1913), who decided that the House should have 435 members instead of 492.

how is that possible? even if most of america lived in one state, it would get that many more electoral votes added. California had 45 electoral votes a few years ago, now it has 54. Ohio used to have 27, now it has 21. New York lost about 10, and Florida gained 8 or 9 votes over the last few elections. Does that argument truthfully take that into account? Only 3 electoral votes per state are mandatory, 2 for senators and 1 for rep (or popular). The more populous the state the more votes it gets, thus it is not that far off, it just spreads out a minimal equality so all states get some say in every election, but the popular vote still has a lot of weight in the electoral college.

How is what possible? I'm going to assume you mean my third bullet point.

The Constitution does not specify the exact size of the House of Representatives, but only that a state must have a minimum of one representative, and a maximum of one representative for every 30 000 people. Currently, this means that the House can have anywhere between 50 and 9356 representatives (but "only" 9172 is possible under the current apportionment algorithm).

In a 50-member House, the Electoral College would give equal representation to each state, but since the House is tended to reflect population, this creates a huge bias in favor of small states. A very large House (7485 members is optimal) would assign seats very nearly proportional to population.

In 2000, a 50-member House would give Bush a 90-63 victory in the Electoral College. But a house size of 8148 (the largest constitutionally permitted at the time) would have given Gore a 4260-4005 victory. Bush won more states (which is reflected in the vote of a small EC), but Gore won states with larger populations (which is reflected in the vote of a large EC).

By the Intermediate Value Theorem, there should be a House size between 50 and 8148 that results in a tie. The smallest is a House size of 491, which produces a 594-member EC, apportioned like this:

• Alabama: 10
• Alaska: 3
• Arizona: 9
• Arkansas: 7
• Colorado: 9
• Florida: 28
• Georgia: 15
• Idaho: 4
• Indiana: 13
• Kansas: 7
• Kentucky: 9
• Louisiana: 10
• Missisippi: 7
• Missouri: 12
• Montana: 4
• Nebraska: 5
• Nevada: 4
• New Hampshire: 4
• North Carolina: 15
• North Dakota: 3
• Ohio: 23
• Oklahoma: 8
• South Carolina: 9
• South Dakota: 3
• Tennesee: 12
• Texas: 36
• Utah: 5
• Virginia: 14
• West Virginia: 6
• Wyoming: 3

Bush total: 297

• California: 61
• Connecticut: 9
• Delaware: 3
• Hawaii: 4
• Illinois: 25
• Iowa: 8
• Maine: 4
• Maryland: 11
• Massachusetts: 14
• Michigan: 20
• Minnesota: 11
• New Jersey: 17
• New Mexico: 5
• New York: 38
• Oregon: 8
• Pennsylvania: 25
• Rhode Island: 4
• Vermont: 3
• Washington: 12
• Wisconsin: 12
• D.C.: 3

Gore total: 297

The 492nd representative, and therefore the 595th elector, would go to Pennsylvania, giving Gore the election.

(However, there are some house sizes larger than 492 (but no more than 596) for which Bush would win. For details, look here.



This isn't at all relevant to my post. I'm taking about a single election, but with a different size for the electoral college.



The EC does not guarantee that all states get a say.

Consider the situation you mentioned earlier: "if most of america lived in one state". If California had 270 electoral votes, the other states wouldn't matter at all.

It's not even necessary to have a majority of the population in one state in order for other states to be powerless. Consider the original Banzhaf problem. The Nassau County Board of Directors used a block voting system like the EC, with 6 districts with 2, 2, 21, 28, 31, and 31 votes. It can be shown that this is equivalent to giving 1 vote each to the 3 largest districts and excluding everyone else from the election.