posted
I have a question that, as a voter, is starting to bother me. Not too long ago (like last year) you could bet what the Presidential race would look like from certain primary states. Currently that dynamic is changing. More States are trying to become the first or near the front of the primary season.
I would like to know opinions on this move. Will it change the dynamics of party outcomes? Will states become more important while others less? Is there any differences you can see, or is it just state profile issues? What is the reason states are trying to move primaries ahead of schedual? Help me understand.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty big for a state when millions of dollars are spent in ads there. Winning a state means you are now the more likely candidate. After the first few states, the frontrunner is solid, and pretty obvious.
Ergo, being a first primary state means you are more important to a candidate which means more money.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Earlier primaries mean better presidents!"
How? You now have less time to get to know the candidates. Actually, I wouldn't mind having one big voting convention and get rid of primaries altogether.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Florida, we moved ours up so we got an actual say in who gets nominated. A lot of candidates drop out after the first half dozen primaries. We wanted to vote while there were still all the candidates to choose from.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Earlier primaries mean better presidents!"
How? You now have less time to get to know the candidates. Actually, I wouldn't mind having one big voting convention and get rid of primaries altogether.
I'm pretty sure Sam was joking.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would rather see primaries handled nationally, all at once, or on dates that are determined randomly for each election. But there are strategic reasons why neither of these things will happen.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Tom, although I think randomized dates would work better than a single-day national primary.
Altering the primary schedule is a complex issue. The current system has the advantage of allowing candidates with less spending power a chance to make an impact by focusing their limited resources on one or two states early on. By winning an early state like Iowa or New Hampshire, a dark horse candidate can establish news buzz; the resultant raised profile can catapult the candidate to victory in later primaries as well. John Kerry's nomination was a version of this- although he had plenty of money and media attention, he was generally considered a weak contender after the rise of Howard Dean. However, his victory in the Iowa caucuses immediately established him as the new frontrunner, and he ended up riding that victory all the way to the nomination (aided in no small part by the media's silly fixation on Dean's "scream").
Of course, early states therefore have disproportionate power in the nomination process. Citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire are traditionally more politically aware than your average American, and they have often argued that this qualifies the states to maintain their position as the starting gun for the primaries. But this means that states which hold later primaries (especially those which are scheduled after Super Tuesday) frequently have little, if any say at all. In addition, opponents of the early Iowan caucuses and New Hampshire primaries point out that neither state's demographics accurately represents the nation as a whole.
Holding primaries nation-wide on one day would allow states that have traditionally been marginalized in the primary process, like New Jersey and Montana (who in 2004 had their Democratic primaries 13 weeks after everybody other than Kerry had dropped out), to have some say in the nomination. However, it also means that dark horse candidates' chances of winning is drastically decreased, since they now have to compete on a national level with rivals that are much better-funded, and who often have better connections in both government and the media.
I think that staggering the presidential primaries, with dates selected either randomly or on a rotating basis for each state, would provide the best of both worlds. Less well-known/funded candidates still have the opportunity to prove themselves on a smaller stage, while avoiding the endless advantage currently enjoyed by Iowa and New Hampshire's population, which skew more wealthy, white, and rural than the national average. Unfortunately, as Tom said, this will probably never happen.
Incidentally, I think the system that is taking shape this year is possibly the *worst* of both worlds. We're frontloading the primaries, giving the big name candidates an advantage and rendering the few remaining later states completely mute, while still letting the traditional early primary states have their leads (although Nevada managed to jump in between Iowa and New Hampshire).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Incidentally, I think the system that is taking shape this year is possibly the *worst* of both worlds."
I completely agree, and that is why I brought this up. What is going on right now is completely arbitrary and seems to me to bring a kind of confusion that will wreck havoc on all the candidates. Not to mention make the voters such as myself scratch my head trying to understand what it all means. When most people don't vote anyway, they don't need more reasons to become jaded from not understanding what is going on.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many states are moving up their primaries because they want a say in what happens, and are sick of more or less not mattering. New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina used to define the race, and then Super Tuesday sealed the deal. Less than half the states decided the candidate. Nevada was added between New Hampshire and Iowa this year as a bone to the West, and to recognize the growing power of the Democrats in the West.
I like New Hampshire being out in front in the primaries. There's an established system there, it's a small state, so candidates meet and greet people on a personal level, and the citizens are used to demanding answers from potential candidates.
States are sick of being last to the table, and they are moving up to try and get first dibs on being able to speak to their issues.
Three things I think would fix all this:
1. Eliminate the electoral college.
2. Public financing of elections.
3. Stagger the primaries, have them by regional blocs, and keep the results secret until they are all done.
To cover them one by one,
1. It's horribly outdated. It's a throwback from a time when we didn't have phones, the internet, television, etc. It makes vast swaths of the country more or less unimportant to presidential contenders. Democrats don't bother visiting the Bible Belt very much, or Idaho, or other traditional Republican strongholds, just like Republicans don't bother with Democratic strongholds. The wars are fought in battleground states, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and a couple others that sometimes swing back and forth that are worth a lot of votes. They get the bulk of the campaign money, the bulk of the voter turnout efforts, and the bulk of the presidential candidate visits. As a result, candidates can virtually ignore specific issues to lesser states only worth 3 electoral votes. Furthermore, votes more or less don't count. If 10,000,000 people in Michigan vote for a Republican, but 10,000,001 vote for a Democrat, those 10,000,000 people just lost their voice, and especially in states where the outcome is more or less considered predetermined, a great many people don't even bother voting. Why waste the effort when you KNOW that your vote will have ZERO effect on the national outcome? Those 10,000,000 Republican votes should have gone towards the national total, and people who apathetically don't bother might come out and vote, and swell voter turnout. The College is pointless, and only serves as a massive bump in the road for democracy.
2. Put everyone on equal footing. It shouldn't be about who can raise the most money, money shouldn't control the elections. It shouldn't be about only rich people running, it should be about anyone with good ideas who is qualified having the chance to run. Money DOMINATES campaigns right now. Candidates are considered viable based on who can bring in the most money, and the top earners are often the frontrunners. Money allows candidates to buy massive amounts of media points, flood the air with scientifically tested TV ads that mess with the psychology of the people they want voting for them. They have an insane advantage over less funded candidates. Time to put everyone on an even playing field, we should be judging candidates on their ideas and sense, not their dollars and cents.
3. Staggering them would be to give the candidates a chance to make it to all the states. Having it be on one day, limits the amount of time candidates have to campaign. Look at how things are going this year, they've already been running for six months, and when the Hyper Tuesday vote is over, whatever states are left won't matter, the results will be decided, we'll have our candidates. Further, with so many primaries on a single day, candidates don't have enough time to visit all those states, and don't have the time to address all their issues. Do it in blocs, and start earlier. If you consider things already start in November now, move up the filing deadline. Give them from November to February to file, and then from, really, November to August to do their debates and public speeches. Doing it in blocs allows the candidates to focus in areas. They could do the Pacific Northwest nations, getting around quickly and easily, and then those states could vote, and so on and so forth until all the states have voted, by the end of February or March or whenever it usually ends, giving the final candidates time to do their national head to head (to head, if lucky).
The point to keeping the results secret is to make sure early elections don't have national reprecussions. The point to having state caucuses and primaries anyway is so the candidates will visit state and address state issues. But instead we look and see the results of Iowa and New Hampshire, and don't vote for the guy who is seven people down, we vote for one of the front runners, but we MIGHT have voted for that guy if not for the wave of success people ride. There should be no free rides, they should have to fight for every state. At the end of the elections, the results will be tallied and we'll find out our candidates.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I implied above, I don't buy the "New Hampshire/ Iowa citizens are more politically aware, ergo their early primaries are justified" line of reasoning. Even if NHers and Iowans are, on average, better informed and more prone to asking hard-hitting questions than the average American, I don't think that it logically follows that they deserve a disproportionate say in the nominating process, election cycle after election cycle.
Regarding your three numbered points...
1. I'm in complete agreement with you here. Once the technology made it feasible, we should have switched immediately to a purely popular vote.
2. I agree in principle that elections should not be won by who has the most cash, but I disagree that private donations are inherently bad. Certainly grassroots fundraising based on small donations, of the sort that the Obama and Edwards campaigns are doing, is most definitely a good thing. Campaign finance policy, though, is a huuuuge quagmire that I don't feel qualified to fix, so I'm not really sure what should be done here.
3. I'm all for staggering the primaries, like I said, but I don't think the results need to be kept secret (if nothing else, that level of secrecy would be absolutely impossible). As I said in my last post, I think there is significant benefit to having one or two states' results reported early, as it allows less well-funded candidates a chance at some press if they do better than expected.
Incidentally, this statement...
quote:The point to keeping the results secret is to make sure early elections don't have national reprecussions.
...seems to me to contradict this statement...
quote:I like New Hampshire being out in front in the primaries. There's an established system there, it's a small state, so candidates meet and greet people on a personal level, and the citizens are used to demanding answers from potential candidates.
Why would that "established system" be at all useful, if it did not have "national repercussions"?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant for the status quo, not if my proposed changes were enacted. What happens in New Hampshire doesn't happen on the same scale anywhere else in the nation, especially given how whole states are totally ignored by candidates. Switching to staggered primaries and no electoral college should make New Hampshire type politicking the norm rather than the exception.
I'd love it if that system were in place in Michigan, and candidates spent as much time hitting major and rural Michigan cities to hear our issues.
3. Now that you mention it, exit polls would probably be good enough to get a decent guess at who won. I guess there's no way around that, but I like my plan better than the status quo still.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Never in my lifetime! I am so against doing this that I can concieve myself going to war over any change in the electorial college system. I don't live in one of the "important" states, but know enough about population that lesser states will become even less important. More voices won't be heard, they will be silenced!
The whole point of the electoral college is to allow a louder voice to those who otherwise would be completely drowned out by larger populated states. Where there are at least some middle population states with some importance, eliminate the electoral college and the East Coast and West coast would be among the ONLY places candidates would need to go. Middle America (even some that actually currently have some sway) would be shut out. Besides, the electorial college is already based around population. Just not to the degree of Mob enforcement by majority rules.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The electoral college "silences" far more voices than a popular vote. As it is, folks in states like California and New York who disagree with the prevailing local political viewpoint might as well not exist. You're a Republican, Occasional. Doesn't it bother you that the vast numbers of Republicans in California (who are far more numerous than most non-Californians realize) are essentially locked out of the presidential elections year after year?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tarrsk, no because I don't believe that is how it works. I am a REPUBLICAN (State's rights and representative government) for a reason other than a few political stances. Now, if you could prove to me what you say is true I might consider your point. Essentially, however, if the electorial college was gone, so goes for instance as I said any voice in other states BUT Califorinia and New York.
I am serious when I say there is a chance I would be violent if voting became a popular vote. I am one of those who believes such a situation will become dangerous to American democracy and we might as well give ourselves over to majority rules mobocracy. People are not trustworthy. An electorial college gives at least a little checks and balance in the system. I don't care if Republican voices are muted by your senerio. I am much more worried about smaller populated states becoming irrelavant (Democrat or Republican leaning).
quote:The whole point of the electoral college is to allow a louder voice to those who otherwise would be completely drowned out by larger populated states
That's a myth. Your tiny states with their 3 electoral votes already don't matter. No one speaks to their issues. No one visits them, and Republicans by and large take them for granted.
The electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with giving more power to the smaller states. Well, ever since the number of Reps in Congress was locked into place, I guess it might give them a tiny bit more power than they would have had. The Electoral College was originally conceived of for two reasons: The Founders felt average people were not well informed enough to make good choices, and figured if they all elected smarter people to make the decision for them, we'd get better results. And the biggest reason is technology. A national election across a nation as big as the 13 colonies were would take weeks or months to accomplish. Electors were chosen to represent their people, who could then travel to a central location and finish the election quickly. Again, nothing to do with helping smaller states.
When you think of the small state power balance, think of the Senate. The House gives more power to more populous states, and the Senate is the equalizer, because it balances the powers between the states in government equally, with two votes each. But the Electoral College apportions power based on population, in fact, the number of votes you have is largely based on the number of Reps you have in the House, and the House was the part of Congress that caters to the larger states. Everyone gets a base of two votes, for their senators, and then one each for their House Reps.
The protections in the Constitution and the Courts are what will ensure that the majority never displace or ruin the rights of the minority, but I don't really get what you think would happen if we had a popular Presidential election.
Many, many voices are muted by the Electoral College, you're worried about dangers to American Democracy? Under the Electoral College, we don't even have a true Democracy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your tiny states with their 3 electoral votes already don't matter. No one speaks to their issues. No one visits them, and Republicans by and large take them for granted.
Except New Hampshire of course. We are small and important.
I have to say, as a NH native I have no problem with being one of the early (and therefore influential) states. As a citizen of the US however I think that having all the primaries on the same day, or at least in the same week, would be more democratic and give the media and a limited number of people less power over the process. (Even though I do like being one of those people with power - pretty much everyone has been here in the past few weeks.)
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that is exactly why NH has vowed to always, always be first.
*shrug* I think it's an appalling abuse of the system. I can't believe it's been allowed to be this way.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
" but I don't really get what you think would happen if we had a popular Presidential election."
War between the larger East/West coasts and more urban states as the Presidents will continually be chosen by those larger populated places. You think that everyone will suddenly feel their votes will count. I believe they will feel less like their votes will count and blame it on people rather than a system. I think voting will become more personal and not in a good way.
I will say this once again - I DO NOT TRUST PEOPLE. Therefore, I DON'T WANT A TRUE DEMOCRACY, I AM A REPUBLICAN WITH THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE WORD. Like I have said time and again, I would agree with the founders, "average people were not well informed enough to make good choices, and figured if they all elected smarter people to make the decision for them, we'd get better results."
quote:Proponents of the Electoral College argue that organizing votes by regions forces a candidate to seek popular support over a majority of the country. Since a candidate cannot count on winning the election based solely on a heavy concentration of votes in a few areas, the Electoral College avoids much of the sectionalism that has plagued other geographically large nations, such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and the Roman Empire. Electoral College opponents, however, argue that this regional system can dilute the overall will of the people in close elections by thwarting the candidate with the popular majority. Considering the distrust the Constitution's framers had of direct democracy, this result can be viewed as a foreseeable and desirable result of the arrangement.
I am certainly in agreement with the constitution framers in distrusting direct democracy.
quote:The United States of America is a federal coalition; it consists of component states, each of which are joined in an alliance with what has, traditionally, been a small, state-controlled central government. . . in the end, the election of the President must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government
Sadly, that last part is close to having already become a reality. I for one do not want it pushed into overdrive through population elections.
quote:The Constitution separated government into three branches that check each other to minimize threats to liberty and encourage deliberation of governmental acts. Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the judiciary by the President and the Senate. The President was not directly elected in part due to fears that he could assert a national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the other branches, and potentially result in tyranny.
Again, I don't trust the people as a group. Rome fell because of such popular claptrap. I would even say that some current democracies are falling because of this.
There is one change I think would be good to impliment. Get rid of the idea of set numbers for states. I call it the "Risk game" solution. Every ten years there is a census, and with that the amount of State Electorate representation can be decided. The more people in the state (given some population quota) gets more electorate votes. No state can drop below say 3 electorate votes. That way, I believe, we can maintain electorial voting with a closer popular vote.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Earlier primaries mean better presidents!"
How? You now have less time to get to know the candidates. Actually, I wouldn't mind having one big voting convention and get rid of primaries altogether.
posted
Also, get rid of the electoral college. It creates voter apathy, and leaves the system more vulnerable to voter fraud swaying elections.
Besides, why bother defending a system that allows one Wyoming citizen to outvote four California citizens? Seems outright anti-democratic.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rather than eliminating the electoral college, I would rather prevent people from voting directly for the president and instead put their local electors' names on the ballot.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Besides, why bother defending a system that allows one Wyoming citizen to outvote four California citizens? Seems outright anti-democratic."
You could start by reading what I wrote in my defense of the system. Call me anti-democratic if you want, but America was not supposed to be a direct democracy.
TomD. I was actually thinking of that myself. However, I don't know if that would work as people want to vote for the President. Maybe if the people vote for the electors and then later the President. Seems like a waste of time. There hasn't been enough historical reasons to worry that the electors will go against the voters will.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is one change I think would be good to impliment. Get rid of the idea of set numbers for states. I call it the "Risk game" solution. Every ten years there is a census, and with that the amount of State Electorate representation can be decided. The more people in the state (given some population quota) gets more electorate votes. No state can drop below say 3 electorate votes. That way, I believe, we can maintain electorial voting with a closer popular vote.
That's already how we do it. Every 10 years there is a census, and depending on where people have moved into and out of, the number of electors is changed from state to state, I know Michigan has lost a few in the last couple checks. But the total number is capped, because it's tied to the number of Reps in the House. That's pretty much why those small states don't matter, you will NEVER have more than 3 electoral votes, because the number of people per elector rises every year as the US population rises. I think it's like 600,000 people now. Every 600,000 people you have, you get an elector. I don't even know if Alaska has 600,000 people in it, let alone the 1.8 million they get credit for. You're advocating the status quo.
Your argument above still makes no sense to me. You're afraid of larger states controlling the election right? Populations right now are centered in cities, especially in those bigger states, which really means a candidate can hit the hot spots and ignore the rural areas and collect more votes per visit that way. Further, with 535 votes up for grabs, you need 268 votes to win the presidency:
California - 55 Texas - 34 New York - 31 Florida - 27 Pennsylvania - 21 Illinois - 21 Ohio - 20 Michigan - 17 Georgia - 15 North Carolina - 15 New Jersey - 15
11 states out of 50 right now can win you the nomination. Spend all your time and money in those 11 states, win them, and the other 39 don't matter at all. You're worried about small states not mattering, and larger populations being charge of the vote, when under the current system a candidate would have to win:
MT, ND, SD, ID, NM, DE, DC, ME, VT, NH, RI, NE, AK, HI, and KS to come within a vote of competing with California. 15 small states equals one big state. Which means if I spend nothing in those 15 small states, and spend it all in the big state, and make 15 trips to that one big states, only have to take positions in that one big states instead of 15 other positions, my campaign is much easier, and I save time and money by doing that, and that's exactly what happens.
But, if all 15 of those states were up for grabs in a meaningful way, candidates would have to travel to more states to gather votes. Republicans will travel more to California for the Republicans in hiding there, Democrats will travel to Texas, and pretty much every state in Mountain Time Zone that hasn't voted Democratic in 10 years. Democrats will travel to the Bible Belt, where they have also been shut out recently, Republicans will travel to the liberal east coast.
It is FAR too easy right now for a candidate to win by pandering to his base and not speaking to the issues of a great many people who are left out in the cold.
And btw, you agree with the founders that average people are stupid, but the Founders made those decisions when the average person couldn't read and had no access to political information. The US has virtually 100% literacy, and information to every scrap of relevent information on the candidates via CNN and the internet. Their arguments are void these days. We have the technology for instantaneous same day voting, and the chance for people to make informed choices. The Founders could not have imagined the present state of technology.
Rome's Republic fell because of decadence, and an overly militaristic society that left armies more loyal to ambitious generals than to the government and the people. They didn't fall because the people directly elected Tribunes.
quote:War between the larger East/West coasts and more urban states as the Presidents will continually be chosen by those larger populated places. You think that everyone will suddenly feel their votes will count. I believe they will feel less like their votes will count and blame it on people rather than a system.
You're going to have to elaborate on that, because I have no idea what you're talking about. The president is already chosen by the people you're afraid of.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Call me anti-democratic if you want, but America was not supposed to be a direct democracy.
Uhh, you are right. It was supposed to be a democratic republic. And removing the electoral college does not change that, so .. I don't see how this makes sense as a counterpoint!
America was not originally supposed to be a lot of things. It was, however, designed to incorporate change. This is why more people get to vote today than the original body of white landowning males. Compared to the rather radical changes in elective process in America that have already occured, removal of the electoral college is simply a tidy little reform that makes the system work better!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eliminating the electoral college means that instead of vote fraud in a few close states, so that FBI, media, and bloggers can scrutinize those areas, we get to have it in every state in the union, since without the college, changing (say) Massachussetts from 80% Democrat to 81% or 79% has a nationwide effect. Creating an incentive for vote fraud nationwide is not an effective way to reduce it.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other words, there's probably already voter fraud in 50 states, but we only care about the ones where the electoral vote allocation might flip?
Maybe this needs sunlight shined on it anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why would there be vote fraud for Presidential elections, in states that aren't close? What would be the point? No matter how dishonest someone is, there's no point in doing vote fraud for Pres elections in states that aren't very close, which is almost all of them.
I'm saying that there isn't vote fraud in Presidential elections in all 50 states now, but if we change the system to make fraud useful everywhere, then it will spread.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shouldn't the answer be to have better protections against voter fraud then? No one ever said democracy is easy, we shouldn't cheat the people by allowing cheaters to win.
The last presidential election had a difference of 3 million votes. That'd be a pretty massive nationwide voter fraud effort. 3 million also isn't close, and I think most every state in 2004 had a difference of less than 3 million votes. If it's that easy to do, then again, I think we need to look at the problem anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Populations right now are centered in cities, especially in those bigger states, which really means a candidate can hit the hot spots and ignore the rural areas and collect more votes per visit that way.
Except that in Florida, the rural population elected W when the big cities voted for Gore. Never underestimate that senior vote. They actually show up, unlike a lot of demographics.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, there should be better protections against vote fraud. One of the most powerful and easy protections is the electoral college. Making nationwide vote fraud useless doesn't allow cheaters to win; making it *useful* will allow them to win.
But I would agree that we could do other things too.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Florida's senior vote is dramatically more pronounced than in any other state. Besides, Gore just might have won Florida, we'll never know.
And I think the Electoral College disenfranchises more people than it protects. Other protections are possible and should be explored. Giving up on fairness for the sake of ease is a ridiculous compromise.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Occasional, when you say that removing the Electoral College is one change you would get violent about, what exactly would you do? Try to beat up your legislators? March on Washington with a rifle and try to convince others to join you? You sound awfully passionate about it, and I'm curious what sort of violet response you think would be effective.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issues dividing the country are no longer split along geographic lines. We used to have North/South and Frontier/Coastal issues that really mattered. Now, the divisive issues are moral, ethical, and religious. There aren't states with the degree of uniformity we had over slavery. The closest we get now is urban/rural issues. Very few states are purely urban or purely rural. The protections of small/low population states' rights are now largely obsolete, because all areas of the country have more diverse voter populations.
The electoral college system effectively disenfranchises liberals in the bible belt and conservatives in California, New York, and New England. That is a huge population that doesn't count, because they live in the wrong region. Consider that NC has a Democratic governor and California has a Republican governor. Those states have very significant minorities, but they are still definitely minorities. When you add it all up, those minorities in heavily populated states probably outnumber all the voters in the rural midwest.
Also, switching to a direct vote for the president would not silence the opinions of people in the small states. It would simply deflate their over-importance. It is true that a vote in Wyoming outweighs a vote in California. Not only is this clearly anti-democratic, it is contrary to the spirit of our nation. (All men are created equal!) The legislative branch provides us with a good balance of power. The Senate alone is enough to ensure that the small states cannot be ignored. The president has to represent all citizens equally.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
