Worth reading

[Bruce Carriker]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/mccain_tries_to_win_at_all_cos.html

[Hans Deventer]

Aligns pretty much with the article I linked. But it doesn't make me happy to this happen to a once honest man, not at all.
And it makes you wonder how on earth he plans to reform DC if we can all see that he's already succumbing under its machinery of power. :basic04

[Glenn Messer]

Welcome to the world of US politics. It really doesn't matter which side you are on, we can do you "tit for tat". Anybody who thinks that the election of either of these 2 candidates is going to change Washington or your personal life needs to wake up and 'smell the outhouse'. (there are no roses in this scenario) If we can sweep 535 elected congressional people out of office in one fell swoop and impose term limits on everyone who takes their place, then maybe there's a chance. 12 years is more than enough. Don't tell me they need long terms to gain experience on the job; you can learn to be a brain surgeon in 8 years. Charles Rangel has 38 years and it doesn't seem like all that experience has taught him how to be a better congressman.

I've always said I'm not crazy about McCain, but I'm less crazy about Obama. McCain has finally faced the reality of a national election and has decided he wants to win more than he wants to preserve his integrity. Almost nobody ever remembers who lost. And losers have certainly not had much success at changing Washington.

I don't view myself as cynical, but I've seen too many elections and heard too many "promises" to expect the unbelievable. If my candidate (ok, I admit it; it's Palin) loses, I'm not going to declare the world at an end nor will I pull out all of my hair (both of them) by the roots. We'll start the whole process all over again --- 4 months from now!
Unfortunately, I think some of you believe that if your candidate loses then life as you know it will be forever over. My greatest concern is that Sen. Obama may lose a close election. If that happens, the aftermath of the 2000 election will pale into insignificant child's play. It can be a 1000% legitimate outcome, but it will never be accepted as such.

[Ryan Scott]

Well, I'm 26 years old. I've been able to vote for President of the United States twice.

In 2000, in the midst of a close election, I wrote in John McCain.

In 2004, when the nation needed some sort of change in direction, I wrote in John McCain.

This article, while a bit too direct for my taste, explains almost perfectly why there is no chance I'll be selecting his name on this year's ballot - something I would have paid money for the opportunity to do both four and eight years ago.

[Hans Deventer]

Unfortunately, I think some of you believe that if your candidate loses then life as you know it will be forever over.

Actually, I fear it will go on as it does.

My greatest concern is that Sen. Obama may lose a close election. If that happens, the aftermath of the 2000 election will pale into insignificant child's play. It can be a 1000% legitimate outcome, but it will never be accepted as such.

Or win the popular vote, but not the Electoral College. If that happens yet another time, I hope someone in DC starts to think that this may not be the best thing for the country.

[Glenn Messer]

Hans,
You have to understand the way our system functions. We are not a true democracy; we are a (representative) republic. Individuals do not elect the president; states do. That's why candidates can't confine their campaigns to just a handful of states. If we were a true democracy then a few states (those with the largest population centers) would always elect the president. Personally, I prefer the electoral college, whether it works for me or against me.
In a true democracy the masses could vote themselves any benefit they wished, assuming they could influence enough individual voters. In my opinion, a true democracy would be absolutely frightening.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,
You have to understand the way our system functions. We are not a true democracy; we are a (representative) republic. Individuals do not elect the president; states do.

Glenn, trust me, by now, I do. And of course the states don't elect. All hell would break loose if they actually did. The winner takes it all and the EC is bound to that, unless they get suicidal. You're a democracy with a winner takes all (with some minor exceptions) district system.

That's why candidates can't confine their campaigns to just a handful of states.

That is an argument I've heard before and never understood. We see the candidates focus on a few swing states. Exactly because of the "winner takes all" principle.
Perhaps I'm dumb but this system creates the very thing you're opposing here, as far as I can see.

If we were a true democracy then a few states (those with the largest population centers) would always elect the president.

No, the entire population would, and candidates in tight races as these would have to campaign in each and every state.

In a true democracy the masses could vote themselves any benefit they wished, assuming they could influence enough individual voters. In my opinion, a true democracy would be absolutely frightening.

I don't understand this at all. The EC have no say. They could be mindless robots. There is no barrier for the "masses" regarding the election of a president.

Glenn, don't get me wrong. I don't want to be obnoxious, but I've heard this argument before and so far, I just don't get it.

[Glenn Messer]

Hans,

When I say the states elect . . . I mean the people of each state determine where their state's votes will go. The outcome of the vote in my state will not be impacted by the vote in any other state. Hence, our political maps are often referenced as "red" and "blue" states.

Each state political party has a set of EC voters. With few exceptions the candidate who wins a state will entitle his (or her) party's EC voters to cast all the votes for their state in the presidential election. In most cases, if you carry the state, even by one vote, then you will receive all of that state's EC votes. So when I vote I am trying to help throw all of my state's EC votes to my candidate. If my candidate loses my state, even by one vote, he gets none of my states EC votes and the EC votes are what elects the president. I think 2 or 3 states now split the EC vote based on the breakdown of percentages of votes cast within their state. Most don't.

Historically, most of our large urban areas (heavily populated cities) have leaned heavily to the Democratic Party. Without the EC, if you carry those few areas, you could carry the election. That's why occasionally a candidate will carry the popular election but lose the EC election. Believe it or not, our founders intended it to be that way. Many of them didn't trust the 'average man on the street' to vote wisely.

I'm sure there are people in this country (not many) who will not vote for Obama just because he's black. I'm equally sure there are people in this country (not many) who will vote for Obama just because he's black. In my opinion, both of these are equally dumb reasons to determine how you will vote. Race and gender should not be the issue.

[Hans Deventer]

When I say the states elect . . . I mean the people of each state determine where their state's votes will go. The outcome of the vote in my state will not be impacted by the vote in any other state. Hence, our political maps are often referenced as "red" and "blue" states.

Which is only because of the winner takes it all-principle. Which, incidentally, is NOT part of the Constitution.

Historically, most of our large urban areas (heavily populated cities) have leaned heavily to the Democratic Party. Without the EC, if you carry those few areas, you could carry the election.

I don't understand. If 50 million in the USA vote for one candidate, and 51 million for the other, it matters not one bit if a specific voter lives in Manhattan or in Montana. It's so simple. Just count all the votes and don't throw most of them away.

That's why occasionally a candidate will carry the popular election but lose the EC election. Believe it or not, our founders intended it to be that way. Many of them didn't trust the 'average man on the street' to vote wisely.

That I know. But it's still the man on the street who determines. The EC has no liberty to vote as they please. So I guess the EC isn't used anymore as the founders intended.

[Glenn Messer]

Hans,

You are right. The Constitution does not mandate how the electors are chosen. It is a State's right issue. All states except 2, give all of their EC votes to the candidate who is the winner in their state. For instance, if McCain wins North Carolina by a vote of 2,000,001 to 2,000,000 then he gets all of North Carolina's 15 (not really sure of the true number) EC votes. If Obama wins Pennsylvania by a vote of 4,000,000 to 100, then he gets all of Pennsylvania's 15 EC votes. Between the 2 states McCain has 2,000,101 total votes and Obama has 6,000,000 total votes, but in the EC vote count -- the only vote that matters -- they are tied . . . 15 to 15.

If we were a true democracy, we would count the votes in the way you describe in your example using Manhattan and Montana; we are not. And Manhattan and Montana have entirely different interests at stake. Each wants his voice to count. And, contrary to what some would have you believe, no legal votes are intentionally tossed away. All legal votes are counted. ("Of course, if my candidate loses, fraudulent counts must have been used.") Unfortunately, a lot of illegal votes are probably also counted.

Lastly, the EC voters can vote as they please, but remember, in most cases they are really chosen by their candidate's political party. Almost never do they want to vote in any other way. Theoretically it's possible to win the popular national vote by a large margin and lose the EC vote by an equally large margin.

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks, Glenn. I have one question left. How is it that:

"That's why candidates can't confine their campaigns to just a handful of states."

I still don't understand the principle. I've heard it used before but I can't make sense of it. How would the EC be helpful in this, compared to a system where the entire population of the USA elects a president?

[Glenn Messer]

Hans,

Usually, elections are rather close and can be decided by 2 or 3 EC votes. States with smaller populations and less EC votes can change the outcome of the election if the larger states are evenly divided. I'm not sure I remember the numbers right, but if it takes 287 EC votes to win the presidency and each candidate has 285, then a state with 3 EC votes can swing the election. It is true that larger states will get more attention from the candidates than will the smaller states, but in a close election every EC vote counts.
Someday I'm going to take the time to get better informed about the election processes of European countries. Personally, I think I would favor a monarchy . . . as long as I could be king!

[Bruce Carriker]

Hans,
In my opinion, a true democracy would be absolutely frightening.

Spoken like a true "liberal elitist" :laughing