"Official" DNC Schedule

[B-Man]

Democratic National Convention Schedule

I am excited to announce the 2004 Democratic National Convention Schedule:

OFFICIAL 2004 DNC CONVENTION PROGRAM

6:00pm - Opening flag burning ceremony.
6:30pm - Anti-war rally no. 1.
6:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:00pm - Tribute theme to France.
7:10pm - Collect offerings for al-Zawahri defense fund.
7:20pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:25pm - Presentation of the Bill Clinton Integrity Award.
7:45pm - Anti-war rally no. 2. (Moderated by Michael Moore)
8:00pm - John Kerry presents one side of the issues
8:25pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:30pm - Terrorist appeasement workshop.
9:00pm - Gay marriage ceremony.

9:30pm - * Intermission *

10:00pm - Flag burning ceremony no. 2.
10:15pm - Re-enactment of Kerry's fake medal toss.
10:30pm - Cameo by Dean 'Yeeearrrrrrrg!'
10:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
10:50pm - Pledge of allegiance to the UN.
11:00pm - Double gay marriage ceremony.
11:15pm - Maximizing Welfare workshop.
11:20pm - John Kerry presents the other side of the issues
11:30pm - 'Free Saddam' pep rally.
11:59pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
12:00am - Nomination of Democrat candidate.

[andyfox]

Very funny, B-Man. (Really.)

If only the real convention were one-half as much fun. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ray Zee]

so who are you planning on voting for b-man?

[B-Man]

I actually was considering Kerry for a while, but I just can't get past his record of flip-flopping on most of the issues. I think he is as fake as they come.

So I will probably vote for Bush.

However, since I live in Massachusetts, my vote is meaningless (Kerry is a lock to win Massachusetts).

[andyfox]

Knowing your politics, I'm glad your vote is meaningless. /images/graemlins/wink.gif (Unless, of course, we're talking about a HOF vote.)

Seriously, though, this is another flaw in the electoral college system, or at least the way states have decided to apply it. There's nothing in the Constitution (I believe) that says a state's electoral votes have to be applied in a winner-take-all format. This effectively makes many votes meaningless.

Here is California, for example, Bush got over 4,500,000 votes in 2000. He got zero electoral votes. Is this a fair system?

[B-Man]

The all-or-nothing method of allocating electoral votes probably is unfair. I would have no objection to allocating each state's electoral votes proportionally per the popular vote in that state. Aren't there one or two states (Maine?) which actually do this?

As for the HOF vote, I have a good question for you and the other baseball historians, but I'll start another thread for that one...

[MMMMMM]

If your vote for Kerry or Bush is pretty much meaningless in Massachusetts, why not consider voting for the candidate or party you would vote for if it were not a 2-horse race? If I lived in Mass., I would consider voting Libertarian for that reason. Come to think of it, if it looks like Kerry is a lock in Connecticut I might do that anyway. The more support a third party gets, the more chance that party may have to actually become a viable contender in years or decades to come.

[MMMMMM]

I think there is probably a good reason for it.

If electoral votes were divided within each state in accordance with popular vote, it would merely be a reflection of the popular vote nationwide and hence pointless. Why bother to go to all that trouble when you can just hold a popular vote anyway?

Doing it via the electoral college helps balance states' preference with popular votes--or something like that;-) I'm not studied on such details but there is probably a lot to be said for giving weight to both popular vote and states' preference, in terms of balance.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
The all-or-nothing method of allocating electoral votes probably is unfair. I would have no objection to allocating each state's electoral votes proportionally per the popular vote in that state. Aren't there one or two states (Maine?) which actually do this?


[/ QUOTE ]
Why this concern with every individual's vote being individually meaningful? The purpose of the election is to chose a winner, not to make each voter feel good.

The winner take all aspect helps states maximize their influence in choosing a winner. The states of Maine and Nebraska shortchange their citizens, IMO.

W

[andyfox]

Well I'm in favor of a straight popular vote. But maybe some kind of proportional system, with the winner getting "bonus" points. For example, let's say Gore got 5.5 million votes in Calif., and Bush 4.5. So if California had 50 electoral votes, let's give the winner 60% and the rest divided proportionally, which would have given Gore 41 electoral votes and Bush 9.

Hardly seems fair that Bush got all those votes and got zero for it.

[andyfox]

"Why this concern with every individual's vote being individually meaningful?"

Isn't that what voting's all about? You got 4,500,000 votes in California in 2000 and no electoral votes for it. 4,500,000 people were effectiely disenfranchised. It's as if you got none.

[andyfox]

I wish it were true, but a third party is only going to have a chance if a charismatic person gets a pretty big percentage of the vote (like Ross Perot did) and then keeps active in forming a viable political party (and he'd have to attract some other big names to join the party who had a chance of winning governerships or senate seats or the like).

I remember when Perot pulled out (before he went back in), he said he feared it might throw the election to the House of Representatives and that would be troublesome. We need some troublesomeness to shock our current two parties.

IMHO.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why this concern with every individual's vote being individually meaningful?"

Isn't that what voting's all about?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, an election is about selecting a winner. A selection by Proportional allocation still creates a winner take all victory (whoever wins nationwide). So does a simple nationwide popular vote.

We don't cast our votes so that I can say "I won by 4 electoral votes". We cast our votes so that I can say:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God"

I am looking forward to doing this again on January 20th next year. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

W

[andyfox]

"I am looking forward to doing this again on January 20th next year."

I imagine the "So help me God" part is your favorite. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[daryn]

a straight popular vote would be bogus. it's fine for an elementary classroom of 20 kids picking the hall monitor, but not for a large country.

if we had a popular vote than the huge cities would effectively pick the president.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
the huge cities would effectively pick the president

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the people in those cities would pick the president. I know it sounds like I'm arguing over semantics, but the difference in terminology is significant. I would suspect that those who argue in favor of direct voting would see having the cities pick the president as no better than having the states do it. It seems like your concern is that power would be concentrated in highly populous areas. I guess I don't see a huge problem with that. Do you have any concerns about our current system where individuals in small population states are vastly overrepresented in the house and senate (and, thus, also the electoral college)?

daryn - would you have a problem if the members of the electoral college were apportioned at the state level depending on the election outcome (e.g. 60% of the electoral college goes to one party 40% to the other)?