"Official" DNC Schedule

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[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)?