quote:Dividing votes by congressional district destroys the integrity of a State, a political entity that supposed to be based on common interest.
If this is the way you feel, why do we even have a vote in the first place we may as well go back to choosing electoral college representatives by state legislature without the input of the people instead.
quote:It also means that votes, urban or rural, count for even less.
See my previous post for why I disagree, but maybe you could elaborate on the thought process that got you to this conclusion.
[ January 15, 2008, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Dave at Work ]
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Dave- Why should the president over-represent a minority, and under-represent a majority?
By emphasizing that the president should represent rural districts, that means you are devaluing the presidency for urban districts.
If more people live in cities, why shouldn't the president be more representative of the people living in cities?
IP: Logged |
If I may give my own thoughts on Ev's question to Dave, though Dave may have his own answer...
Tyranny of the majority... given it's very easy for a majority in urban centers to unite and work as a group to push through what they want and get attention, whereas people in rural areas may have a harder time getting together to call attention to the things they need. A slight tilt in favor of rural areas helps to counteract that effect, and makes sure that they are not ignored. There's a reason so many advocacy groups form easily in cities, but you rarely hear anything about rural issues. This then makes sense as part of the checks and balances that the founding fathers envisioned in the Constitution.
For example, Las Vegas is a rapidly growing city and needs more water. There's a groundwater source northeast of the city in Snake Valley (straddles the UT/NV line) that they want to utilize. But this resource is already being used by local ranchers and there're concerns that if LV takes this water, there won't be enough for the ranchers and the ecosystem there. Should it rise to the federal level, do we want to make it easy for leaders to allow urban centers to trump rural ranchers even though the ranchers and people living in the area have been there and using the resources all along? While this example doesn't clearly pit high population states against the fly-over states, it does illustrate to some degree the type of issues involved here.
Posts: 523 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Dave, if you're under the illusion that Presidential candidates "pay attention" to the concerns of people living in DC, Los Angeles, or NYC, you're so divorced from political reality in the US that there is no point to further conversation.
If you think that the chance to possibly influence two electors means squat for 35 million people, you're so blinded by your fundemental missunderstanding of how our Government is structured that there isn't much point to further conversation, either.
quote:If this is the way you feel, why do we even have a vote in the first place we may as well go back to choosing electoral college representatives by state legislature without the input of the people instead.
This is a complete, total, and absolute non-sequitor. It would be far more rational to ask why you don't support just letting House members pick Electors.
We are moving towards Proportional Representation Voting system - just we do not know it yet
That's the only system which would have shown the votes for Nader but will still allow for the election of what I think might have been those voters' second choice - Al Gore. At least for most of them.
Think about how many people prefer Ron Paul instead of the current choices, but they know he doesn't have a real chance, so they settle for the second-best of their "evil future puppet masters" - be it Romney or McCane or Huckabee or whatever.
Same for the dems - a lot of folks might prefer Kucinich, but they settle for Obama or Edwards or Hillary, just as long as a Republican, who might be completely opposite to their viewpoint doesn't win.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:a lot of folks might prefer Kucinich
"a lot" in this case is measured by the roomful, not the voting districtful. But to your point, I think that the kind of proportional system you describe [edited out comparison to our early proportional system] guarantees that the marginal candidate has no bearing on the result. Votes for him/her are votes for the mainstream party person s/he's more extreme than.
I would rather a proportional system where the extra-party candidates get representation according to the percentage of votes they get. If Nader had only a handful of members in the House or one in the Senate, he could have changed history. That's how some parliamentary systems work, and I am drifting that way in some ways.
Ok, I was a little irked at the serious missunderstanding.
First -State Legislators have the right to apportion Electors howver they like under the Constituition, and they have every right to do that by the outcome of the National Popular Vote if they wish.
Second - We aren't meant to be a Nation of 435 States.
Third - The only outcome on the Presidential race of doing things this way would be an Executive involved in trying to play the pork game for the benefit of swing districts, instead of swing States.
Fourth - Water rights, highway routing, school dollars, ect. are mostly State matters, as they should be, and States are already regionaly divided to provide a voice for those interests.
Fifth - Just as primarily rural States that don't vote early in primaries are *now* treated as fly-over country to be won with "image", or ag subsidy promises, rather than on the ground campaigning, Rural CD's under this sort of system would be treated the same way.
One CD full of farmers angry that their water is being used by a six CD city won't win the argument under such a system, but if they're enough to swing an entire State in a close race, their concerns are much more likely to be front and center.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |