Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

[innerSpaceman]

Perhaps it's a little too early ... but Hillary is miles ahead of any of her dem competitors for the presidency. She may be polarizing ... but she's got name recognition up the wahzoo. Many democrats like her, and plenty of republican women will vote for her as a woman. Don't count out the number of people who already look back at the Clinton years with wistful longing. Bush has seen to that. A vote for Hillary in the White House is a vote for Bill in the White House ... a fact not to be underestimated.


I don't particularly like her ... but she'd have to completely self-destruct for me not to vote for the first women candidate I could stand. For a person who thinks all presidents pretty much suck, the chance to make an historic mark weighs more importantly than mere issues. (And, heheh, the first First Lady to become President and the first President to become the first First Gentleman, all in one fell swoop, is a nifty historical presidential precedent, too.)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Perhaps it's a little too early ...

As I read somewhere recently, at this point in the 2004 cycle, the lead polling Democrat was Joe Lieberman (John Kerry was fourth). For 1992, at this point Bill Clinton was 11th behind Mario Cuomo, Jesse Jackson, Richard Gephardt, George McGovern, Lloyd Bentsen, Al Gore, Sam Nunn, Jay Rockefeller, Bill Bradley, and George Mitchell.

Obama (or some other person out of left field, like Howard Dean in 2003) has plenty of time to get the name recognition up.

[Not Afraid]

Kerry bows out.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Kerry bows out.

From NA's link

The Republican field has a similar number with Bush constitutionally barred from seeking a third term.

I think that's a blessing for everyone including the President himself

[Nephythys]

Here ya go-

Fox News picked up the Insight charge on two of its programs, playing up an angle involving Hillary Clinton. The magazine, citing only unnamed sources, said that researchers "connected" to the New York senator were allegedly spreading the information about her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Link

Of course I am well aware- having read it- that the Clinton campaign denies it.

And everyone knows they never lie.

Right?

I am also aware that any conversation of which media sources we trust- or who we consider truthful is a total waste of time.

[BarTopDancer]

OK, I must be missing something huge here because I cannot see how getting rid of the electoral college and allowing the true majority winner to win is a bad thing.

All it means is that if people want x person to be president they need to go out and vote. How is that a bad thing? How will that equate to only the east and the west really getting a say? If every single person in this country [of voting age] has their vote counted then how is that a bad thing?

Alex?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Alex?

I wouldn't say that going to a straight popular vote for president would necessarily be a bad thing, I just don't think it would be a good idea. The nation wouldn't be left in ruins if it happened.

If ever there is one, I think this is definitely an issue on which reasonable people can disagree without considering the other side stupid, immoral, evil, or some other bad thing.

The electoral college is, and always has been, a political compromise. The reasons that make that compromise attractive have not gone away, and, to my view, in some ways have been exacerbated by the modern political machine.

Part of the problem is that we are huge country. Huge in many ways. Huge ethnically. Huge geographically. Huge in raw population.

I personally do not think that the last one there is the only one that matters. And that is why congressman and senators are not elected at the national level. If all that mattered for our leadership was raw ability to get the most people to vote for you, then we each just get a ballot and vote for our preferred 100 candidates for senator and our preferred 435 candidates for Congress (though if done this way it wouldn't really make sense to have so many of either).

Why is this a bad idea? Because then regional and ethnic concerns probably will not be addressed at the national level. In such a system you wouldn't end up with 60 "urban" senators and 40 "rural" senators (or whatever the current split is) but more likely 90 "urban" senator and 10 "rural" senators. Why? Because so long as the "urban" people voted in anything like a block, they'd dominate every choice of the "rural." Same with race.

So we break it up into regions. No matter what, the people of Wyoming are guaranteed to have one person looking out for them in Congress.

Same in the senate, where they are guaranteed two. Now, I support the argument that balance of power is overly tilted to the low-population states in the senate, but unless we turn it into the House in its structure that is inherent, though I could probably support something that would alleviate it to some degree (say top 25 states by population get three senators, bottom 25 get 2).

So, that all works hunky dory for Congress and for the most part people are happy with it. Everybody supports pure majority rule unless they're in the minority and then people want the power of the majority diluted.

But it doesn't work with the presidency. In the end you end up with just one president. So the idea that population trumps all is certainly reasonable. But think about how much complaint there was about Bush's perceived (and quite likely real) slights to the blue states that didn't vote for him. Will this be worse if the president is essentially elected by eight metropolitan areas (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Bay Area, Baltimore, ...). Such a president most closely beholden to the people who specifically elected him. What incentive is there to even pause for consideration when taking sides in a water rights conflict between Los Angeles and Arizona, or whether to propose energy legislation that is good for New York City but bad for the rural midwest, whether to instituted regulations that will force populous regions to subsidize the extension of telecommunications into all areas of the United States.

So, basically it comes down to the fact that I want our president to be forced to at least pause to think about issues from the national level and large regions that maybe don't support him or his party.

But the opposing view is certainly reasonable.

All that said, the electoral college is thoroughly out of whack and gives way too much deference to non-population weightings. The reason for this is that the House of Representatives has come to view its current size as as constant and it shouldn't be.

Currently, in the electoral college Wyoming gets 3 votes while California gets 55. In other words California has 18 times the vote but 68 times the population. That is too skewed in my opinion. But rather than call for abolishment of the electoral college (which skews it too far back the other way) I'd implement a couple reforms.

1. Rather than a fixed sized House of Representatives go with a fixed ratio House of Representatives (this is how it was done for about the first 50 years of the country's existence). Give up the fixed limit of 435 congressman. When the decennial census is done take the lowest population state's tally and divide it by two. That's how many each congressman will represent (today this would be about 350,000 people per congressman, 75% more than when the country was founded). This would mean that Wyoming's electoral representation would increase to 4 and California's to about 138. Now California has 68 times the population and 34 times the voting power. A balance that I think is more in line with what is appropriate. Congress would be much larger than it currently is, but there is nothing magical about the number 435 and too small a body for the population served is perverting in its own way. This is a change that can only happen at the federal level.

2. Electoral districts. A couple states already do this and I think it is a very good idea. Rather than casting the entire state electoral state to the overall winner of the state either assign them proportionally (not so preferable) or assign them to the winners of the districts (more preferable). This makes winning a district in Iowa equal to winning a district in the Bay Area. This will strengthen fringe and regional parties (they'll both be able to actually win a few votes and aren't necessarily a "spoiler" candidate). This can be done at the state level and several have.

So, that is my thoughts on it. Hopefully it was appropriately thoughtful. This is not at all a rancorous issue for me and as I said, many different conclusions are reasonable. That said, the electoral college is not an anachronism. The reasons it was created in the first place still exist today.

And it is worth pointing out that while the electoral college brought defeat to those opposed to Bush in 2000 it is the only reason that he was a whisker away from losing in 2004. An unintended side benefit of the electoral college is also that it localizes controversy. It is worth remembering that at the national level the popular vote in 2000 was well within the margin of error for most voting systems. Can you imagine if the debacle of Florida had been played out nationally. I didn't mention this above because I don't think it is, in itself, a justification for the electoral college.

[Nephythys]

Because the majority is centered in certain regions- and the people in the less populated states would be railroaded.

Alex will certainly answer it better- but there is a REASON we are a representative republic and NOT a democracy. It protects people's interest.

Funny how the founders seemed to know what we needed.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Alex will certainly answer it better- but there is a REASON we are a representative republic and NOT a democracy. It protects people's interest.

Yes, we are a republic, but that has nothing to do with the existence of the electoral college. There is nothing inherent in Republicanism that requires an electoral college. The purpose of the electoral college it carry federalism over into the selection of the president. France is a republic, for example, but does not use an electoral college to elect the president (that is done by direct straight popular election). Though a form of an electoral college is used to elect the Senate (but not the National Assembly). There are many republics in the world and very few use an electoral college of any type.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Yes, we are a republic, but that has nothing to do with the existence of the electoral college. There is nothing inherent in Republicanism that requires an electoral college. The purpose of the electoral college it carry federalism over into the selection of the president. France is a republic, for example, but does not use an electoral college to elect the president (that is done by direct straight popular election). Though a form of an electoral college is used to elect the Senate (but not the National Assembly). There are many republics in the world and very few use an electoral college of any type.

I said you would do a better job-

My posts were more to point out why we are not a democracy that follows the "majority".