...politicians will be politicians...

 

Washington needs to be scrubbed clean, that much is apparent.

 

Gerrymandering is state-by-state.

You missed the point. 80% of the country is indeed disenfranchised with regard to the Presidency, not because of small states, but because they are not in SWING states. If you are not in FL, OH, VA, IA, WI, CO, NH and maybe one or two more states in play... then your vote is pretty much irrelevant due to the electoral college setup.

 

The arguments about urban vs rural, small state vs large state, etc. are about representation. The legislature is the representative body, and the balance struck by having 2 senators per state regardless of size and at least 1 house rep... is a great setup to protect that. It is a representative body. The Presidency is one person. It cannot be representative in any similar sense. It is the only truly national elected office, and therefore should be decided by the nation of EQUAL voters.

 

Moving to a pure popular vote doesn't fix that, either...it would probably make it worse. Short term, these states may still matter...but as populations explode in major metropolitan areas (and they are), in 30-40 years, no other states would matter. Just because that system might work now, doesn't mean it will continue working very well in the future. Unfortunately, once they implement it, it would never go away again.

Gerrymandering is state-by-state.

 

When I say "Washington", I mean politicians.

 

I thought you'd understand that.

People after the revolution didn't really actively ignore politics either. They went out of their way to be involved. 100 years ago election day was a massive social event. Today it is a joke.

 

They also didn't have anything close to modern communications.

They also didn't have anything close to modern communications.

 

Yet our voter turnout is less than ever before. People still need to be protected from themselves, and aren't generally well informed about politics.

Yet our voter turnout is less than ever before. People still need to be protected from themselves, and aren't generally well informed about politics.

 

Well 100 years ago half of the population couldn't legally vote and the other half was heavily suppressed, so I'm not sure we should look at voter turnout in 1900 as some sort of hallmark.

The Presidency is one person. It cannot be representative in any similar sense. It is the only truly national elected office, and therefore should be decided by the nation of EQUAL voters.

 

Going back to this, this is about the best argument I've ever had posed to me in favor of a national popular vote.

 

My worry on this is that while it currently seems like a good idea, it may not be in the future as the few mega cities we have are built bigger and bigger, and at that point, they alone would control the office of presidency, quite possibly for one party or another (or perhaps a new party we haven't heard of yet).

 

I don't know about you, but I'd dread living in a Union where nothing but Democrats are voted into office year after year after year (this also goes for Republicans, could you imagine Bush administration after Bush administration?) We already have this to some degree on the city level, and it's a disaster. Sometimes, uprooting a party and removing the complacent corruption that set in over the years is necessary...I fear in a system where major metropolitan areas most likely decide presidential elections would produce just that.

 

Also, while we may agree with Democratic agendas now (or Republicans), things change...and the future is hard to see. My worry is that we're blind of the future, and implementing this system could be a disaster.

 

Then again, what we have now is already a disaster...so...maybe you have a good point.

Edited November 5, 201213 yr by Y2HH

Moving to a pure popular vote doesn't fix that, either...it would probably make it worse. Short term, these states may still matter...but as populations explode in major metropolitan areas (and they are), in 30-40 years, no other states would matter. Just because that system might work now, doesn't mean it will continue working very well in the future. Unfortunately, once they implement it, it would never go away again.

 

Ohio appears to be "the" tipping point state this year. It's the 7th-most populous state with several major metropolitan areas that dominate the state.

 

How does this help the Dakotas, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, etc. right now?

You'd need to get 100% of the vote in the top 40 metropolitan areas to reach a majority of voters.

 

To put more realistically, one party would have to win EVERY metropolitan area in the country 60-40 to win the election.

 

This would include "big cities" like

 

-Casper, Wyoming

-Lewiston, Idaho

-Great Falls, Montana

-Danville, Illinois

Well 100 years ago half of the population couldn't legally vote and the other half was heavily suppressed, so I'm not sure we should look at voter turnout in 1900 as some sort of hallmark.

 

Yet it is the formerly suppressed groups (minorities and the younger) who are the least active.

Going back to this, this is about the best argument I've ever had posed to me in favor of a national popular vote.

 

My worry on this is that while it currently seems like a good idea, it may not be in the future as the few mega cities we have are built bigger and bigger, and at that point, they alone would control the office of presidency, quite possibly for one party or another (or perhaps a new party we haven't heard of yet).

 

I don't know about you, but I'd dread living in a Union where nothing but Democrats are voted into office year after year after year (this also goes for Republicans, could you imagine Bush administration after Bush administration?) We already have this to some degree on the city level, and it's a disaster. Sometimes, uprooting a party and removing the complacent corruption that set in over the years is necessary...I fear in a system where major metropolitan areas most likely decide presidential elections would produce just that.

 

Also, while we may agree with Democratic agendas now (or Republicans), things change...and the future is hard to see. My worry is that we're blind of the future, and implementing this system could be a disaster.

 

Then again, what we have now is already a disaster...so...maybe you have a good point.

 

Do you have some data on rural/suburban/urban population %'s over time?

Ohio appears to be "the" tipping point state this year. It's the 7th-most populous state with several major metropolitan areas that dominate the state.

 

How does this help the Dakotas, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, etc. right now?

 

That's why I said, they should probably move to a proportional vote, and pass some laws preventing that gerrymandering you spoke about earlier. I'm not saying our current system is great. But at least it protects us from the blatantly misinformed/uninformed or stupid...at least, to some degree.

That's why I said, they should probably move to a proportional vote, and pass some laws preventing that gerrymandering you spoke about earlier. I'm not saying our current system is great. But at least it protects us from the blatantly misinformed/uninformed or stupid...at least, to some degree.

 

States have to be broken into districts. How do you prevent gerrymandering? Isn't the makeup of the US and various state Houses important enough to fight gerrymandering?

States have to be broken into districts. How do you prevent gerrymandering? Isn't the makeup of the US and various state Houses important enough to fight gerrymandering?

 

No idea how to prevent it, I'm not a lawmaker.

This is pretty much how I feel about Republicans and Democrats:

 

 

Never gets old.

I predict a very close popular vote with Obama barely leading there. But because I think he'll take Ohio and PA, the EC vote won't be as close. I think he wins with 290+ EC votes, and once PA and OH are called it'll be just about over.

I predict a very close popular vote with Obama barely leading there. But because I think he'll take Ohio and PA, the EC vote won't be as close. I think he wins with 290+ EC votes, and once PA and OH are called it'll be just about over.

Yeah, Nate Silver is right there with you...

This is from four years ago, but I think we need to be reminded of the effect that stupid people can have on the outcome:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-octo...the-stupid-vote

I swear I read a book once that said some candidate knew from advance polling he'd lost when he was on his way to vote and had to put on a happy face. He knew he had lost.

Advance polling and all the polls we've seen over the past months don't mean a ton. They are very small sample sizes compared to the number of people that will actually vote. I could stand outside of a McDonald's and poll people.

The sample sizes don't need to be that large to get an accurate estimation.

But why? And I don't see why a voter would spend his whole Saturday in line when they can vote in 5 minutes on Tuesday. I guess some people may have work obligations, but the polls are open for 13 hours and most aren't working 5 hours OT.

 

I think some, other than those that MUST vote on a different day, are anticipating an even more difficult voting experience on Tuesday. I don't know if those are all inaccurate anticipations of Tuesday or not.

 

All I know is that if Romney wins, Nate Silver should close his blog down.

 

He is leaving small windows open in case Mitt win but predicts a big time Obama win.

 

Nobody but the partisan speculators that don't believe polls would look good if Obama wins. Silver, Princeton's Professor Wang, RealClearPolitics, Votamatic, every pollster except Rasmussen will look terrible if Obama loses.

 

The sample sizes don't need to be that large to get an accurate estimation.

 

bingo

I think some, other than those that MUST vote on a different day, are anticipating an even more difficult voting experience on Tuesday. I don't know if those are all inaccurate anticipations of Tuesday or not.

 

That's interesting, I guess it's good that they care about voting that much. Like I had said, I have voted in 4 different cities in my life and never once have I experienced any kind of line.

Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson: Obama Will Win

That's interesting, I guess it's good that they care about voting that much. Like I had said, I have voted in 4 different cities in my life and never once have I experienced any kind of line.

 

I've voted in one, but it has always been early due to college. There's never anyone there....but my hometown only has 10,000 people lol