Posted on 02/07/2007 10:37:01 AM PST by mtairycitizen
It also means that in 2004, Maryland's electoral votes would have gone to George W Bush rather than to Jeanne Francoise Querrie.
The electoral college is there for a reason. One state can easily corrupt its election to such a degree that it could submit millions, no make that billions of fraudlent votes. In order to continue doing this, the state would have to be a one-party state that does not have to fear its judicial branch (like Washington or Oregon). This plan simply lets the one outlaw state steal the electoral votes of Maryland and all others that adopt it along with its own.
You are correct. It would nationalize vote fraud in the Democratic rotten boroughs.
Let me use their logic on a different political process. Isn't it unfair that a few state hold the first presidential primaries. My vote for my candidate isn't as important if he drops out before I have a chance to vote for him.
I suggest all primaries be on the same day. Can't let Iowa be the decider in who continues and who doesn't.
You methodology is too superficial. Scientific American had some political scientist do an analysis some years ago.
Basically, they concluded, as you do, that the votes of inpopulous states were overweighted. Counter intuitively, so are the votes in large states. Since a small number of swing voters can decide an election in a large state like Ohio, they leverage more votes. A good gauge of the value of a vote is the dollars per voter spent in various states on political advertising.
It's not only how many electoral votes per voter, but more important, the marginal electoral votes per voter. Living in Massachusetts, our votes in the Presidential election are almost irrelevant. No Democrat can win if he doesn't carry Massachusetts easily. (Reagan carried it in 1984.)
Democrat or Republican, if you live in the PRM, your vote for President doesn't count.
My methodology was intended to be superficial. As I noted, it's just a ballpark indication of the relative value of votes in different states. There is much more to consider, such as:
- actual voter turnout (a vote in a low-turnout low-population is worth far more than a vote in a high-turnout high-population state)
- allocation of electoral votes ("winner takes all" means no difference between losing by 1 vote vs. not getting any votes; "proportional allocation" means a state can cancel itself out entirely, as a 50.1%-to-49.9% win becomes 1 electoral vote each)
- statistical skewing of voter preference (if the swing vote is less than the near-inevitable lead one party has over the other, EV outcome is a given)
- magnification of swing vote (a near-even split means a few voters decide all the state's EVs, giving huge power to those few)
etc.
Yes, my stats are simplistic. I just wanted to know, without the other obfuscating factors, what the relative value of votes were. Of course, reality kicks in and renders much of it meaningless - and figuring that out is why political scientists get paid. My numbers are worth what you paid for them.
Roger, no argument.
Don't have to be flippant about it.
Reality is that in many elections, some states will vote overwhelmingly one way but the electors will be allocated the opposite way, such as in '04 NY was unquestionably for Kerry but would have had to deliver a majority of electors for Bush under the proposed scheme. Congress would have looked at that result, and exercised its 12th Amendment right to say "those results are so stupidly skewed that we're just gonna chuck 'em out the window".
Sorry, didn't mean to come across as flippant. I appreciate your viewpoint. I was just pointing out some alternative methods of evaluation. I don't disagree with anything you said.
Effectively, no presidential vote cast in Massachusetts in the last fifty years has really meant a thing. The twenty thousand odd voters in Ohio were far more decisive than all three million voters in Massachusetts.
The Constitution does not sp3ecify how the Electoral votes are to be allocated. That has always been up to the states. I guess you would have to research each state's laws to see if there is any legal basis for the current winner takes all situation. Personally, I would like to see a proportional allocation of each state's electoral votes.
I got out 20 years ago, but go back periodically to visit my less fortunate relatives. My high school likes to brag that Marty O'Malley is a grad. And they wonder why I don't send them any money!
Wow. The voters of Maryland are about to be made obsolete.
Ok, so the voters of Oregon, Colorado, and now Maryland are seriously considering this stupid idea.
Let's see, I'm a candidate and I want to get the votes of Oregon, Colorado, and Maryland. Do I campaign in those states?
No. I campaign hard in the 10 largest cities in the U.S. (none of which are in Oregon, Colorado, and Maryland), and I pump up my get out the vote machine in the more populous States that I have a firm grip on (Illinois and New York for Democrats, Texas and Florida for Republicans).
On return night, I have have carried my big States with enough votes, I pick up 26 votes for free. Thanks morons! Your votes mean nothing!
I've advocated that idea before. It's a better representation of the entire state, while still maintaining the EC. It keeps Maryland from being dominated by the city of Baltimore and the liberal counties of Prince Georges and Montgomery.
In 04 it would've given W more EV's though. Do they not realize that as they propose this?
I just ran the rough numbers and the EVs came out the same for '04.
I differ. A state wants to promote the wishes of its people to maximum effect, so the winner in the state should get ALL the EVs. Why would a state want to cancel out its own votes by divvying up EVs? 2 "R" votes and 1 "D" vote means an effective 1 "R" EV - kinda wasting the other two.
This will certainly serve to accelerate the process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.