WolfmanNCSU Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Yeah, there are mathematical purposes that for the voting system to be the way it is. I studied some of this a bit. If you want to do the research yourself look up "free elections" AND "discrete mathematical models" together. The stuff is really complicated to explain in a thread so I am not touching it. But what it all comes down too is this is an impossible problem and you can find fault in each election model (they all have situations that break the rules for an optimal election). Honestly the US model is not the worest one. In fact its one of the better ones. Sad isn't it. Oh well. This has been another useless mathematical fact. (Sucks how math just keeps coming back like that, you can't escape it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Originally posted by Vestril ...I'm not convinced that the Electoral system is a joke. The average American is really ignorant about the American government. This is true, I don't think anyone is going to argue with me about it. Most people don't have time to think about the issues that are germane in an election, and the Electoral system is designed to make it so that if the people get fed a load of bull by a popular candidate, the better candidate will get elected... Oh please! I am sooo sick of that greater-than-thou crap. People are not as stupid as some would have us believe. Stupid seems to be used in a relative term, meaning that person B doesn't measure or evaluate the issues in the same manner that person A does, therefore person B must be stupid. We all have different priorities and motivations, and to state that most people are just uinformed about election issues is pompously arrogant. You may claim to be apolitical, but your attitude reminds me eerily of a Republican. ...I honestly think that Bush was the better man. Don't look at me that way!! ...Bush...has surrounded himself with the best people, and what does that leave him with? The best advice. I think he is a person who doesn't know how to do everything, but he does know how to ask, and who to ask when he's out of his element... Bush is a simple-minded man, and should not be the leader of the Free World. Sure, perhaps one can argue he has intelligent, if far-right advisors, save Colin Powell. However, if he's too much of a dunce to wade through any conflicting pieces of advice he's presented and choose the best course, then all the good advisors in the world aren't going to do him any good. Sorry, but in my estimation, W just doesn't get it. He's already alienated the US from most, if not all, of its allies. Ya, he's a real genius. ...So basically the popular vote would have voted the smart-assed jerk who looked nice on the screen, while the better candidate was the dyslexic guy... Smart-assed jerk? You mean the person saying that most people are too stupid to know what they really want, and that they need the Electoral College to protect them from their idiocy? One person, one vote. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greedo626 Posted July 6, 2002 Author Share Posted July 6, 2002 uh, this was supposed to be a disscusion on the electoral system, not a debate on who should be President or why one is better than the other. let's keep it nice and friendly. please respect other's opinions. thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Knight Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 I think it is funny how everyone knows how to do everything better then the Government. If it were a stright opoular vote cities like LA or New York would be the only places a president would campian becasue there are more people there then any where else. It is not fair to everyone if it were a stright popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Knight I think it is funny how everyone knows how to do everything better then the Government. If it were a stright opoular vote cities like LA or New York would be the only places a president would campian becasue there are more people there then any where else. It is not fair to everyone if it were a stright popular vote. So, Darth Knight, it sounds like you're saying that the minority of people in the less populous states should have their votes count more than the more populous states? If so, then that is inherrently unfair. It's appropriate for presidential candidates to campaign more where there are more people. Does this mean they should ignore the less populous states? Not at all, but the votes in less poplulous states should not divert from the One Person - One Vote principle. The Electoral College needs to be replaced by a Straight Popular Votoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadoseer Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 The use of the electoral college is aimed at maintaining a united nation. The founding fathers were afraid that if a direct vote were held, states or even small localities would only vote for regional candidates of whom they had some knowledge. Fearing that no candidate would be the clear choice or that urban, more densely populated areas, would easily render less dense farmland insignificant, they decided to go with an electoral college. The idea being that electors would stay informed of events and pick the best candidate without placing emphasis on the candidate's regional influence. The states would be left to decide how to pick electors, therby eliminating any interference from the central government which the states inherently did not trust. However this was before the formation of the two powerful parties and the national media. Now ideas travel faster and there is usually only two major candidates. That does not mean that the electoral college is outdated. It is still useful for maintaining some sense of equality. Note I did not say fairness. Our democracy is balanced, not fair. Every state gets two senators, regardless of there size. The purpose here is so that each state has a hand in our government but no state can be made insignificant. So to say that there is no role for our electoral college is innaccurate. This is an extremely delicate system and one should respect the amount of effort my founding fathers spent trying to concieve it. This is a country of equality and unity and one should consider everyone is important, not just urbanites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 Here's one thing I don't understand: chads How the heck could you possibly have a chad ballot? HOW???? I've used um before, many times, no chads. I think it's impossible. I also think to whole chad thing was just a fraud. Why? I don't know. I just don't see chads happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 well im not entirely sure about the american system but i like the british system each county (or party thereof) votes for a candidate from their area ....(s )hes normally part of a party conservatives,labour or lib dems (bush, clinton and **** knows respectively for u americans) now each country (or part) represents a seat in government so the party with the most seats wins and has general power but 1 government seat means 1 vote on governmental decisions so if the country is undecided neither party has power but descisions are still made thats the house of commons im not sure how house of lords work but they have power 2 also theres the queen who in theory can veto any descisions but still a 1 man 1 vote system would be the best ..... u have candidates .... every1 votes for em ..... one with most votes wins ..... simple! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfmanNCSU Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 The president does not have all power. We have a senate which has 2 elected reps from each state, and a house of representatives which varies in the number of elected reps according to population of the state. The rep in the house represents the interest of certain popluation areas of the state zoned into districts. Legislation must pass through both the senate and the house. Then there is the system of checks and balances ensuring no branch of government is stronger than the other. Its simular to the house of commons and house of lords. (Just of help clear things up for people who did not know) As for the election system, there are many debates about this, however, I cannot think of an easier or more efficient way of election, mainly due to the mathematical reasons I mentioned before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuietSith Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 I don't vote for anything that is 'multiple choice'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 I disagree, shadoseer. My education taught me that the Electoral College was a device that was created, due to the times in which the Founding Fathers lived - at that time, the general populous was not highly educated. One camp wanted a direct popular vote of the President, while another wanted the President to be elected by state-appointed electors, to ensure that an imbecile was not elected by the uneducated populous as the leader of the country. The Electoral College was an unloved compromised that gave both sides what they wanted. On a related note, the Constitution originally had senators elected with a mechanism similar to the electoral college. However, this was done away with via a Constitutional Amentment in favor of a direct popular vote, and one would likely be hard-pressed to find anyone today who would prefer to revert back to the old, outdated way, regardless of the amount of effort that the founding fathers may have expended in reaching their final compromise solution. Today, most people are intelligent enough to know who they want as President. And being that the President is the only elected official that is elected by all the nation, a direct popular vote seems not only appropriate, but mandatory. I'm all for equality and balance, such as the balance between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. However, I take equality one step further and submit that no single vote in this nation should carry more weight than any other vote. The Electoral College, unfairly, gives less populous states more weight than the populated areas, which is one of the many tragic flaws with this system. One person, one vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 1 man 1 wote .... im the man i get the vote - terry pratchett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_silvergun Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 I agree with Vagabond on this one. I also have to say, Wolfman, and I admit here that I am no mathematician, that I cannot personally imagine any mathematical model which can possibly be a more accurate sample of the population's wishes than a directly proportional vote based on the principle of universal and equal suffrage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Knight Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Originally posted by QuietSith I don't vote for anything that is 'multiple choice'. that makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadoseer Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 The fact that those who support the "1 man 1 vote" seem to miss is the destabilizing effect it would have on this nation. Cities are only going to get more crouded, and rural areas less dense. Now I don't suppose that those who live in primarily in agricultural states and lose whatever small influence they do have in national affairs would be interested in participating in an election that they will have little influence in, does not address their issues and completely avoided their region dur ing the campaign. So they don't vote. No problem you say, their the minority anyway. So agricultural issues get ignored. Soon the rural areas feel less part of the union or because their issues have been neglected for so long that they now hurt agricultural production. Either scenario is likely, but the point is neglecting rural areas can only hurt, not help. The number of electors each state receives is based on one for each senator plus one for every representative. So in this way more populous states get more votes anyway. Florida gets 25, high population, Alaska gets 3. So even though you can't afford to ignore Alaska, you had better carry a couple of states like Florida. It balances. Now to Vagabond, I will refer you to a well written paper on this subject that refutes the "uneducated populous" theory. I personally prefer the term ill-informed because one cannot blame the individual for the speed at which ideas travel or the importance said individual would place on regional issues. Someone in 18th century New York could probably give a rats ass about what issues Virginia was having or what any candidate form that state had to say about affairs in New York. The link is as follows; http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadoseer Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 It's Florida, you wouldn't believe the sh*t that goes on down here! We had this great idea to pump treated waste water into the aquifer so that we could save it for later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 shadoseer, what we have here is a difference of opinion. I simply do not buy the argument that, without the Electoral College, rural voters would stop voting - that's bunk. If anything, the Electoral College is a larger threat to voter disenchantment. Why? Let's say there's an imaginary State X, with 10 million voters, and just for the heck of it, 10 Electoral Votes (this is hypothetical, remember). And let's say that 6 million voters vote for Candidate A, while the other 4 million vote for Candidate B. With the Electoral College, all of State X's 10 electoral votes would go to Candidate A, thereby ignoring all 4 million votes cast for Candidate B in State X. This especially hits home for me because the state in which I live is largely dominated by one political party, and if I don't happen to vote for that candidate, my presidential vote doesn't count. That's what's discouraging. Yet, I still vote, not because I think it will make a difference, but simply to spite the establishment - to make my voice heard above the deafening roar of the dominant party in my state - to say, defiantly, "I dissent." In our example, a better implementation of the Electoral College would be for 6 electoral votes to go to Candidate A and 4 to Candidate B. But to be even more accurate, fair, and balanced, each candidate should simply receive a nation-wide tally of all votes cast. And if there are fewer rural voters than urban voters, then so be it. Rural voters should not have a greater weight than urban voters. Let the votes speak for themselves, free of any arbitrary, Electoral College chicanery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadoseer Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Well it seems we have reached an impasse, Vagabond. I can see that we have a fundamental and philisophical difference of opinion that we probably can not resolve through discusision. At least not easily. I can, however, appreciate your well thought out argument and respectful demeaner, as well your attempt to reinforce your argument with an anecdote. Unfortunately, the only way to really know the necessity of an electoral college is to do without it and measure the effects. We are a robust nation and inherently suited to change. I do believe that one more close election and you shall have your wish, I just fully hope that it does work in the manor you believe it will. However I did enjoy this discussion and I hope that in no way I offended you as that was not my intent. In a way I almost welcome your idea, as it would take alot of pressure off my confused state of Florida and allow us to focus more effectively on polluting our groundwater, overdeveloping our wetlands, underfunding our schools and other very important issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFallMyriad Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 One day, a man woke up and decided: "Hey, let's start a system of living based on greed and violence, man's most destructive forces! Yeah! This will be great!" Thus capitolism was born, and the world has been a worse place ever since... Now, I live in Canada, and I have to tell you, I've been to America, and I really like it. The people are very nice and the scenery is in fact very close to home. BUT GEORGE FACKING BUSH IS AN IDIOT AND I HATE HIM!!! I could rant on and on (and on), but I won't right now. I'm not anti-American, I just hate the American government, policies, president and things that it represents. The people are really quite nice. Too bad they have no say in things like who's representing their country... *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfmanNCSU Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Originally posted by ed_silvergun I also have to say, Wolfman, and I admit here that I am no mathematician, that I cannot personally imagine any mathematical model which can possibly be a more accurate sample of the population's wishes than a directly proportional vote based on the principle of universal and equal suffrage... Its cool, hard to understand unless you research it a lot. Maybe this will help. Inorder to have a optimal free/fair election (mathematically) there are a couple of rules that ALL must be satisfied. They are... The Majority Criterion Any candidate receiving a majority of first place votes should be the winner. The Condorcet Criterion A candidate who wins head-to-head matchups with all other candidates should be the winner. The Monotonicity Criterion If an election is held and a winner is declared, this winning candidate should remain the winner in any revote in which all preference changes are in favor of the winner of the original election. The Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion If an election is held and a winner is declared, this winning candidate should remain the winner in any recalculation of votes as a result of one or more of the losing candidates dropping out. The Dictatorship Criterion If an election is held, one must be able to cast their ranking independantly, without the influence of the canadates or other outside force. Now this sounds easy, but is not the case. There is not a voting or ranking system to this date compiles to all 4. In fact, 1-1 voting seems to violate 3 of the criterion under different circumstances off the top of my head. I am not arguing that there is another system that is better than the other, or we should do things this way, blah blah. Just stating the fact that there are mathematical purposed for the reason we do things. If interrested, you should look up some of this stuff (Arrow's Theroy, Fair Elections/Ranking, ect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 shadoseer, no offense take at all. I also enjoy a good, thoughtful debate. WolfmanNCSU, there is an entire body of study devoted to voting theory. I am no expert in that field, and only possess a cursory understanding of the concepts - there was a very detailed article on the subject in Discover magazine several months back. Of the many theories and ideas discussed, the one that most interested me was allowing each voter the ability to cast a vote for more than one candidate. Such a system would allow the voter to cast a vote for each acceptable candidate, thereby strengthening the potential of 3rd-party candidates because voters wouldn't feel that their vote for such a candidate would be "thrown away". This is my favorite modification to the Direct Popular Vote. In any event, let's not forget the bottom line: to elect the candidate that the majority of people want. The Electoral College not only violates that principle, but it also apears to violate nearly every one of your listed Criterions - it just depends on whether you want to count popular votes or electoral votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfmanNCSU Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Yep, its just discret math. I just wanted to point out the fact that there is no solution to voting and that the straight 1-1 vote is not used because of the violations of these "rules." That is one of the reasons the electorial college is still used. It too violates these rules in one way or another, but it has been decided that the consequences are not as serve. Of course its flawed and violated, but there is nothing that wont be like that. Oh well. Its really not as bad as most people think, and I would choose it upon most other alternatives (simply because of the mathematical standpoint). No one in this thread is wrong at all. I just wanted to throw out a little tid bit of useless info on why it is what it is. Also, the criteria is not mine, they are Arrow's theroy. I cannot take credit for that, but boy would I love to if I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_silvergun Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Originally posted by WolfmanNCSU Yep, its just discret math. I just wanted to point out the fact that there is no solution to voting and that the straight 1-1 vote is not used because of the violations of these "rules." That is one of the reasons the electorial college is still used. It too violates these rules in one way or another, but it has been decided that the consequences are not as serve. That is only true if geography is brought into the equation. My argument is that it shouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Agreed. P.S. ed_silvergun, did you check your private messages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JandoFett1842 Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Gore is an ass hole. I demand a reacount! He is a bad loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.