Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
You think that the EC causes politicians to pander to certain states more than others, but actually removing the EC would cause presidential candidates to pander EXCLUSIVELY to large urban areas like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Houston. Urban concerns would be the only matters of importance. A candidate would travel to the places where his/her audience would be the most concentrated, where the most votes could be captured. This would be the large urban areas. The EC exists not to give states like OH or FL more weight, it exists solely to provide a balance. It's not about candidates pandering to remote areas, it's about giving people in rural areas an opportunity to express what their concerns are to the candidates. It's a recognition of the fact that people who live in rural areas make significant contributions to the economy and infrastructure of this country, and have a set of concerns and issues that are different from the concerns and issues of people living in cities. It's a recognition of the fact that if you don't have farms and ranches and orchards and water supplies and the supports around them to get food to the cities, then you might as well close down the factories. This may seem less relevant in the current world-based economy where so much of our food is imported, but when mad-cow disease, terrorism, the super-flu and food controls in other countries are thrown in, having the ability and capacity to be self-sufficient becomes more relevant. The design of the Electoral College isn't about the candidates educating the rural population, it's about the rural population educating the candidates.
DC
Assuning electoral votes are distributed throughout the states based on population, why is there any reason to believe there would be a difference between pandering to states with the most electoral votes or pandering to the states with the biggest populations?
There are two scenarios that make me oppose the EC.
1) A state can have a substantially equally divided popular vote yet all its electoral votes go to one candidate. That's like telling almost half the state's voters that their votes were in effect meaningless.
2) A state can be overwhelmingly for one candidate. That's telling those who don't support that candidate that there is no way, short of moving to another srtate, for their vote to have any meaning or to even be worth the effort to cast.
I understand that the states can change color. Still, many sway significantly one way or the other, so for any given election period, lots of people have their votes essentially not count if they live in the wrong color state. How many people say I don't care the candidate but I am going to vote (one party or the other).
Swaying one way of the other is the job of an aggressive and robust system and well-informed voters who give a damn. To my mind, diluting the election from 50 opportunites to affect the election to one opportunity is a recipe for more laziness and apathy -- not less.
I just think that following the discussion you and Burdell have been having, I don't see how the fact that more people live in New York City than in Albuquerue means people in New York will vote any differently than people in Albuquerque for the President. Iraq, housing and the economy, illegal immigration, are all national issues of importance that they would vote on no matter where they lived. It might drive more people to get out and vote and participate in their Democracy.
I understand your point, but I insist that it makes more sense to keep the campaign on a state level (where, after all, the other campaigns are waged), rather than pretending that we all live in the same place and have the same attitudes. This is a big, diverse country. Regional differences make us the country that we are. Taking away the significance of Maine or South Dakota in favor of New York and California (who already have a preponderance of the wealth and influence in all other fields) runs against the grain of what America is all about.
Really? There are many people with lower intelligence that arn't arrogant, but humble. On the other hand, there are some intelligent people who are very arrogant. They may be blessed with a high IQ but they lack people skills, and emotional intelligence. It seems there are far more of these.
*chuckle*
Ignorance doesn't mean a person is not "educated", it merely means they are not "educated" on the issues they speak of. It could be due to a want to "believe" what someone tells them or it could be a personal choice to refuse to except any fact that doesn't fit with their belief.
I have met many "highly educated" people who are both arrogant and ignorant on the issues they speak of.
I think THAT's a pretty damn silly statement considering you attempt to explain statements made in 1787 RE: education by bringing up your grandfather's 8th grade education unless of course your grandfather's education is of that era, which it seems would make you a very old person. It's hard to take much of what you say seriously when you make silly statements accusing me of asking silly questions. All I've said is that times have changed since 1787 and I believe the country must change along with it.
And contrary to what you state I find your interpretaion of things to be highly subjective.
You asked a question that was rather silly. Of course my grandfather was not born in 1787 or lived in that time, to even entertain that as you did is either highly stupid of devious in the intent.
I clarified that education is failing in our society, I merely used an example of my grandfathers 8th grade education as a point, but I also went on to explain that they were educated (those that did attend schools) back then. More specifically, my point in relation to that personal comparison was to say that the lower education of their times was much more elevated than much of our higher education today.
So are you being devious or must I assume the former?
Ignorance doesn't mean a person is not "educated", it merely means they are not "educated" on the issues they speak of. It could be due to a want to "believe" what someone tells them or it could be a personal choice to refuse to except any fact that doesn't fit with their belief.
I have met many "highly educated" people who are both arrogant and ignorant on the issues they speak of.
Nomander it is obvious that your are part of the educated and learned group.
I understand your point, but I insist that it makes more sense to keep the campaign on a state level (where, after all, the other campaigns are waged), rather than pretending that we all live in the same place and have the same attitudes. This is a big, diverse country. Regional differences make us the country that we are. Taking away the significance of Maine or South Dakota in favor of New York and California (who already have a preponderance of the wealth and influence in all other fields) runs against the grain of what America is all about.
1) A state can have a substantially equally divided popular vote yet all its electoral votes go to one candidate. That's like telling almost half the state's voters that their votes were in effect meaningless.
.
That's an excellent point. Several states (Maine and Nebraska, I think) have already adopted proportional electoral vote systems, eliminating the "winner-take-all" system to which you refer.
I have no problem at all with that remedy. The Constitution is clear when it refers to Electors being chosen in each state in a way "that the Legislature therein shall direct".
Perhaps this is the solution to (part of) our dilemma?
The front page of the Daily Mirror in London announced the re-election of George W. Bush with the question: “How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?”
Is it true? Just how intelligent are Americans?
Essays and books have been written in recent years concerning what many educators and intellectuals believe has been a deliberate “dumbing down of America,” but until the election, and a published study of average intelligence of Americans by state, I think I didn’t really believe the problem was as severe as it is.
There recently appeared a chart that indicated an average intelligence quote per state that claims the states with people of lower average IQ chose Bush. The states with higher average IQs leaned toward Kerry. It claimed that the average IQ in America is 98, far lower than I realized.
Was the data on the chart accurate?
It seems that the smartest people in the nation live in New Hampshire, where they score at 104, and Oregon, Massachusetts and Wisconsin, where they test average at 103. All four states, by the way, supported Kerry.
The lowest IQ scores were rated at 94 in both Mississippi and South Carolina. These states both went for Bush.
Of these, 17 of the 35 states averaging an IQ of 100 or more voted for Kerry. Three of the 16 states on the bottom of the rung voted for Kerry. The rest of them swung to Bush with flags waving from the windows and bumpers of their cars.
Thus the conclusion can be reached that states where people averaged a higher intelligence level, indeed, supported Kerry.
According to international IQ charts, the United States rates 18 behind other nations in average intellectual levels. At the top is Hong Kong at 107; South Korea, 106; Japan, 105; Taiwan and Singapore, 104; Austria, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands, 102; Sweden and Switzerland at 101; Belgium, China, New Zealand and the United Kingdom at 100; Hungary, Poland and Spain at 99.
According to the Mensa IQ group, these numbers are not bad, although they could be much better, especially in the United States where educational opportunities have been touted as among the best, and our universities have excelled for years.
I'm more apolitical (so you can easily dismiss this with a grain of salt...or pepper...or chiles...or whatever...), however, I have observed the inability of many people to reason effectively, use logic, and to learn quickly. Just a general observation over the years. I think some of it is the educational system (certainly it is much different from when I attended school -- the decline is quite apparent, to me), and some of it may just be what it is -- low IQs.
I don't know, however, I find it disturbing that those with the lowest educational levels are often the loudest in proclaiming Bush the best. I often wondered why so many people can't seem to integrate and disseminate information easily.
I do not know the answer to this problem -- since the EC focuses on states and not individuals, then perhaps the states may want to more closely monitor education and other factors contributing to lower IQs. But then again, those that have the lowest IQs, seem to be very happy with Bush and his party.... Maybe it's that whole thing about feeling better with someone more like oneself.....
I'm more apolitical (so you can easily dismiss this with a grain of salt...or pepper...or chiles...or whatever...), however, I have observed the inability of many people to reason effectively, use logic, and to learn quickly. Just a general observation over the years. I think some of it is the educational system (certainly it is much different from when I attended school -- the decline is quite apparent, to me), and some of it may just be what it is -- low IQs.
I don't know, however, I find it disturbing that those with the lowest educational levels are often the loudest in proclaiming Bush the best. I often wondered why so many people can't seem to integrate and disseminate information easily.
I do not know the answer to this problem -- since the EC focuses on states and not individuals, then perhaps the states may want to more closely monitor education and other factors contributing to lower IQs. But then again, those that have the lowest IQs, seem to be very happy with Bush and his party.... Maybe it's that whole thing about feeling better with someone more like oneself.....
I think I'll go hide under a rock!
Personally, I think it is more of a position of stance and what cards are available to you. Bush early on showed a stance that many conservatives agreed with. Many supported his position in the way and many still do. His record as Governor many people agreed with in the policies and work he did.
He has though really took a spin away from the foundations of some of those peoples beliefs and that has cost him. For those who hold to a belief system and not to a candidate, they see him as turning away from those issues and disagree with this position on them.
I don't hate him and I agree with him on various issues and disagree on others. I don't buy into the "Hate bush" crap anymore than I bought into the "Hate Clinton" crap. Both were and are wrong in various ways and though I disagreed with a lot of what Clinton did, he did do "some" things that I approved of, it was just very small and few and far between. That is a foundation of position issue though.
Education is terrible these days. What is worse is that there seems to be major movements of indoctrination. Columbia University is one. Much of my experience with the California educational system also was evident of this.
Many people are growing up with not only no understanding of the topics they are dealing with, but worse the things they are told are nothing short of lies and mis truths. I noticed a lot of this in my history classes and it made me sick inside. Science was safe for a while, but even it is under fire to adopt "relativistic" ideals based on subjective individual perception and "faith" rather than on core scientific processes. It has become very political. Nothing like hearing a biology major tell me I am wrong on the math when they can't even explain how their math is derived, but their text book says "trust me, have faith, I am right".
While I agree there are people that blindly hold to Bush in all that he says and does, there are people who blindly object to anything simply by hearing his name. You can't walk into any topic these days without some wacko having to bring up Bush and trying to link it to him being the cause. People are obsessed with him and much of it is nothing more than ignorant hype.
So in my opinion, we have idiots on both sides and they are so busy trying to claim their "belief" is right that they ignore any truth that might be available. We pick and choose truth these days as if it were a change of clothes. /shrug
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe it's that whole thing about feeling better with someone more like oneself.....
