Are you going to vote? How do you decide?

[FaithManor]

I thinl that if a candidate can get on a simple majority of state ballots, then that candidate should be in the debates. It is another mega manipulation by the two parties to keep power consolidated by devaluing other options and platforms.

[FaithManor]

Currently? None. But changing the entire system will require an Amendment and good luck getting that passed.

Exactly. Because it had to be proposed by the very politicians who benefit from this system. Unless we riot on the streets - as in millions riot - I kind of doubt any of them are going to go against their big campaign donors who find this system so very easy to manipulate by proposing a more equitable arrangement capable of shaking the oligarchy to the core.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Exactly. Because it had to be proposed by the very politicians who benefit from this system. Unless we riot on the streets - as in millions riot - I kind of doubt any of them are going to go against their big campaign donors who find this system so very easy to manipulate by proposing a more equitable arrangement capable of shaking the oligarchy to the core.

 

It isn't just the politicians.  It would not surprise me if a majority of voters in some smaller states would not vote for ratification.

[Bluegoat]

I think that lack of flexibility is actually a pretty serious flaw in constitutional systems.  If they are as flexible as they need to be to be really adaptable, they are not really any different than a common law system.  But if you make it really difficult to make change, I think total system breakdown becomes inevitable over the long term, and probably corruption as well.

Currently? None.  But changing the entire system will require an Amendment and good luck getting that passed.

 

Both Maine and Nebraska assign their electoral college votes on a per-district winner-take-all, not per-state winner take all.  If every state did this, it would be a step in the right direction, IMHO, and not require a Constitutional amendment, or any other changes at the federal level.

[TinaBlue]

I will definitely vote. My state is not likely to be a swing state, but if the polls are close, I'll vote for one of the major party candidates. If not, I'll vote 3rd party.

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I'm hard pressed even to describe what "purpose" the current Electoral College serves.

 

To a limited extent it arguably has the effect of giving smaller-population states a slightly-proportionately-higher degree of influence. In a body like the Senate, I can see a purpose to this (for example, ensuring that agricultural interests which are intrinsically lower-population-density, are not overwhelmed by bigger-population areas).  Not sure how that translates into Presidential selection, however.  And this effect is limited because the number of electoral votes each state has is periodically adjusted to population

 

The much greater effect comes from the winner-take-all aspect of the current system, which allow the electoral majority in each state to overrule the votes of the electoral minority within that state... which in turn is why is possible that a candidate win the popular yet lose the electoral.  I couldn't say what the "purpose" of this would be.  Why should individuals casting GOP votes in California, or those casting Dem votes in Texas, not count?  What "purpose" is served?

 

 

I think the point is that even a position like the President isn't simply about representing the majority of individuals, it is also about representing all the regions.

 

I can put this in Canadian terms, though we don't have a similar system, just because I am more familiar with the numbers.  Here in Canada, if we elected a president by majority, there are really only two provinces which would count, at all, in the election, Ontario and Quebec.  People in otherparts of the country would have very little, and sometimes no, concrete reason to vote, they would be truly disenfranchised.

 

So how would that scenario be much different than a similar problem at the state level? 

 

Giving states each the same weight, one vote per state say,  would probably not be a good thing, because small states could easily hold everyone else hostage or have undue influence.  But then cutting out the lower population states doesn't seem right either.

 

The goal of the electoral college was to avoid both of those pitfalls.  From what I understand, one aspects of that system have been eroded over the years, which may make it less effective.  But also, I think many people - perhaps particularly in parts of the country that have the higher population - are less likely to see the nation as a union of states than people did when the union was created. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Both Maine and Nebraska assign their electoral college votes on a per-district winner-take-all, not per-state winner take all.  If every state did this, it would be a step in the right direction, IMHO, and not require a Constitutional amendment, or any other changes at the federal level.

 

Correct, but that also means states don't have to change if they don't want to do so. I don't believe there has been a major push in most states for electoral reform.

[TravelingChris]

I will vote for one of the major party candidates.  I don't like that candidate.  I will not put up a yard sign or a bumper sticker.  I will not be volunteering for that candidate.  I will not financially support that candidate.  That is a change for me.  I have been much more active politically.  I am dismayed.  

[maize]

Both Maine and Nebraska assign their electoral college votes on a per-district winner-take-all, not per-state winner take all. If every state did this, it would be a step in the right direction, IMHO, and not require a Constitutional amendment, or any other changes at the federal level.

Yes, states can choose how to allocate their electoral college votes. I believe state constitutions determine that, they could be changed individually.

 

I think though that there are a lot of folks in positions of power who are invested in maintaining the status quo.

[eternalsummer]

As much as polling is faulty, I think it's a million times more predictive than scanning bumper stickers or lawn signs. 

 

I'd take Nate Silver's data over any bumper sticker count. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

he lists the states to watch especially ....

 

Nate Silver has had a bad election cycle this year :)

[eternalsummer]

I think that lack of flexibility is actually a pretty serious flaw in constitutional systems.  If they are as flexible as they need to be to be really adaptable, they are not really any different than a common law system.  But if you make it really difficult to make change, I think total system breakdown becomes inevitable over the long term, and probably corruption as well.

 

total system breakdown is inevitable over the long term with any form of government.

 

nothing lasts forever

[Pam in CT]

Both Maine and Nebraska assign their electoral college votes on a per-district winner-take-all, not per-state winner take all.  If every state did this, it would be a step in the right direction, IMHO, and not require a Constitutional amendment, or any other changes at the federal level.

If *every* state did this, it'd be just about mathematically impossible for the Candidate A wins popular / Candidate B wins electoral outcome to happen; and would also solve for the much larger winner-take-all disenfranchisement effect... 

 

...but,

Correct, but that also means states don't have to change if they don't want to do so. I don't believe there has been a major push in most states for electoral reform.

 

... and, from (say) the perspective of the Dominant Dems in California, or that of the Reigning Reps in Texas, why mess with a winning formula?  

 

It'd take a widespread grassroots and more importantly (and more challengingly) bipartisan movement to alter the system, although I think it could be done without Constitutional amendment under the right, if remote, circumstances.  We're closer now than we've been in a long time, when there are, simultaneously, significant segments of both parties who are feeling disenfranchised under a rapidly moving electoral college map.  

 

One person one vote looks pretty good in times like this.

Correct, but that also means states don't have to change if they don't want to do so. I don't believe there has been a major push in most states for electoral reform.

 

There hasn't been a big  push, but if people like us keep talking about it, maybe there is hope?

 

And I think this change is a long shot, but nonetheless possible, whereas I don't expect to see any meaningful constitutional amendment in my lifetime.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There hasn't been a big  push, but if people like us keep talking about it, maybe there is hope?

 

And I think this change is a long shot, but nonetheless possible, whereas I don't expect to see any meaningful constitutional amendment in my lifetime.

 

I agree. We may be at a tipping point, but only if those feeling disenfranchised follow through after the election.  Unfortunately that is where we have a tendency to let things slide until it is time to feel outraged again in 2020.

[Mergath]

I will vote for one of the major party candidates.  I don't like that candidate.  I will not put up a yard sign or a bumper sticker.  I will not be volunteering for that candidate.  I will not financially support that candidate.  That is a change for me.  I have been much more active politically.  I am dismayed.  

 

This is how I feel about it. I've always been very politically active as well. In '08 I volunteered at my party's headquarters on multiple occasions not too long after my emergency c-section. Dd came along. (Which delighted the other volunteers, as most were grandparents and couldn't get enough of her. ;) ) In college I stood out on a street corner in a sleet storm holding up a sign for several hours. I've given money and time to a candidate in every election since I was old enough to vote. This year is really disheartening.

[purplejackmama]

I wish we could discuss politics here. I would love to try and understand how people have arrived at being comfortable with their candidate. In real life I've yet to find any happy with either.

[hornblower]

I wish we could discuss politics here. I would love to try and understand how people have arrived at being comfortable with their candidate. In real life I've yet to find any happy with either.

 

join the social group & you can! http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/forum/338-wtm-politics/

[luuknam]

I really don't get why winner-take-all per district would be an improvement over winner-take-all by state. Let's take an imaginary state, and say it has 3 districts. Let's say the districts are pretty much the same, and in each district 51% votes for candidate A, and 49% for candidate B. Under both WTA scenarios, all 3 votes would go to candidate A. What I'd like to see is that 2 votes go to candidate A and 1 to candidate B if a state is that closely tied, because it really doesn't make sense that if 49% of people in a state vote for B, they get 0 votes.

[Barb_]

 

join the social group & you can! http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/forum/338-wtm-politics/

I'm having trouble with this group. I'm stuck in a no mans land lol. I joined a while back and I get the notifications for new thread topics but when I try to connect it says I'm not a member. When I try to rejoin it says I don't have permission to do that. Was I rejected?? Lol

[hornblower]

I'm having trouble with this group. I'm stuck in a no mans land lol. I joined a while back and I get the notifications for new thread topics but when I try to connect it says I'm not a member. When I try to rejoin it says I don't have permission to do that. Was I rejected?? Lol

how weird. I don't. know. I'll try to send you an invite maybe? 

[Paige]

I thought part of the electoral college's purpose was to provide an extra step away from election by popular vote. If I remember correctly, the founders, or some of them, feared popular vote by ignorant masses and charismatic but unqualified or dangerous leaders, so we were voting for electors of a party to choose for us. The electors generally go along with the popular vote of their state or of their party, but in most states, they do not have to. In today's election, that means the electors of a given party could refuse to vote for the popular winner on principle and, if they do so, they would not be violating the intent of the constitution but fulfilling the electoral college's purpose. 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Paige

[Frances]

I'm having trouble with this group. I'm stuck in a no mans land lol. I joined a while back and I get the notifications for new thread topics but when I try to connect it says I'm not a member. When I try to rejoin it says I don't have permission to do that. Was I rejected?? Lol

Are you also having any general problems getting automatically logged off the boards? This past week on and off I get constantly logged off the boards and then get the message you do for the politics social group. But most of the time, everything works just fine.

[LucyStoner]

I don't see us as battleground at all! That 2008 election was called LONG before the NC votes were even counted.

 

2012, again, president declared before NC was even called.

 

We just don't carry enough electoral votes to matter.

A battleground state is not a large state that can make or break an candidate, it's a state that is in play and could conceivably go either way. Having gone red four years ago and blue 8 years ago, NC is now a battle ground state. You will see way more campaigning and more media buys in NC than in states like Washington, Alaska or South Dakota. Every single electoral vote counts. Edited August 7, 2016 by LucyStoner

[purplejackmama]

 

join the social group & you can! http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/forum/338-wtm-politics/

It's says I don't have permission.

[Barb_]

It's says I don't have permission.

Yeah same here

[Barb_]

how weird. I don't. know. I'll try to send you an invite maybe?

Oh I just got it, thanks!

 

Now I'm getting this when I try to follow your invite link:

 

 

 

IP.Board Message

You do not have permission to view this forum. In some cases joining this Social Group will give you permission to view this forum.

 

I think it's broken

 

Retun to this Group's Home

[Pam in CT]

re which states are "battleground" or "in play":

 

A battleground state is not a large state that can make or break an candidate, it's a state that is in play and could conceivably go either way. Having gone red four years ago and blue 8 years ago, NC is now a battle ground state. You will see way more campaigning and more media buys in NC than in states like Washington, Alaska or South Dakota. Every single electoral vote counts.

 

270towin has nice constantly-updated color-coded maps showing which states are "in play" and by how much according to prior electoral outcomes, pundit views and current polls (there's a legend on the top left that you can change around which maps you want to look at).

 

North Carolina is considered "in play" by either measure (prior outcomes or current polling), along with the usual suspects (i.e. Ohio, Penn, Florida) and some new ones based on polling (i.e. Georgia).  It's a very weird election season and at this point the outcome is anyone's guess.  

 

Whether or not your vote has "mattered" in prior years due to winner-take-all issues, it may well, this one.

[Pam in CT]

Barb and PJmama, I am very sorry, and also perplexed, about your difficulties getting in ... it's an open group!  Please keep trying, and I'll send you both invites as well if I can figure out how...

[Pawz4me]

It's says I don't have permission.

 

 

Yeah same here

 

 

I'll post a message so Amira (the group owner/moderator) will see what you all have posted here. I think her internet access has been a bit spotty, so stand by.

[DawnM]

A battleground state is not a large state that can make or break an candidate, it's a state that is in play and could conceivably go either way. Having gone red four years ago and blue 8 years ago, NC is now a battle ground state. You will see way more campaigning and more media buys in NC than in states like Washington, Alaska or South Dakota. Every single electoral vote counts.

 

 

Yeah, I still don't believe it will count, but I do intend to vote anyway.    I understand the concept, I just don't believe it will ever get to where NC will get to decide anything.

Edited August 8, 2016 by DawnM

[Anacharsis]

But is it somehow more fair for a minority of people to decide for everyone else when it comes to things like electing leaders? I don't think majority vote should decide everything, of course, but when it comes to picking the people who represent us in government, it's bizarre that the majority vote can be overruled by the electoral college.

 

I suppose it depends on how far one goes. Take U.S.-China relations; under a simple world majority, the U.S. should defer to China whenever there is a disagreement, because China represents more of the world's population by far. The U.S. would also be expected to do this with India. Yet there would be people in the U.S. who would not be happy with that solution, even if by global standards, deciding to go against China and India's wishes would be allowing a minority of people (relatively speaking) to decide for everyone else.

[Barb_]

I'll post a message so Amira (the group owner/moderator) will see what you all have posted here. I think her internet access has been a bit spotty, so stand by.

Thanks. I keep getting stuck in this weird loop where I'm a member but the group isn't recognizing me and when I try to follow the link to contact Amira it says no permission. Maybe we should let the board moderators know. You guys have been bringing up a bunch of great topics!

 

ETA: This is the message I just got in my email but I can't connect through the link in the email either.

 

 

The Well-Trained Mind Community

 

Barb_,

 

Pawz4me has just posted a new topic entitled "Amira -- some people can't get in" in forum "WTM Politics".

Can you take a look at posts #270 - 283 on this thread? Barb and Purplejackmama are trying to join this group and can't get in.

 

 

 

Thanks!!

 

 

The topic can be found here:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/620293-amira-some-people-cant-get-in/?view=getnewpost

Edited August 8, 2016 by Barb_

[TranquilMind]

I will still vote. Both major party nominees are unacceptable and I keep thinking we are being pranked.

Maybe I will vote third party. 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Are the third party voters okay with the House of Representatives picking the next president if enough third party votes prevent either candidate from getting the necessary amount?  I, personally, am not.

 

Maybe this is a better question in the politics group, but I am finding (locally) that many of my third party friends don't actually understand why we are stuck with two parties. We could eventually change which two parties, but it'll still end up with two major parties.

 

 

Heck for all I know, I brought this up already myself. I'm tired.

[Amira]

Thanks. I keep getting stuck in this weird loop where I'm a member but the group isn't recognizing me and when I try to follow the link to contact Amira it says no permission. Maybe we should let the board moderators know. You guys have been bringing up a bunch of great topics!

 

ETA: This is the message I just got in my email but I can't connect through the link in the email either.

 

 

The Well-Trained Mind Community

 

Barb_,

 

Pawz4me has just posted a new topic entitled "Amira -- some people can't get in" in forum "WTM Politics".

Can you take a look at posts #270 - 283 on this thread? Barb and Purplejackmama are trying to join this group and can't get in.

 

 

 

Thanks!!

 

 

The topic can be found here:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/620293-amira-some-people-cant-get-in/?view=getnewpost

Barb, can you try leaving the group and then rejoining with one of the invitations you got today? I don't know why you're having trouble, except for board glitchiness. The settings should allow anyone to join and no one has been removed from the group.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Amira

[Shred Betty]

I'm not sure how long it would take to get my US citizenship but I really wish I could get it so I could vote. At this moment I do not agree that both candidates are garbage. Ive never in my life been able to vote. I've never really wanted to, till now! Cherish your right.

I really don't get why winner-take-all per district would be an improvement over winner-take-all by state. Let's take an imaginary state, and say it has 3 districts. Let's say the districts are pretty much the same, and in each district 51% votes for candidate A, and 49% for candidate B. 

 

It is an improvement (not perfect, mind you, but an improvement) because districts aren't uniform, and can vary widely.  Austin, for example, isn't like the rest of Texas (or anywhere else on the planet, some might argue).  California is a solidly blue state, but reliably elects Republicans in some districts every election.

Edited August 8, 2016 by GGardner

[kiwik]

Just out of curiosity but has the US ever considered changing its electoral system? MMP has its disadvantages but it breaks up the two party system and would prevent the current situation. It also makes politics a lot more fun.

Edited August 8, 2016 by kiwik

[DawnM]

Just out of curiosity but has the US ever considered changing its electoral system? MMP has its disadvantages but it breaks up the two party system and would prevent the current situation. It also makes politics a lot more fun.

 

Are you in NZ?  My friend is married to a member of parliament and this last time he was elected in she was trying to explain it all to me.  She is American by the way.

[Entropymama]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been stated. 

 

I'm strongly considering voting for a third candidate in this election, not because I think that person will actually get elected, but because I'm hoping that we can get some momentum behind the idea that there can be more than two (potentially electable) candidates on a ticket. I'm hoping that my vote will influence others who might vote third-party in the next election, which will embolden more to do the same in the one after that, etc. It's not really even about a particular third party getting on the ballot, but about garnering confidence in the public to break the two-party tradition. 

Or maybe that's all just wishful thinking. 

[luuknam]

I'm not sure how long it would take to get my US citizenship but I really wish I could get it so I could vote. At this moment I do not agree that both candidates are garbage. Ive never in my life been able to vote. I've never really wanted to, till now! Cherish your right.

 

Last time I checked, about a year (assuming you qualify to apply), and $$$.

 

It is an improvement (not perfect, mind you, but an improvement) because districts aren't uniform, and can vary widely.  Austin, for example, isn't like the rest of Texas (or anywhere else on the planet, some might argue).  California is a solidly blue state, but reliably elects Republicans in some districts every election.

 

I know, but with gerrymandering, the dominant party would try to make the districts such that they would still get all the votes.

[RootAnn]

... and, from (say) the perspective of the Dominant Dems in California, or that of the Reigning Reps in Texas, why mess with a winning formula? 

 

Nebraska's Republicans are almost always unhappy about one of the Congressional Districts swinging Democrat during some years. There was a bill in the Nebraska Legislature this year to change the system to Winner Take All vs. by-congressional-district. It fell short of passing by one vote. So, there would definitely be some grumbling by the majority party in each state to changing. It would have to be a strong grass roots effort.

[Bluegoat]

total system breakdown is inevitable over the long term with any form of government.

 

nothing lasts forever

 

Some last a lot longer than others, however.   The US constitution isn't even 300 years old yet, which is pretty young, and yet it is difficult to say how these kinds of issues could be addressed in the framework it provides, or how the framework could actually be changed.

[wapiti]

News this morning is reporting a new independent candidate, Evan McMullin, who apparently until this morning was some sort of director of policy for the House Republicans.

[heartlikealion]

I'm not sure how long it would take to get my US citizenship but I really wish I could get it so I could vote. At this moment I do not agree that both candidates are garbage. Ive never in my life been able to vote. I've never really wanted to, till now! Cherish your right.

 

Who have you been talking to? :lol:

 

[Barb_]

Barb, can you try leaving the group and then rejoining with one of the invitations you got today? I don't know why you're having trouble, except for board glitchiness. The settings should allow anyone to join and no one has been removed from the group.

I'll give it a shot, thanks.

[JadeOrchidSong]

A big number of one party declare they endorse the other party's candidate. It seems one of the two major candidates will surely win. Don't know which third party I will vote now because there are three to choose.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been stated.

 

I'm strongly considering voting for a third candidate in this election, not because I think that person will actually get elected, but because I'm hoping that we can get some momentum behind the idea that there can be more than two (potentially electable) candidates on a ticket. I'm hoping that my vote will influence others who might vote third-party in the next election, which will embolden more to do the same in the one after that, etc. It's not really even about a particular third party getting on the ballot, but about garnering confidence in the public to break the two-party tradition.

Or maybe that's all just wishful thinking.

The system is set up that we end up with two parties. You can change the parties but unless we change the whole electoral system, we will have two parties. Well...or the House will pick the president each time if the votes are diluted enough by more parties.

Edited August 8, 2016 by PinkyandtheBrains.

[Ann.without.an.e]

I don't have time to read everything written here and maybe this has been stated, but this is the year...it is the year where if everyone who wanted to vote 3rd party actually voted 3rd party then a 3rd party would probably win.  That being said, everyone who wants to vote third party will hold back, thinking their vote is a waste so it won't work.  ugh