[Bbradley62]

billw55, on 2012-June-17, 21:14, said:

Agree! I am very strongly in favor of abolishing the electoral college in favor of a straight popular vote. That way, my vote will actually matter .. along with millions of others in the numerous landslide states.

Since I don't see the small states approving abolishing the electoral college (since they get more weight than popular vote would provide) I'd love to see something like this: each state's electoral college spots are assigned proportionately based on popular vote... (1) there would be no such thing as a swing state; there would be one or two electors (maybe a couple more in California) in play in each state... (2) third party candidates would be much more likely to win electors, which could be key if neither of the majors gets 270 on the first ballot... (3) it would eliminate the situation where many electors hang in the balance of a statewide recount; "problems" would have minimal effects.

[blackshoe]

Hell, let 'em all run. The more the merrier.

[mike777]

the counter claim is popular vote or one day nat primary makes your vote count alot less in smaller states.
it really becomes a tv race even more influenced by big money and tv ad buys.

It makes minorities(define anyway) even more irrelvant

--


In any event go back and see why they created the electoral college, at this point I think your debate points are pretty weak against it.

---


there may be stronger points out there but not presented so far.

--


the problem with a third party winning the president's office is how do they govern?

[cherdano]

mike777, on 2012-June-17, 22:59, said:

the counter claim is popular vote or one day nat primary makes your vote count alot less in smaller states.
it really becomes a tv race even more influenced by big money and tv ad buys.

It makes minorities(define anyway) even more irrelvant

Just goes to show what kind of stupidities people will say to defend the system they are used to.

[Mbodell]

cherdano, on 2012-June-18, 02:12, said:

mike777 said:

the counter claim is popular vote or one day nat primary makes your vote count alot less in smaller states.
it really becomes a tv race even more influenced by big money and tv ad buys.

It makes minorities(define anyway) even more irrelvant

Just goes to show what kind of stupidities people will say to defend the system they are used to.

There is no doubt that, compared to the current system, going to nation wide would same day primary would make people's vote count a lot less in many smaller states. That is because in today's system voters in the primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa count many hundreds or thousands or more times as important as the voters in California or Texas. It is a dumb system, no doubt, but there are winners and losers in changing it and the losers are the ones who influence who can run successfully for President. Nearly no politician can afford to offend those voters by speaking out against the current system, since in the current system those voters carry so much weight.

The same day at once idea also makes it difficult to have a long campaign, and would be quite ruinous if done through "first past the post" voting. If there was STV then it could work.

[billw55]

Mbodell, on 2012-June-18, 02:48, said:

There is no doubt that, compared to the current system, going to nation wide would same day primary would make people's vote count a lot less in many smaller states. That is because in today's system voters in the primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa count many hundreds or thousands or more times as important as the voters in California or Texas. It is a dumb system, no doubt, but there are winners and losers in changing it and the losers are the ones who influence who can run successfully for President. Nearly no politician can afford to offend those voters by speaking out against the current system, since in the current system those voters carry so much weight.

The same day at once idea also makes it difficult to have a long campaign, and would be quite ruinous if done through "first past the post" voting. If there was STV then it could work.

I think that discouraging long campaigns is defintely a benefit.

Frankly I don't care if the voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, or South Carolina want to preserve the system. What makes them think they have the right to decide so much for the rest of the country? The system simply should not allow this. Politicians pander to them because they carry so much weight in the general election? Perhaps, but that is only due to the electoral system which I oppose.

Proportional assignment of electors, while not quite what I am seeking, would still be a huge improvement over the existing system.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2012-June-18, 06:28, said:

I think that discouraging long campaigns is defintely a benefit.

I favor relatively long campaigns. I think that the candidates are better vetted. There is less chance that some flavor of the month gets the nomination. Take a look at this years Republican primary. I can't stand Mitt Romney, but he is head and shoulders above any of the other whack-a-doodles that were riding high at one point or another. The thought of "President" Bachmann / Cain / Gingrich / Trump / Santorum is terrifying. Personally, I favor a structure in which the allocation of primaries over time follows a triangular distribution. Start 1-2 primaries. Over time, each date has a progressively larger number of delegates at stake. Culminate with a real super Tuesday.

My main problems with the existing situation is that

1. Its not centrally administered. Individuals states are involved in a red queen's race, trying to ensure that they are towards the front of the pack.
2. Iowa and New Hampshire seem to have been granted some kind of monopoly to hold the first events.

I'd very much prefer a system in which primary slots were chosen randomly four years or so in advance. I wouldn't mind a system in which there were deliberate efforts to vary composition. For example, the early" events would always include a one state from a the South, one from the North East...

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2012-June-18, 07:13, said:

I favor relatively long campaigns. I think that the candidates are better vetted. There is less chance that some flavor of the month gets the nomination. Take a look at this years Republican primary. I can't stand Mitt Romney, but he is head and shoulders above any of the other whack-a-doodles that were riding high at one point or another. The thought of "President" Bachmann / Cain / Gingrich / Trump / Santorum is terrifying. Personally, I favor a structure in which the allocation of primaries over time follows a triangular distribution. Start 1-2 primaries. Over time, each date has a progressively larger number of delegates at stake. Culminate with a real super Tuesday.

My main problems with the existing situation is that

1. Its not centrally administered. Individuals states are involved in a red queen's race, trying to ensure that they are towards the front of the pack.
2. Iowa and New Hampshire seem to have been granted some kind of monopoly to hold the first events.

I'd very much prefer a system in which primary slots were chosen randomly four years or so in advance. I wouldn't mind a system in which there were deliberate efforts to vary composition. For example, the early" events would always include a one state from a the South, one from the North East...

Good points and your proposal is definitely a big improvement on the existing system.

That it is so easy to propose multiple ideas that are vastly better than the status quo, further shows how hopelessly obsolete it truly is.