Alaska for Obama?
 

With the stunning indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens (R AK), it's become
more plausible that Alaska will go for Obama (in addition to changing
the name of the Anchorage airport).

Alaska has three electoral votes and a population of about 684,000. An
Alaska resident has nearly three times the voting power for president of
a resident of California, and MORE than three times the voting power for
president of a resident of Texas.

In my dreams, Obama will win with a majority of electoral votes and a
minority of popular votes. That would be sweet revenge. I can already
hear the screams from the hypocritical right wing.

Maybe such an outcome would result in reform of the stupid electoral system.

----
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Maybe such an outcome would result in reform of the stupid electoral
system.

I, for one, have never found anything stupid about the system. It works as
designed.
Tom

Alaska for Obama?
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
news:raMjk.344$Ht4.140@trnddc01...

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Maybe such an outcome would result in reform of the stupid electoral
system.

I, for one, have never found anything stupid about the system. It works as
designed.
Tom

Just my take, but I don't recall anything about the SCOTUS's constitutional
authority in making decisions as to electoral outcomes of POTUS?

Ginsberg's dissenting opinion sums it up for me.

"In sum, the Court' s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount
is *impractical* is a prophecy the Court' s own judgment will not allow to
be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the
United States. I dissent." http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres246.htm

I join rw, in the belief that the system needs repair, but not likely for
the same reasons.

Op

Alaska for Obama?
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

Maybe such an outcome would result in reform of the stupid electoral
system.


I, for one, have never found anything stupid about the system. It works as
designed.
Tom



It most certainly does not work as designed -- which is a good thing.

As designed, the electors were to be free to vote for whomever they
chose. The power to elect the president and vice president was taken
away from a direct democratic vote and given to a small group of "wise
old men." As I'm sure you know, that isn't the way the Electoral College
works these days. While electors are technically allowed to vote for
anyone they choose, in practice they are a "pledged" to one candidate.
The only real effect is to magnify the voting power of residents of
small states at the expense of residents of large states, and to leave
open the disturbing and very real possibility that the winner will have
lost the popular vote.

It's an obsolete and dangerous system that was designed as a political
compromise in a very different time.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 29, 6:35 pm, rw wrote:

The only real effect is to magnify the voting power of residents of
small states at the expense of residents of large states,

And that, IMO, helps protect the interests of the varied populations,
cultures, and lifestyles throughout our very large and diverse
country. I'm all for it. We are, after all, a federation of _states_.

Jon.

Alaska for Obama?
 

Alaska for Obama?
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
snip

The president should be the president of ALL the people, and should be
elected by popular vote. We should also scrap the state-by-state
winner-take-all system because that also can lead to democratically
illegitimate outcomes.

The current electoral system is merely an obsolete, obscure, unfair,
antidemocratic, and ponderous system born of a compromise necessary to get
13 states to ratify the constitution. Another compromise was to count
slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of congressional representation
(although they had no vote, of course).

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Interesting rant compared to your silence during the primaries re that
"system".

Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Alaska for Obama?
 

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...
snip

The president should be the president of ALL the people, and should be
elected by popular vote. We should also scrap the state-by-state
winner-take-all system because that also can lead to democratically
illegitimate outcomes.

The current electoral system is merely an obsolete, obscure, unfair,
antidemocratic, and ponderous system born of a compromise necessary to get
13 states to ratify the constitution. Another compromise was to count
slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of congressional representation
(although they had no vote, of course).

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.


Interesting rant compared to your silence during the primaries re that
"system".

Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR

So now you're criticizing me for what I DIDN'T say about politics on a
flyfishing newsgroup? That's a first, I believe.

BTW, I wouldn't call this a "rant." It's an opinion.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...

So now you're criticizing me for what I DIDN'T say about politics on a
flyfishing newsgroup? That's a first, I believe.

BTW, I wouldn't call this a "rant." It's an opinion.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address


My, how thin skinned. No criticism. Simply an observation of an apparrent
inconsistency.

Bob Weinberger La Grande ,OR


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 30, 10:38 am, rw wrote:

Can you explain why a resident of Alaska should have (effectively) three
votes for every one vote of a resident of California or Texas?

Which vote will get more campaign dollars spent trying to sway it?

Jon.

Alaska for Obama?
 

Alaska for Obama?
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
..
The only real effect is to magnify the voting power of residents of small
states at the expense of residents of large states,

which was precisely the compromise that enabled the creation of a Republic
of large and small population states. Otherwise, an agreement would have
never been reached, and the USA, as we know it, never would have existed.
Does the system work perfectly? No. Would any system? Just because a system
of simple majority seems simple, doesn't mean that it doesn't present very
real electoral/representational pitfalls. And, yes, you are correct in
citing how the system at the outset was able to work(before any real two
party setup in the current sense). Still, cite an example where the system
failed, beyond the fact that the person YOU supported didn't win. The
debacle of 2000 was NOT the fault of the electoral college system, it was a
corruption of the electoral system in one state. An electoral system
consisting of simple majority can be corrupted and abused every bit as
easily.
Tom

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 30, 1:58 pm, rw wrote:

You've touched on another problem with our electoral system. The
state-by-state winner-take-all system concentrates campaign effort and
money into a few "swing" states, while the candidates all but ignore the
voters in solidly red or blue states. This isn't good. It holds our
politics hostage to small, highly motivated constituencies in the swing
states.

So we should go back to locally elected electoral college members who
will considerately cast their vote for president? ;-)

Jon.

Alaska for Obama?
 

rw wrote:


A good example is Florida, where the candidates have to kowtow to the
Cuban-American vote. As a result, I believe, our foreign policy with
respect to Cuba has been stagnant and counterproductive for decades.


....not to mention the problems in being able to fish in some of the
finest salt water fisheries and freshwater bass lakes in the world.

Alaska for Obama?
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...
..

The only real effect is to magnify the voting power of residents of small
states at the expense of residents of large states,


which was precisely the compromise that enabled the creation of a Republic
of large and small population states. Otherwise, an agreement would have
never been reached, and the USA, as we know it, never would have existed.
Does the system work perfectly? No. Would any system? Just because a system
of simple majority seems simple, doesn't mean that it doesn't present very
real electoral/representational pitfalls. And, yes, you are correct in
citing how the system at the outset was able to work(before any real two
party setup in the current sense). Still, cite an example where the system
failed, beyond the fact that the person YOU supported didn't win.

I'll cite two.

In the Presidential Election of 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular vote
but was defeated by Rutherford Hayes in electoral votes, 184 to 165
(later by 204 to 165 counting disputed votes, after an extremely bitter
and divisive electoral fight).

In the Presidential Election of 1888 incumbent Grover Cleveland won the
popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison, 233 to 168.

I didn't support any of these candidates. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

rw wrote in
m:

Tom Littleton wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...
..

The only real effect is to magnify the voting power of residents of
small states at the expense of residents of large states,


which was precisely the compromise that enabled the creation of a
Republic of large and small population states. Otherwise, an
agreement would have never been reached, and the USA, as we know it,
never would have existed. Does the system work perfectly? No. Would
any system? Just because a system of simple majority seems simple,
doesn't mean that it doesn't present very real
electoral/representational pitfalls. And, yes, you are correct in
citing how the system at the outset was able to work(before any real
two party setup in the current sense). Still, cite an example where
the system failed, beyond the fact that the person YOU supported
didn't win.

I'll cite two.

In the Presidential Election of 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular
vote but was defeated by Rutherford Hayes in electoral votes, 184 to
165 (later by 204 to 165 counting disputed votes, after an extremely
bitter and divisive electoral fight).

In the Presidential Election of 1888 incumbent Grover Cleveland won
the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison,
233 to 168.

I didn't support any of these candidates. :-)


A minority-vote victory is not a failure of the Electoral College.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Alaska for Obama?
 

Scott Seidman wrote:

A minority-vote victory is not a failure of the Electoral College.

That depends on whether you think that thwarting the will of the
majority of voters is a failure.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

rw wrote in news:4891a9ba$0$23425
:

That depends on whether you think that thwarting the will of the
majority of voters is a failure.


I don't, nor did the Framers, or Presidential Elections would be by popular
vote.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Alaska for Obama?
 

rw wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
A minority-vote victory is not a failure of the Electoral College.

That depends on whether you think that thwarting the will of the
majority of voters is a failure.

Thwarting the will of the majority is not necessarily a bad thing.
The founding fathers were justifiably terrified of mob rule and
they didn't suffer the democracy fetish with which you appear to
be afflicted.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Alaska for Obama?
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Scott Seidman wrote:

A minority-vote victory is not a failure of the Electoral College.


That depends on whether you think that thwarting the will of the
majority of voters is a failure.


Thwarting the will of the majority is not necessarily a bad thing.
The founding fathers were justifiably terrified of mob rule and
they didn't suffer the democracy fetish with which you appear to
be afflicted.

I doubt that the founding fathers anticipated that the voters in Alaska
would be three times more competent to chose a president than the voters
in California and Texas.


--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 9:16*am, rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Scott Seidman wrote:

A minority-vote victory is not a failure of the Electoral College. *

That depends on whether you think that thwarting the will of the
majority of voters is a failure.

Thwarting the will of the majority is not necessarily a bad thing.
The founding fathers were justifiably terrified of mob rule and
they didn't suffer the democracy fetish with which you appear to
be afflicted.

I doubt that the founding fathers anticipated that the voters in Alaska
would be three times more competent to chose a president than the voters
in California and Texas.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They're not, because there are fewer than them.

If any of you have lived in a state where there is one large
population center, and the rest is rural (Maine and Arizona come to
mind), and have watched state referendum after state referendum be
'won' by the votes of the large urban center at the expense of the
rural citizenry, you'd appreciate the value of an electoral college to
the smaller states.

--riverman

Alaska for Obama?
 

riverman wrote:
On Jul 31, 9:16 am, rw wrote:

I doubt that the founding fathers anticipated that the voters in Alaska
would be three times more competent to chose a president than the voters
in California and Texas.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


They're not, because there are fewer than them.

An Alaska voter has three times the voting power for President than a
voter in California and Texas. Period. That point is not arguable.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

riverman typed:
On Jul 31, 9:16 am, rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Scott Seidman wrote:

A minority-vote victory is not a failure of the Electoral College.

That depends on whether you think that thwarting the will of the
majority of voters is a failure.

Thwarting the will of the majority is not necessarily a bad thing.
The founding fathers were justifiably terrified of mob rule and
they didn't suffer the democracy fetish with which you appear to
be afflicted.

I doubt that the founding fathers anticipated that the voters in Alaska
would be three times more competent to chose a president than the voters
in California and Texas.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They're not, because there are fewer than them.

If any of you have lived in a state where there is one large
population center, and the rest is rural (Maine and Arizona come to
mind), and have watched state referendum after state referendum be
'won' by the votes of the large urban center at the expense of the
rural citizenry, you'd appreciate the value of an electoral college to
the smaller states.

Two words from your friends in Western Mass: Big Dig
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Alaska for Obama?
 

rw wrote:
riverman wrote:
rw wrote:

I doubt that the founding fathers anticipated that the voters in Alaska
would be three times more competent to chose a president than the voters
in California and Texas.

They're not, because there are fewer than them.

An Alaska voter has three times the voting power for President than a
voter in California and Texas. Period. That point is not arguable.

Oh bull****, this is roff we can argue about anything.

There are about 683,000 people in Alaska, not voters, people. That
works out to about 227,000 people for each of Alaska's 3 electoral
votes. (North Dakota and Vermont, also with 3 electoral votes, have
213,000 and 207,000 respectively people per electoral vote BTW).
California's 55 electoral votes are divided amongst 36.5 million
people which is about 665,000 people per electoral vote.

Apparently you want to use those numbers to claim that Alaskans have
three times more clout in the electoral college than Californians.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Alaskans have over ten times *less*
clout in the electoral college than Californians and over ten times
less clout than Texans with their 34 electoral college votes.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Alaska for Obama?
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Apparently you want to use those numbers to claim that Alaskans have
three times more clout in the electoral college than Californians.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Alaskans have over ten times *less*
clout in the electoral college than Californians and over ten times
less clout than Texans with their 34 electoral college votes.

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has three
times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that Alaska AS
AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't you ****ing read?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 7:44 am, rw wrote:

An Alaska voter has three times the voting power for President than a
voter in California and Texas. Period. That point is not arguable.

An Alaskan voter has _exactly_ the same voting power for President as
Californian voters and Texan voters, and that power is ZERO.

Ken is right, the comparison should be at the state level, because the
state is allowed to decide how its electoral college members are
decided upon, and Alaska has far far far less representation than
California in the electoral college.

But you already knew all this anyways. :-)

Jon.

Alaska for Obama?
 

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Apparently you want to use those numbers to claim that Alaskans have
three times more clout in the electoral college than Californians.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Alaskans have over ten times *less*
clout in the electoral college than Californians and over ten times
less clout than Texans with their 34 electoral college votes.

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has three
times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that Alaska AS
AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't you ****ing read?

You're making a spurious argument. You want to claim that because
1 electoral vote is split between 600,000 Californians but only
between 200,000 Alaskans that an individual Alaskan has three
times more "voting power". It's like arguing that because 3 people
split an orange somebody else has more apples.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 11:57*am, rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Apparently you want to use those numbers to claim that Alaskans have
three times more clout in the electoral college than Californians.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Alaskans have over ten times *less*
clout in the electoral college than Californians and over ten times
less clout than Texans with their 34 electoral college votes.

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has three
times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that Alaska AS
AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't you ****ing read?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Yes, yes, yes. Of course we can read, and your point is correct, but
spurious: a single electoral vote in Alaska represents fewer people
than a single electoral vote in Texas or California. That is, of
course, because the electoral college is a compromise between the one-
man-one-vote (popular vote) and the each-state-has-the-same-number-of-
ballots-to-cast (ESHTSNOBTC vote). If the president were elected via
the popular vote (or if electoral votes were apportioned according to
population, which is the same thing), than basically California,
Texas, Florida, New York and Ohio would pretty much make the decision
unilaterally, and there would be a LOT of bellyaching from the rest of
the country. If each state got one vote...then the so-called
discrepancy that you are hating would be even more exascorbated and
skewed. The fact that a single Alaskan electoral vote represents fewer
people than an single Texas or California electoral vote is an
unavoidable result of us not having a OMOV system, as we shouldn't.

It does seem bizarre when we decry that so and so won the popular
vote, and lost the electoral vote, but we never seem to decry that so
and so won more states, but lost the electoral vote. Its the same
issue from the other side.

--riverman

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 12:55*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Apparently you want to use those numbers to claim that Alaskans have
three times more clout in the electoral college than Californians.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Alaskans have over ten times *less*
clout in the electoral college than Californians and over ten times
less clout than Texans with their 34 electoral college votes.

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has three
times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that Alaska AS
AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't you ****ing read?

You're making a spurious argument. You want to claim that because
1 electoral vote is split between 600,000 Californians but only
between 200,000 Alaskans that an individual Alaskan has three
times more "voting power". It's like arguing that because 3 people
split an orange somebody else has more apples.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Besides, several states have Alaska beat for a few number of voters
per electoral vote.
Alaska has 218,478 per EV
North Dakota has 211,455 per EV
Vermont has 207,131 per EV
DC has 184,507 per EV
and Wyoming has 168,843 per EV

In fact, a single Wyoming EV represents almost four Texas EVs. I'd
think, with the propensity of Texans at high levels of our government
in recent years that the EV system would have been changed if they
felt the system was biased against them.

--riverman

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 11:34 am, riverman wrote:
On Jul 31, 11:57 am, rw wrote:

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has three
times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that Alaska AS
AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. ...

Yes, yes, yes. Of course we can read, and your point is correct,

No, the point is not even correct, it is simply one way to spin the
data. I could just as easily say that since both California and Alaska
use winner-take-all for selecting electoral college members, and any
single voter might be _the_ vote that swings the whole state, then a
single voter in California has 15 times as much "power" as a single
Alaskan voter when it comes to selecting a President.

The high horse has foundered and the only thing left to do is to
humanely put it down. :-)

Jon.
I hope this doesn't lead to dart boards....

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 2:04*pm, wrote:
On Jul 31, 11:34 am, riverman wrote:

On Jul 31, 11:57 am, rw wrote:
I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has three
times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that Alaska AS
AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. ...

Yes, yes, yes. Of course we can read, and your point is correct,

No, the point is not even correct, it is simply one way to spin the
data. I could just as easily say that since both California and Alaska
use winner-take-all for selecting electoral college members, and any
single voter might be _the_ vote that swings the whole state, then a
single voter in California has 15 times as much "power" as a single
Alaskan voter when it comes to selecting a President.


And your point would be correct also. As would the point that Alaskan
votes means squat when compared to Texan votes, because there are a
lot more Texas votes. It is, as you say, how the data is spun. None of
it represents the big picture accurately when spun alone, and ANY
system has it faults, so merely being faulted is not a sign that the
system is wrong. The real question is: "What's a better proposal?"


The high horse has foundered and the only thing left to do is to
humanely put it down. :-)


On roff? LOL

--riverman

Alaska for Obama?
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has
three times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that
Alaska AS AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't you
****ing read?


You're making a spurious argument. You want to claim that because
1 electoral vote is split between 600,000 Californians but only
between 200,000 Alaskans that an individual Alaskan has three
times more "voting power". It's like arguing that because 3 people
split an orange somebody else has more apples.

All electoral votes are equal. One Californian (or Texan) voter gets
1/600000th of an electoral vote, while one Alaskan gets 1/200000th of a
vote (approximately). That means that a Californian or Texan vote is
worth only 1/3 of an Alaskan vote.

The electoral system is an arcane, overly complex, and undemocratic
system based on a political compromise well over 200 years old. It
wasn't designed to be fair or to work well. It was designed to get 13
states to ratify the Constitution, just like counting a slave as 3/5 of
a person for the purpose of congressional representation.

We've made many progressive changes to the way elections are held and
the way votes are counted -- women's suffrage, the franchise of African
Americans, senators elected by popular vote, and so on. It used to be
that only white male property owners were allowed to vote.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has
three times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that
Alaska AS AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't
you ****ing read?


You're making a spurious argument. You want to claim that because
1 electoral vote is split between 600,000 Californians but only
between 200,000 Alaskans that an individual Alaskan has three
times more "voting power". It's like arguing that because 3 people
split an orange somebody else has more apples.

All electoral votes are equal. One Californian (or Texan) voter gets
1/600000th of an electoral vote, while one Alaskan gets 1/200000th of a
vote (approximately). That means that a Californian or Texan vote is
worth only 1/3 of an Alaskan vote.

Like I said, that's a spurious argument. All electoral votes
are indeed equal but California gets 55, Texas 34 and Alaska
only 3. The states can apportion their electors any damn way
they please but one Alaskan vote does not have more "power"
than one Californian vote. Quite the contrary.

The electoral system is an arcane, overly complex, and undemocratic
system based on a political compromise well over 200 years old. It
wasn't designed to be fair or to work well. It was designed to get 13
states to ratify the Constitution, just like counting a slave as 3/5 of
a person for the purpose of congressional representation.

We've made many progressive changes to the way elections are held and
the way votes are counted -- women's suffrage, the franchise of African
Americans, senators elected by popular vote, and so on. It used to be
that only white male property owners were allowed to vote.

Ah, for the good old days. Any system that gets us as far as
possible away from one man, one vote is fine by me. Smoke filled
rooms were positively enlightened compared to what's become of
American politics. You want to talk about fair ? What in the hell
is fair about one man studying the issues, reading the position
papers, in short doing his duty as an informed citizen getting
exactly as many votes as the moron who can't name a single justice
of the Supreme Court and pulls the lever for whoever his preacher
endorses ? The ancients cited the biggest problem with democracy
as the "tyranny of the majority", the founding fathers thought of
it as mob rule and something to be absolutely avoided. I agree
with the founding fathers, democracy should be avoided.

Except for the House of Representatives, there it's acceptable. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 5:25*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has
three times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that
Alaska AS AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't
you ****ing read?

You're making a spurious argument. You want to claim that because
1 electoral vote is split between 600,000 Californians but only
between 200,000 Alaskans that an individual Alaskan has three
times more "voting power". It's like arguing that because 3 people
split an orange somebody else has more apples.

All electoral votes are equal. One Californian (or Texan) voter gets
1/600000th of an electoral vote, while one Alaskan gets 1/200000th of a
vote (approximately). That means that a Californian or Texan vote is
worth only 1/3 of an Alaskan vote.

Like I said, that's a spurious argument. All electoral votes
are indeed equal but California gets 55, Texas 34 and Alaska
only 3. The states can apportion their electors any damn way
they please but one Alaskan vote does not have more "power"
than one Californian vote. Quite the contrary.

The electoral system is an arcane, overly complex, and undemocratic
system based on a political compromise well over 200 years old. It
wasn't designed to be fair or to work well. It was designed to get 13
states to ratify the Constitution, just like counting a slave as 3/5 of
a person for the purpose of congressional representation.

We've made many progressive changes to the way elections are held and
the way votes are counted -- women's suffrage, the franchise of African
Americans, senators elected by popular vote, and so on. It used to be
that only white male property owners were allowed to vote.

Ah, for the good old days. Any system that gets us as far as
possible away from one man, one vote is fine by me. Smoke filled
rooms were positively enlightened compared to what's become of
American politics. You want to talk about fair ? What in the hell
is fair about one man studying the issues, reading the position
papers, in short doing his duty as an informed citizen getting
exactly as many votes as the moron who can't name a single justice
of the Supreme Court and pulls the lever for whoever his preacher
endorses ? The ancients cited the biggest problem with democracy
as the "tyranny of the majority", the founding fathers thought of
it as mob rule and something to be absolutely avoided. I agree
with the founding fathers, democracy should be avoided.

Except for the House of Representatives, there it's acceptable. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm opposed to one-man-one-vote also, but not because all men are not
equally infomed, but because I am a rural denizen, and would find it
dispicable that the more populated urban centers would *always* rule
the vote.

Again, rw, its easy to find fault with the system because ALL systems
are compromises, therefore they contain 'faults'. What system would
YOU propose?

--riverman

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 12:52 pm, riverman wrote:

And your point would be correct also.

How postmodern of you. ;-)

Jon.

Alaska for Obama?
 

riverman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:
All electoral votes are equal. One Californian (or Texan) voter gets
1/600000th of an electoral vote, while one Alaskan gets 1/200000th of a
vote (approximately). That means that a Californian or Texan vote is
worth only 1/3 of an Alaskan vote.
Like I said, that's a spurious argument. All electoral votes
are indeed equal but California gets 55, Texas 34 and Alaska
only 3. The states can apportion their electors any damn way
they please but one Alaskan vote does not have more "power"
than one Californian vote. Quite the contrary.

The electoral system is an arcane, overly complex, and undemocratic
system based on a political compromise well over 200 years old. It
wasn't designed to be fair or to work well. It was designed to get 13
states to ratify the Constitution, just like counting a slave as 3/5 of
a person for the purpose of congressional representation.
We've made many progressive changes to the way elections are held and
the way votes are counted -- women's suffrage, the franchise of African
Americans, senators elected by popular vote, and so on. It used to be
that only white male property owners were allowed to vote.
Ah, for the good old days. Any system that gets us as far as
possible away from one man, one vote is fine by me. Smoke filled
rooms were positively enlightened compared to what's become of
American politics. You want to talk about fair ? What in the hell
is fair about one man studying the issues, reading the position
papers, in short doing his duty as an informed citizen getting
exactly as many votes as the moron who can't name a single justice
of the Supreme Court and pulls the lever for whoever his preacher
endorses ? The ancients cited the biggest problem with democracy
as the "tyranny of the majority", the founding fathers thought of
it as mob rule and something to be absolutely avoided. I agree
with the founding fathers, democracy should be avoided.

Except for the House of Representatives, there it's acceptable. ;-)

I'm opposed to one-man-one-vote also, but not because all men are not
equally infomed, but because I am a rural denizen, and would find it
dispicable that the more populated urban centers would *always* rule
the vote.

That falls under the heading "tyranny of the majority" and living
in Illinois where Chicago rules the vote I can certainly relate.

Again, rw, its easy to find fault with the system because ALL systems
are compromises, therefore they contain 'faults'. What system would
YOU propose?

Those founding fathers are looking smarter and smarter. Of course
our constitution is a do over, the Articles of Confederation were
pretty much unworkable.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Alaska for Obama?
 

riverman wrote:

Again, rw, its easy to find fault with the system because ALL systems
are compromises, therefore they contain 'faults'. What system would
YOU propose?

--riverman

Ken would like to be the dictator.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

rw wrote:
riverman wrote:
Again, rw, its easy to find fault with the system because ALL systems
are compromises, therefore they contain 'faults'. What system would
YOU propose?

Ken would like to be the dictator.

****in' A.

I shall be called Philosopher King Lord Ken, His Royal Munificence
the Prince of Laphroaig, the Earl of Zinfandel and the Gratefulest
of Deadheads.

But all you guys who aren't from njflyfishing.com can still call
me Ken ... or asshole ... whatever. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Alaska for Obama?
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

I shall be called Philosopher King Lord Ken, His Royal Munificence
the Prince of Laphroaig, the Earl of Zinfandel and the Gratefulest
of Deadheads.

But all you guys who aren't from njflyfishing.com can still call
me Ken ... or asshole ... whatever. ;-)

Yeah, well you know we weren't waiting for permission don't you.....?

g

Alaska for Obama?
 

riverman wrote:

I'm opposed to one-man-one-vote also, but not because all men are not
equally infomed, but because I am a rural denizen, and would find it
dispicable that the more populated urban centers would *always* rule
the vote.

I'm a rural denizen, as well. About as rural as you can get -- Custer
County, Idaho.

I'm also a liberal or progressive or whatever term you prefer. So is the
majority of my community of Stanley, population 100 as of the last
census. In 2004 Stanley went for Kerry three to two.

Idaho is a solidly Republican state, of course. My second congressional
district is even redder than district one. (Idaho only has two
congressional districts.)

Simply put, that means, under our current electoral system, that my vote
and the votes of like-minded voters in Stanley, count for nothing.

Under a simple popular-vote system they would count.

You don't like democracy because the urban majority does things you
don't like. I dislike anti-democracy because the rural majority does
things I don't like. It cuts both ways.

I say let's have democracy, and let the chips fall where they may.

Or Ken can be dictator. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.