Is low voter turn out bad?

[CCS]

I heard 30% of Democrats vote and 40% of Republicans vote.
Now obviously if someone has not researched stuff, it is better if they stay home. But what about the people who think their one vote will not make a difference, and stay home for that reason? Is that a problem? What solution would you have?

And if someone is illiterate, should they be allowed to vote? (I don't mean blind people)

 

[The Gardener]

I don't see what the big problem is with low voter turnout. It's screens out all of the people who aren't educated on the political issues and, as a result, don't give a darn.

By making voting a voluntary act, people who don't care about politics and aren't knowledgeable of what their vote means won't vote. I only want people who care about the policies casting votes.

 

[CCS]

The reason I ask, is if we elect the president with direct popular vote, it will be much different than by district. If 10% of the people in one district vote, and 90% in another do, both groups just win their district currently. With direct election, it will matter a lot more if you go vote.

 

[Bryan]

The reason I ask, is if we elect the president with direct popular vote, it will be much different than by district. If 10% of the people in one district vote, and 90% in another do, both groups just win their district currently. With direct election, it will matter a lot more if you go vote.

I don't understand your reasoning.

 

[Old Baldy]

The reason I ask, is if we elect the president with direct popular vote, it will be much different than by district. If 10% of the people in one district vote, and 90% in another do, both groups just win their district currently. With direct election, it will matter a lot more if you go vote.

I don't understand your reasoning.

I think he's talking about Presidential elections where one State might have only a 10 percent turnout yet that candidate gets all the electoral votes.

(And, assume in CCS's question, the State with 90 percent turnout might go to the other candidate. But if you combined the two States votes, the ten percent guy would be trounced.)

In other words, if we had a popular vote, no State could hold what CCS has always thought was undue, unfair, power/effect.

I disagree with CCS on this one and feel the electoral college is great and keeps heavily populated areas from gaining undue power. (Of course, as a Republican, you can see why I like the electoral college! )

But, in any event, I think that is where CCS is coming from with this question?

Finally, thank goodness I'm explaining this to you Bryan instead of Pelosi!!

 

[Bryan]

I think he's talking about Presidential elections where one State might have only a 10 percent turnout yet that candidate gets all the electoral votes.

(And, assume in CCS's question, the State with 90 percent turnout might go to the other candidate. But if you combined the two States votes, the ten percent guy would be trounced.)

So how does that make it "matter a lot more if you go vote"?

In other words, if we had a popular vote, no State could hold what CCS has always thought was undue, unfair, power/effect.

I disagree with CCS on this one and feel the electoral college is great and keeps heavily populated areas from gaining undue power.

How does it do THAT?

 

[Old Baldy]

Just that a person (e.g., Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000)) could lose the popular vote but still get the most electoral votes.

So if only ten percent of the people voted in States for, let's say Bush in 2000, where he wins, he gets all those electoral votes based on that State's population. Even though only 10 percent voted for him.

Yet, if Gore got his electoral college victories from States where 90 percent of the people voted, he could still lose, even though most people, on a combined gross scale, voted for Gore.

So, in those States where only 10 percent voted, their votes had undue influence as per CCS and others who argue against the electoral college.

Who knows how it would have gone if, in my example, more than 10 percent voted in those States going for Bush? (Maybe it would have turned out differently in my example. For instance, it is well known that Democrats tend to not vote as regularly as Republicans. You know, they'd rather watch American Idol, etc. )

Seriously though, I think CCS is only saying, "who knows how it would turn out if everyone voted". And those 10 percent counting for the entire 100 percent of the voters in their State is something he doesn't like because it should be balanced by the popular vote throughout the USA.

This example could be used vice versea to prove my point relative to large population centers reducing the effect of smaller populated States.

Here's a description that explains it better than I am:

1888 - Harrison vs Cleveland

THE CRITICS CHARGE: In this election, critics believe they have their best case against the Electoral College. Grover Cleveland won the popular vote while Benjamin Harrison won the electoral vote. Since no major issues of fraud, voter irregularities, or Congressional meddling is alleged, this is a straight up case of the system being wrong.

BACKGROUND: The main issue, if not the only issue, in the campaign was the tariff, brought to the forefront by the incumbent president Cleveland. He proposed lowering it, widely favored in the South; Harrison wanted to keep higher tariffs, widely favored in the North. One of the most civil and boring elections in history was also one of the closest. Cleveland had only a 0.8% lead over Harrison in the popular vote.

WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHOULDN'T BE BLAMED: While this may be the critics best example to show the Electoral College is flawed, supporters would say this election shows why the system works. The Electoral College system encourages candidates to make their appeal as broad as possible in order to win. Cleveland basically ran a campaign based on one issue supported by a single region of the country and ran up the vote in that region, thereby padding his popular vote. In the six southern states of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas, Cleveland received over 65% of the vote. In those six states Cleveland beat Harrison by 425,532 votes. In the other 32 states combined, Harrison beat Cleveland by 334,936 votes.

CONCLUSION: To say the Electoral College failed in 1888 is to not understand how the system works. The Electoral College prevents one region of the country voting as a block from unduly directing the outcome of the election to the rest of the country. The real reason Cleveland won the popular vote (by only 90,536 out of 11,379,131votes cast) but lost the election was because of unusually high support in a single region of the country.

Depending on your point of view, you could say the Harrison victory is a good thing for counting all regional differences (i.e., like I believe). Or it is not good in that it negates the overall popular vote (i.e., like CCS believes).

It's just an opinion we have Bryan.

I have my opinion because I don't want liberal urban centers getting a stranglehold on the Presidency. I'm a right-winger and that doesn't sit well with me. Regional differences should be balanced out and the electoral college does this IMHO.

 

[ClayShaw]

Low turnout is definitely bad. In order to have a representative government, as many people as possible need to participate in the process. In addition, the people who are most in tune with politics and therefore do vote usually represent the extremes of the left and right.

 

[Old Baldy]

Low turnout is definitely bad. In order to have a representative government, as many people as possible need to participate in the process. In addition, the people who are most in tune with politics and therefore do vote usually represent the extremes of the left and right.

Hey, I resemble that remark!! :woot:

 

[The Gardener]

Low turnout is definitely bad. In order to have a representative government, as many people as possible need to participate in the process. In addition, the people who are most in tune with politics and therefore do vote usually represent the extremes of the left and right.

I had an ex-gf back in my college days who was from Brazil, where it is a crime not to vote. She complained about it, saying that people who didn't care about politics would go into the voting booth and not know who any of the people are or what they represent. So, they would just randomly choose people whose names sounded interesting, or perhaps would just choose the top choice in the list of each section of the ballot, because they wanted to just get their vote done quickly so they could go on about their day.

Do not underestimate the lazy and uninformed masses. I bet a LARGE percentage of Americans don't know who their congressman is.

 

[CCS]

So OB, if we have direct popular vote, would it be good to do it by district? If 10% of the people in a district vote, 50% for one candidate and 50% for another candidate, then both candidates get 50% of that district's total. And if 90% in another district vote, the candidate still gets whatever percent of the district he wins. That way if half the country had 90% turnout and the other half has 10% turnout, the first half still does not over power the second half.

I don't think it should be winner take all in each district. The districts should just adjust for voter turnout. Would that protect the rural people?

I also don't think we should have winner take all by state either. Fact is, what if a president gets 51% of the vote in every state but Texas, where he gets only 1% of the vote? We all know what would happen then. That is why I think total adjusted population is what matters.

Winner take all just encouranges garrymandering and ballot box stuffing in swing districts.

 

[Old Baldy]

I kind of like it the way it is CCS. The electoral college is pretty good IMHO. But I'm a right winger and, in this point in time, this benefits me the most since most liberals live in large population centers and in certain singular States.

(Even though I live in Michigan and liberals dominate lately, I'm willing to give up my vote so people in other regions can have their State count individually.)

You've got to vote to be counted though CCS. I don't see any other way to honestly tally the results.

Your way opens up the possibility of WAY too much fraudulent and inaccurate tabulation practices IMHO. I see what you're saying CCS, but people have to just get off of their hind ends and go VOTE!!

It ain't that hard to get off our butts and go to the voting booths IMHO. If you aren't going to be in town, etc., you can always get an absentee ballot.

Off topic: If I had my way, only taxpaying property owners would be allowed to vote!! :woot:

 

[CCS]

OB, I agree only people who paid net taxes should be allowed to vote. Wellfare, recent bankrutcy ballances, and the earned income tax credit should be subtracted from taxes paid to determine if you can vote. Only problem is what if the average government cost per person is $10000 --- should someone who paid only $1 in tax be allowed to vote? Should someone who paid $1 Billion in tax get more votes? It can get complicated.

I disagree with the property ownership requirment. Many upstanding people prefer to rent at times for sound economic reasons.

Do you really think the liberals have us so outnumbered? My system would elect a centrist every time. And your electoral college gave Obama a much bigger advantage over McCain than the popular vote did. My system would let voters vote for their first choice, and not have to trust the media to know who has a chance of winning.

You know what happens every election year: the candidates only campaign in electoral swing states, and only in the swing districts to be exact. They can change the electoral college vote by 3 fold just by stuffing a ballot box here or there. And you only get to pick between two candidates.

With my system, 20 candidates could run without splitting each other's vote. The only reason against my system is if you are afraid someone will threaten one of the candidates into giving their vote to their opponent. If you are so afraid of that, then I hope they don't threaten a good candidate to sign or veto the wrong bills too.

 

[Old Baldy]

And if it was a popular vote, the candidates would only campaign in highly populated areas. Swings both ways.

I understand your concerns but I just weigh in in favor of the electoral college. It boils down to a heartfelt opinion for all of us CCS. There are pros and cons for each philosophy IMHO.

My line about taxpaying property owners was a joke. Although, it is a "dream" of mine.

 

[CCS]

OB, with my method, we could weight the votes in small states heavier.

States:
We could give each state the same number of electoral votes it currently gets, but get rid of the winner take all. If you win 20% of the vote in that state, you get 20% of the electoral votes.
We could also go by districts:

Districts:
If you get 50% of the vote in a 1,000.000 person district where 10% showed up, and 50% in a 1,000,000 voter 90% of the voters showed up, you still just get 500,000 + 500,000 votes. You don't get 50,000+450,000. This way, if ACCORN stuffs a ballot box in one district, it can't throw the whole country, but only messes up that district.

I just want to get rid of winner take all. Districts and states are good, but winner take all encouranges ballot box stuffing in key swing districts.

I'll state it again OB. Obama got 53% of the popular vote, but got 3/4 of the electoral vote. Does that not prove to you that the EC fails to keep out liberal extremists?

My system allows 20-50 candidates to run without vote splitting. You can vote for your true first choice without fear of hurting the final outcome. The candidates, who don't need media polls, can compromise vote for us. And they have a much better idea of who the true centrists are, and who the fakes are. All we have to do is be an expert at whom our favorite candidate is.



Rebuttals to rebuttals:

1. What if the candidates are bribed/coerced to give their vote to another candidate?
A: If that is possible, it would be possible after they take office too. Both systems have this same risk.

Fact: millions of voters will vote for a wishy washy candidate because they think every other voter will vote for that one or a worse choice, and they want to vote for the lessor of evils.
Fact: with my system, wishy washy candidates would not be anyone's first choice. The other candidates would know exactly where each other stand on the issues, and could pick a true compromise candidate.

Fact: McCain is almost the same as Obama. They are both far to the left, except McCain supports the second amendment. McCain is not a centrist. A centrist is a bit further to the right than McCain fiscally, and a bit further to the left socially. That is what would have been elected with my system.

 

[CCS]

OK, I got one last proposal to you, OB:

We need to unpleadge the electors for the electoral college:

At the district level, electors get whatever percentage of the vote they win, and most compromise vote among themselves if there is no majority winner. The winner then goes to the state capital, with all the other district winners. They then must compromise vote with each other to elect a winner for that state. The state winner gets the electors for that state, who then go to washington to compromise vote there. The important thing is they must be allowed to change their votes so they can compromise vote when they realize the opposite extreme is about to win. I don't see why the house of representatives must be involved though.

If people would trust the compromise vote system of the electors, then the populous would not have to compromise vote. The problem with our current system is millions of people vote based on statistics, and not what they think is right. The statistics could be wrong. And they often don't know who the true compromise candidate is.

 

[CCS]

The reason only 2 candidates can run is because the electors are pledged. If we unpledge them, 20 candidates could run, and the EC would elect centrist.

By centrist, I don't mean halfway between Obama and McCain. I mean centrist of the view of the people, which is further in the libertarian direction.

 

[Old Baldy]

Pretty much everything you are saying falls in line with taking a popular vote.

I understand but just disagree.

Yes Obama won more electoral college votes percentage wise than popular votes percentage wise. That measures him State by State.

I like it like that.

 

[Old Baldy]

If people would trust the compromise vote system of the electors, then the populous would not have to compromise vote. The problem with our current system is millions of people vote based on statistics, and not what they think is right. The statistics could be wrong. And they often don't know who the true compromise candidate is.

In essence you are stating the average American voter is an idiot. I agree.

You have those who always vote straight Democrat or straight Republican.

Those types of American voters are COMPLETE idiots IMHO.

To always vote for one political party is so STUPID that I am not smart enough to put it eloquently enough.

Can you imagine voting straight Democrat with Pelosi on the ticket!!?? :shock:

We had a know nothing dickwad going against Democrat John Dingell this last year. I voted for Dingell. It was a no brainer even though I'm a Republican by nature.

Same for Jennifer Granholm in our last govenor's election. (However, Jenny is pretty and rabidly pro-gun.)

Take a guess how long it took me to select the box for Jenny?

Hint: Jenny has been the most pro-gun govenor we have ever had in Michigan. unk:

Hey, hey baby!! http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... 1&ct=image

 

[Bryan]

Yes Obama won more electoral college votes percentage wise than popular votes percentage wise. That measures him State by State.

I like it like that.

The fact that Obama won more electoral college votes (percentage-wise) than popular votes (percentage-wise) is a good indicator of his wide and uniform appeal. Also, I feel that as a maturing, more sophisticated society, we're having fewer regional differences. I think that's a very healthy sign.

OB, I can understand that you like the Electoral College because in a very close race, it always gives some hope that your Republicans will be able to snatch victory from the jaws of otherwise defeat, as they did in 2000. But it's still against the spirit of voting. It should be a direct vote, not this Electoral College crap. That's an Idea Whose Time Has Passed. Let's get rid of that stupid anachronism from the past.