[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Well.... that in itself DOES prove my point, however, I'm "suspending" for now my contention that the process IS necessarily corrupt (by intention) although, I believe the "process" can and is still "corrupted" by design. i.e. the fact that several states split their electoral votes while others are winner takes all, tends to "change, modify or corrupt" the overall process and therefore the results.

The problem being is that it is usually the Democrat electorates that do not vote the way the population that elected them voted. Just sayin'.

I don't believe that is the "precise" reason stated in the Federalist Papers, although it is a close and often used interpretation of the original intent. I don't see how the election could be decided by only a few large cities under the CURRENT availability of voting opportunities as was stated in my last 'quote.'

If 50% of the country lives in 10 cities throughout the country, then those 10 cities have a disproportionate amount of the vote under a "popular" vote.

YOU don't like it when people put words in YOUR mouth, or assume a different meaning to YOUR posts. I would appreciate you not assuming to know MY intentions as well.

I'm just an observer, reporting what I see. Methinks doth protest too much. :wink:



[/quote][/quote]

[golfhobo]

The Rev said:

If 50% of the country lives in 10 cities throughout the country, then those 10 cities have a disproportionate amount of the vote under a "popular" vote.

First: This is EXACTLY the situation as it was at the time the Electoral College process was established, (which is why I agree it may have been useful THEN) and...

Second: Although this would not happen TODAY, the fact remains that such large populations result in a higher number of representatives and therefore Electors. So.... they ALSO have a disproportianate vote under the Electoral College process as well.

The difference is, that back THEN, those living in the outlying areas might not easily get to a location to vote in the popular vote. TODAY, that is not a problem for ANYONE.

Third: Under your scenario, the largest number of people affected by the government would ALSO live in those population centers, and therefore have need of MORE services from the government.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

The Rev said:

First: This is EXACTLY the situation as it was at the time the Electoral College process was established, (which is why I agree it may have been useful THEN) and...

I hate to burst your bubble, but you should look at a map. You will find that things today are quite the same as they were back when it was established. The total numbers are just bigger.

Second: Although this would not happen TODAY, the fact remains that such large populations result in a higher number of representatives and therefore Electors. So.... they ALSO have a disproportianate vote under the Electoral College process as well.

No they don't. If there are 50,000,000 people living in one state, and they get 10 electoral votes, and there are 5,000,000 living in another state, and they get 3 electoral votes, the WEIGHT of the vote of the people living in the smaller state will be greater than those in the larger state. This is why so many Democrats don't like the electoral process. The fact that they live in a state with more people, their vote doesn't carry as much weight. Funny how those tend to be the only states that are blue. :lol:

The difference is, that back THEN, those living in the outlying areas might not easily get to a location to vote in the popular vote. TODAY, that is not a problem for ANYONE.

That is not the reason for the electoral process at all. Please cite a source for this.

Third: Under your scenario, the largest number of people affected by the government would ALSO live in those population centers, and therefore have need of MORE services from the government.

The Federal Government is not in business to provide services. This is a common misconception among Democrats.

[dpatt]

The Federal Government is not in business to provide services.

A common misconception among WAY more than Democrats these days.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

I hate to burst your bubble, but you should look at a map. You will find that things today are quite the same as they were back when it was established. The total numbers are just bigger.

I HAVE looked at many maps, and you are both right AND wrong. We seem to be agreeing that, both then and now, the majority of the population was centered in major metropolitan areas. The difference is in the availability of voting precints to those in the outlying areas. Over the years, the annual (or quardrannual) population shifts are NOT enough to make up for the "weighted" shifts in electoral vote distribution. Here is a good link. From here, you can go to the bottom of the page and select maps for each election year. You should be able to see that it is NOT population shifts that control elections, but rather "politics" and campaigns.

http://www.answers.com/topic/united-...-election-1956

No they don't. If there are 50,000,000 people living in one state, and they get 10 electoral votes, and there are 5,000,000 living in another state, and they get 3 electoral votes, the WEIGHT of the vote of the people living in the smaller state will be greater than those in the larger state. This is why so many Democrats don't like the electoral process. The fact that they live in a state with more people, their vote doesn't carry as much weight. Funny how those tend to be the only states that are blue. :lol:

Actually, I shouldn't have used the word "disproportionate." YOU have made my point that smaller population areas have a disproportianately HIGHER "weighted" affect on the election than they would using a popular vote. Why, just because YOU live in say, Wyoming, should YOUR vote count more than MINE?

That is not the reason for the electoral process at all. Please cite a source for this.

This, and a somewhat more obscure "opposite" side of the same argument, most certainly ARE the basis of the "system." I told you I would cite a reference when I had it all easily at hand. If you can't wait, I cite the Federalist Papers as my source for this statement. Would YOU like to find WHERE? Or would you rather wait until I can find it again?

The Federal Government is not in business to provide services. This is a common misconception among Democrats.

Although, I may agree with you in principle, the FACT remains that today most decisions ARE made by the Federal Gov't, and services ARE funded and controlled by it. If, as you say however, they are NOT in the business of providing services, then the lower population states should be responsible for their OWN services, based on their OWN tax base, and should NOT have a higher "weighted" effect on the Presidential vote. Instead, by your own calculations of 50 mil to 5 mil voters, they would control only 1/10th of the vote instead of 3/10ths. But, since they DO... it is easy to see why they have been "courted" by the Republicans to curry favor in the National election.

Now... as I said, I am still in the process of formulating the citations to support my opinion. I MAY find, in the process, that I am wrong in some areas, or may need to refine my position. As much as I enjoy this "discussion," I would rather not stumble blindly into it. You have presented the simple argument that I have heard for years. Please give me some time to make my more complex argument clearly.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Actually, I shouldn't have used the word "disproportionate." YOU have made my point that smaller population areas have a disproportianately HIGHER "weighted" affect on the election than they would using a popular vote. Why, just because YOU live in say, Wyoming, should YOUR vote count more than MINE?

Because even when you vote for a FEDERAL office, you are voting in a STATE election for the electorates to represent you in a FEDERAL election. Because of this, states with a greater population have more ELECTORAL votes than a state with less population. To make it fair to states with LESS population, they are given more electoral votes PER CAPITA. Which is why I brought up the whole "Red state, Blue state" thing. If it weren't for this process, then the larger population states (usually the BLUE states) would elect the officials every time, thereby disenfranchising EVERY voter in the other states.

Although, I may agree with you in principle, the FACT remains that today most decisions ARE made by the Federal Gov't, and services ARE funded and controlled by it.

Most services are not provided by the government. They are provided by the States, and subsidized by the government.

If, as you say however, they are NOT in the business of providing services, then the lower population states should be responsible for their OWN services, based on their OWN tax base, and should NOT have a higher "weighted" effect on the Presidential vote.

Because the people who are providing those subsidies to the states are elected to CONGRESS, not the PRESIDENCY. And, as you know, the Congress is weighted as well, opposite of what the Presidential election is. States with higher populations are given more members of Congress.

[golfhobo]

Well.... I bet he's NOT smiling this morning. :lol:

[NOT gloating.... just trying to break the ice.]

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Well.... I bet he's NOT smiling this morning. :lol:

[NOT gloating.... just trying to break the ice.]

Actually, not much has changed, which you will begin to see in the coming months.

This may actually be a good thing for the Republicans, as it gives them a chance to get back to the fundementals on which the party is grounded. That, and it gives the Republicans a better chance in 2008.

[dpatt]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Actually, not much has changed, which you will begin to see in the coming months.

This may actually be a good thing for the Republicans, as it gives them a chance to get back to the fundementals on which the party is grounded. That, and it gives the Republicans a better chance in 2008.

Exactly!

(I noticed Rummy resigned - another area that needed some "freshening up")

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Actually, not much has changed, which you will begin to see in the coming months.

This may actually be a good thing for the Republicans, as it gives them a chance to get back to the fundementals on which the party is grounded. That, and it gives the Republicans a better chance in 2008.

Actually, the original question of Why is he smiling, and MY answer to it, had to do with him knowing that they WOULD (by hook or crook) hold on to the Legislative branch of the Gov't.

In case you missed it.... that HAS changed. At THIS point, and particularly IF the Senate goes blue, the only thing that would keep things from changing quite a bit, would be Bush's arrogance and veto pen.

I agree it will be good for the GOP to get back to some fundamentals, while eating some crow, but I'm NOT sure it will necessarily help them in 2008 (as was said on another thread.)

This election was, more than anything else, a referendum on the GOP and BUSH in particular. If HE stonewalls everything THEY want to accomplish, I think the 08 election will be even MORE of a referendum on HIM and the party in general.

Remember that MOST elections are won with the help, and almost entirely BECAUSE of, the independant or "swing" voters. Bush just BARELY eeked out the presidency with their help both times. I believe last nights results show they have "swung" away from the GOP. Two more years of Bush, and they might just permanently register as DEMS! :lol: