Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Tully Mars · 01-23-2008, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Thing is, getting the nomination has nothing to do with the Electoral College, so that has no bearing on Giuliani's decision. The delegate system is similar, but not the same. Also, Giuliani is focusing on Florida as his starting point. He can't win the nomination with only Florida. What he can do, though, is not spend money in states he knows he'll lose and, instead, focus on the earliest state he can win in. After he probably wins in Florida, he'll have thrust himself even more onto the national stage than he already was, and his hope is that that win plus his already national recognition as "America's Mayor" will help him win big on Feb 5. He may be right, he may not be, but his strategy says nothing of the Electoral College or the delegate system for nominations. Once he theoretically wins the nomination, he'd end up campaigning nationally just like anyone else would.

I don't believe any candidate or and campaign, what ever stage of the game their in, doesn't look at the big picture or the big prize. Individuals looking to become POTUS are faced with two major hurdles. One, get a major party nomination and second, win 270 EC votes. To think that Rudy's decision and strategy had nothing to do with the end game is highly unlikely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

No doubt, the technology of their time was certainly different and added to the difficulties. Still, it is preventing factions and protecting individuals from the majority that Madison and others frequently referred to when debating what eventually became our consitution. Federalist #10 is particularly relevant.

Agreed, I don't think the communications and logistical issues were the primary origins of the EC. Merely a small factor. I should have stated that more clearly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Well, first, it should be said that saying the Electoral College is not "one person, one vote" is misleading. Every one person gets one vote, it's just that what those votes do is determine who their state's electors go to. Also, there is no other national office that involves such a broad election as that of the president. Even senators, who have the next largest base of voters, are limited to campaigning in only one state.

I'd completely agree with you if the EC members were, by law, obliged to cast their vote according to the out come of their states. They're not and on occasion have changed their votes to become to what's known as faithless electors. I think the most notable occurrence of this happened in the 1830's when something like 20 EC members from Virginia changed their votes. As long as your vote goes to someone else who can vote anyway they wish I don't believe the system amounts to one person, one vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

The wealth issue is separate from the Electoral College issue and it is indeed a big problem. But changing or removing the Electoral College would, at best, do nothing to solve it. The reason money is important in elections isn't because of the Electoral College, it's because 1) there is a snowball effect: for every expensive campaign, all others need to become more expensive as well, and 2) campaigning must be done all over the US. There are lots of ideas to solve the money issue, such as 100% publicly financed campaigns, but those are a different subject (not to mention that the current opinion that money = speech prevents the government from limiting campaigns to a set public fund).

Personally I feel the more we mess with the current system the more likely we end up with something that looks like the tax code. I think there are significant problems with our current system. Any "fix" that could get through the "system" might well be completely insane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

I've also been a bit negligent in this discussion, because I've failed to mention that while I don't see the Electoral College as a problem, I also don't think our voting system doesn't need changes. That's simply not the change I advocate. Rather than seeing the Electoral College as a problem in our voting, I believe it is the way we vote in and of itself that is the problem. Anyone who has heard the phrase "wasted vote" in regard to third party candidates, or anyone who is currently thinking about voting for Edwards in a primary election knows exactly what I mean. As voters in an American presidential election, we are given the option of voting for one person and one person only, but the fact is our views are typically far more complex than that. People are not single-minded: we don't advocate one candidate and dislike all the others equally. We have second choices, third choices, and so on. We need to be able to vote in a way which reflects those views. Conveniently enough, when the votes are tabulated properly, this method of voting also has the benefit of selecting the person who is preferred over all the other candidates in a head-to-head match. If we were to vote using a method that fulfilled the Condorcet Criterion, I think the electorate would generally be far more satisfied.

I agree with several of your points. Considering this thread started as a Clinton thread we're probably both a bit negligent in this discussion.