Quote from: WarthurOK, it's more accurate to say you're not made to declare your affiliation, but you are certainly asked to do so, in a manner which I personally find uncomfortable.

I just registered to vote in Illinois. I was never asked nor was it presented as an option. Same in Minnesota. I think you are mischaracterizing this.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI just registered to vote in Illinois. I was never asked nor was it presented as an option. Same in Minnesota. I think you are mischaracterizing this.

Bill

Also...its different from state to state. Some states let anyone vote in the prinaries, other states restrict it so that just democrats are allowed to vote in Democrat Primaries and republicans only vote in the Republican primaries.

Ohio is the second kind. I wish it was the other way around - that way I could vote in BOTH primaries and get more of a say in what my final choice will be next year.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarAlso...its different from state to state. Some states let anyomne vote in the prinaries, other states restrict it so that just democrats are allowed to vote in Democrat Primaries and republicans only vote in the Republican primaries.

Ohio is the second kind. I wish it was the other way around - that way I could vote in BOPTH primaries and get more of a say in what my final choice will be next year.


- Ed C.

Agreed but that is a far cry from demanding a party affiliation when registering. I can even understand the "want to vote in our primary, you need to be with our party" line. I understand it, I just do not agree with it.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAgreed but that is a far cry from demanding a party affiliation when registering. I can even understand the "want to vote in our primary, you need to be with our party" line. I understand it, I just do not agree with it.

What I think I find confusing about the issue is that the US parties, as far as I can tell, don't let you just write in, send a subscription fee, and get a nice little "Democrat" or "Republican" card and put you on their mailing list, and administrate the primaries that way. I can see how it might have been necessary in the early days of the US, but with communications technology at the level it is now it's surely no longer necessary to combine registration and signing up for the primaries (in some states) these days.

Well, there are a ton of ways that current technology could help the voting system in the US.

The problem is, most people want to make the leap from that to abolishing the Electoral College, etc. and make it a flat out nation-wide election.

Which, IMHO, is a mistake.

But, as I've said either elsewhere in this thread or another here, the obstacles raised to third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates are too great in the US.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, there are a ton of ways that current technology could help the voting system in the US.

The problem is, most people want to make the leap from that to abolishing the Electoral College, etc. and make it a flat out nation-wide election.

Which, IMHO, is a mistake.

Why would this necessarily be a bad thing? The President is the head of the executive branch of the nationwide, Federal government. Why should the state system play a role in the federal elections, any more than the federal system is allowed to affect state elections? It makes perfect sense to me to elect state governments and state representatives to Congress on a state-by-state basis and elect the president on a nationwide state-independent basis.

Quote from: WarthurWhy would this necessarily be a bad thing? The President is the head of the executive branch of the nationwide, Federal government. Why should the state system play a role in the federal elections, any more than the federal system is allowed to affect state elections? It makes perfect sense to me to elect state governments and state representatives to Congress on a state-by-state basis and elect the president on a nationwide state-independent basis.

Because it's one of the many little intricate balances that was set up. It was a way to try to balance the larger states interests versus the smaller states - and that attempt at balance is still required.

Otherwise, you'd have California, Florida, Ohio, New York determine elections.  Now it is true that they have a lot of influence as things stand now, but it's not quite as direct if you go to a completely national election.

In effect, you can have a president who loses the popular vote, but wins.  And it's meant to be that way. That's not a flaw, it's a feature.

How do I put this...in order to have states remain important, it's necessary to keep power there.  This is another facet of that process. The US was envisioned as a collection of states, not as a single nation.  This was done on purpose, to restrain the power of a central governmental authority.

For all of you who would prefer the US was not so powerful, you should always be pushing for states rights. A strong US Federal Government is your problem. If the government was a shell corporation for 50 states, it would be a lot less likely to extend power around the world.

Quote from: James J SkachHow do I put this...in order to have states remain important, it's necessary to keep power there.  This is another facet of that process. The US was envisioned as a collection of states, not as a single nation.  This was done on purpose, to restrain the power of a central governmental authority.

But in practice I'm not aware in any case where the states have butted heads with the federal government and won. Not over slavery in the 1800s, not over civil rights in the 1960s, not over any issue. The way to have strong states is to give strong powers to the states and take powers away from the federal government, not to make the states briefly influential during the presidential election, but only in a weird way which is optimised for the way the states were whenever the electoral college seats were last distributed. (In particular, a second-term president doesn't have to give a solid gold shit what the states think about anything.)

Also, if the balance of power shifted away from the federal government and towards the states, surely the states with the highest populations and largest economies - New York, California, all the guys you cited in your post - would be even more powerful, not less? The less able the federal government is to step in between the states, the greater capacity for large states to exploit smaller ones.

I'm happy to discuss it further, I'm just worried about taking this thread completely in that direction.

Quote from: WarthurBut in practice I'm not aware in any case where the states have butted heads with the federal government and won. Not over slavery in the 1800s, not over civil rights in the 1960s, not over any issue. The way to have strong states is to give strong powers to the states and take powers away from the federal government, not to make the states briefly influential during the presidential election, but only in a weird way which is optimised for the way the states were whenever the electoral college seats were last distributed. (In particular, a second-term president doesn't have to give a solid gold shit what the states think about anything.)

Those are a few cases where the state power was usurped by the constitution.  That is, no matter how much someone like me might scream State Rights from the top of the building, it has to mean state rights in the confines of the constitution. There is no arguing, and I do not mean to be, that states rights are somehow stronger than in, say, 1850. But the fact that they are not is no reason to give up one of the last vestiges of state power - it would be surrender.

I'm not sure I understand your point about second term presidents or electoral college distribution.

Quote from: WarthurAlso, if the balance of power shifted away from the federal government and towards the states, surely the states with the highest populations and largest economies - New York, California, all the guys you cited in your post - would be even more powerful, not less? The less able the federal government is to step in between the states, the greater capacity for large states to exploit smaller ones.

Powerful in what way?  Would they have, by default, larger economies? Sure.  But the less power the federal government has, in general, the less power someone in, say, California has over me in Illinois. I'm sure the feeling is mutual in California. I'm not sure how a large state can "exploit" a smaller one if the federal government is not able to compel the small state to do anything the voters do not wish to do.

The problem is that now the feds have so much power the influence of those states we mention can impact the smaller states because they use the federal government to apply the desires of, say, New York, on Idaho.

This way, in the end, lies madness.

Quote from: WarthurWhy would this necessarily be a bad thing? The President is the head of the executive branch of the nationwide, Federal government. Why should the state system play a role in the federal elections, any more than the federal system is allowed to affect state elections? It makes perfect sense to me to elect state governments and state representatives to Congress on a state-by-state basis and elect the president on a nationwide state-independent basis.

The main reason is a practical one: imagine what would happen if you had a situation similar to the 2000 vote but with no electoral college, just a direct election, and one candidate wins by 10000 votes or less.

Suddenly, you're doing a recount and checking hanging chads throughout the entire fucking country.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimjackI actually like a lot of liberals and respect their views but the ones over there just seem to want to hear a hallelujah chorus (or the atheist equivalent) for every inane argument they can come up with.

There are liberals that I respect and, more broadly, there are plenty of people with whom I disagree on various things and respect.  What I don't respect are people who believe that the know what they are talking about and then fold like a lawn chair when asked to produce some real evidence or proof because they've never actually looked at any of the facts of the issue themselves.  

For example, everyone is so certain that John Kerry was unfairly "Swiftboated" in 2004 but it's painfully clear that none of the people who claim that have actually read the book against Kerry (which raises quite a few issues that most people ignored), looked at the broader evidence (including Kerry's own congressional testimony and the records he released), or seemed to care that Kerry wouldn't sign a blanket release for all of his records (the ones he released were, oddly enough, signed by John Lehman, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy).  I had a lengthy debate with people on Tangency about that in 2004 and it was clear that nobody really cared about looking at the fact themselves.

Quote from: GrimjackI think a debate would work better here given the no holds barred approach but for the sake of my blood pressure I'll just observe (you know we conservative/libertarians are all fat and have high blood pressure).

I've come to the conclusion that the best way to find the truth is to read the partisan right-wing press and the partisan left-wing press and see what they say and say about each other and then make up your mind.  Sadly, it's pretty clear that both sides care more about ideology than truth and are willing to play fast and free with facts and logic when it suits their purposes.  Usually, the other side calls them on it when they do.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe main reason is a practical one: imagine what would happen if you had a situation similar to the 2000 vote but with no electoral college, just a direct election, and one candidate wins by 10000 votes or less.

Suddenly, you're doing a recount and checking hanging chads throughout the entire fucking country.

Correct.  Wouldn't that be fun?

Quote from: WarthurWhy would this necessarily be a bad thing?

It's a very bad thing because it makes it so that only population density matters and shifts the balance of power from rural to urban.  You may not consider that a bad thing.  I do, and I live in the most densely populated state in the US.

Quote from: WarthurThe President is the head of the executive branch of the nationwide, Federal government. Why should the state system play a role in the federal elections, any more than the federal system is allowed to affect state elections?

Do you understand what a "federal system" is?  The name of the country is "The United States of America".  Why does Scotland have its own Parliament?  Because the country is named "The United Kingdom".  

Of course if you follow this argument all the way down, all you need is one big central government and you could argue that nobody has any need for any more local government.  Why have cities and towns and any sort of internal border when you can run it all from the country's capital, right?

Quote from: WarthurIt makes perfect sense to me to elect state governments and state representatives to Congress on a state-by-state basis and elect the president on a nationwide state-independent basis.

The biggest mistake was when they made the Senate directly elected instead of what the Founding Fathers intended, which was for senators to be elected by the state legislatures.  The next biggest mistake was letting FDR twist the arms of the Supreme Court to allow the Federal Government to do blatantly unconstitutional things.  Basically, the progressives of the early 20th Century broke the American government (they also changed the Constitution to make income taxes legal) because they didn't understand the purpose of Federalism and the balance of powers.

Quote from: WarthurBut in practice I'm not aware in any case where the states have butted heads with the federal government and won.

It happened quite a bit before FDR broke the Supreme Court and made it one of the most powerful ways to implement policy and shred the Constitution.  That's why people now vote for President based on who they expect them to nominate the the Supreme Court, why Justices refuse to retire until a president that they agree with ideologically is in office, and why nominations are such a circus.  The Supreme Court is only that important because it's being used to shift the constitution and the law undemocratically in a way that was never intended.

Quote from: WarthurNot over slavery in the 1800s, not over civil rights in the 1960s, not over any issue.

Even if that were true, and it's not entirely true, that's like the offensive advice that got Tex Antoine fired as a weatherman from WABC in 1976, "With rape so predominant in the news lately, it is well to remember the words of Confucius: 'If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it.'"

Quote from: WarthurThe way to have strong states is to give strong powers to the states and take powers away from the federal government, not to make the states briefly influential during the presidential election, but only in a weird way which is optimised for the way the states were whenever the electoral college seats were last distributed. (In particular, a second-term president doesn't have to give a solid gold shit what the states think about anything.)

Well, it was originally a package deal until the way senators were elected was changed by constitutional amendment and the balance of powers was shifted by FDR using less savory methods.

Quote from: WarthurAlso, if the balance of power shifted away from the federal government and towards the states, surely the states with the highest populations and largest economies - New York, California, all the guys you cited in your post - would be even more powerful, not less? The less able the federal government is to step in between the states, the greater capacity for large states to exploit smaller ones.

That's what the Senate is for and why it was supposed to be elected by the state legislatures rather than the people directly.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's a very bad thing because it makes it so that only population density matters and shifts the balance of power from rural to urban.  You may not consider that a bad thing.  I do, and I live in the most densely populated state in the US.

Why, exactly, should 100 people in the countryside be able to have a disproportionate say over 1000 people in the city?

QuoteDo you understand what a "federal system" is?  The name of the country is "The United States of America".  Why does Scotland have its own Parliament?  Because the country is named "The United Kingdom".

Actually, the Scottish Parliament is a very recent innovation which is already causing headaches.

QuoteOf course if you follow this argument all the way down, all you need is one big central government and you could argue that nobody has any need for any more local government.  Why have cities and towns and any sort of internal border when you can run it all from the country's capital, right?

Not at all. The federal government is the national government. The state governments are the state governments. Some powers are exercised by the states on their own behalf, some are exercised by the federal government on behalf of the entire nation. The distribution of these powers are controlled by the constitution. State borders matter when it comes to state powers, but mean nothing to the federal government; why should they matter when it comes to federal elections?