The Cellar - I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - I don't have a dog in this fight, but... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26073)

Quote:

According to the PPP statement, self-identified Democrats were a major factor
in the apparent swing to Santorum. "Romney leads with actual Republican voters, 43-38,"
PPP reported, "but Santorum's up 47-10 with Democratic voters." The number of self-identified
Democrats increased significantly as a percentage of PPP's sample as the survey progressed.

I think Santorum (and his idiocy) is driving the D's to vote against Romney as they realize
Santorum will be destroyed in a general if he ever gets there.

@HM - gotta start somewhere.
Some states don't have enough "diversity" or weight in their electoral votes to matter.
DE comes to mind as an example. But for the larger states like CA, TX, PA, NY, NJ, FL, IL, OH ...
Perhaps starting with the top ten would be good, no?

That is a very dangerous dance with the devil. Shit happens, like say the election ends up in court.

Perhaps, but some states already allocate their electoral votes in the same manner.
The winner-take-all for the larger states seems rather outdated.
Actually this method might even REDUCE lawsuits because there will not be such a
large number of electoral votes in question.

Pretty interesting chart with stats from Huffpo.
Says its constantly updated at 5 min intervals too.
Link here

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 798327)

Perhaps, but some states already
allocate their electoral votes in the same manner.
The winner-take-all for the larger states seems rather outdated.
Actually this method might even REDUCE lawsuits because there
will not be such a large number of electoral votes in question.

Quote:

Except in closely fought swing states, voter turnout is largely insignificant
due to entrenched political party domination in most states. The Electoral College
decreases the advantage a political party or campaign might gain for encouraging voters
to turn out, except in those swing states. If the presidential election were decided by a
national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive
to work to increase turnout everywhere.
Individuals would similarly have a stronger incentive to
persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote.
The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states
under the current electoral college system suggest that
replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely
increase turnout and participation significantly.

from Wiki
I think my suggestion (Pretty sure I'm not the first) could be an effective "middle ground"
between the two options mentioned above. In a sense, a best of both.

Quote:

In practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's electors
generally decreases the importance of minor parties.

This makes it an even better idea.

Speaking of voting, man, republicans sure do hate letting poor people, minorities, and students vote, huh? I mean, *cough* OH NO VOTER FRAUD

or felons, or anyone who looks like a felon, or anyone who has the same name as a felon, or...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 798542)

Speaking of voting...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 798544)

or or...

Please...

Do either of you have any ideas on making the system better?

I offered some ideas and that's really all you have?

C'mon You are both pretty thoughtful.

Classic, it a matter of the devil you know vs the one you don't (gerrymandering).
I see very little or no benefit by a change such as you suggest.

In theory, there's nothing more simple than just counting all votes to see who won the State.

Look at the Iowa Caucus vote this year... first Romney wins, and then there's a local revision and Santorum wins.
Why do you think that won't happen with a proportional vote, with more cooks in the (local district) kitchen.

Besides, for me, if the Republicans want it they must think it would be to their benefit. So I'm ag'in !

What's wrong with the system exactly, on a national scale, classic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 798569)

Classic, it a matter of the devil you know vs the one you don't (gerrymandering).

if the Republicans want it ~snip~ I'm ag'in !

Ok. I was looking for a little more, but I can appreciate your opinion.
thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 798578)

What's wrong with the system exactly, on a national scale, classic?

Which system? the current one or some other?

The current one, I mean.

I remember a proposal at one point where states would put a law on the books such that if the total number of electoral college votes of all the states with this law on the books was enough to win the presidency, then all of those states would put all of their electoral college votes towards the winner of the popular vote.

In the absence of an actual Constitutional Amendment removing the electoral college in favor of the popular vote, I'd support that.

Big states with lots of electoral power aren't going to give it up if nobody else does; this way they all jump in together, at a point where anybody who doesn't do it is irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 798588)

Ok. I was looking for a little more, but I can appreciate your opinion.
thanks

OK as you wish, here is more: By coincidence here is today's example...

NY Times
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
2/29/12

Santorum Campaign Says It’s a Tie (in Delegate Count) in Michigan

Quote:

Mitt Romney may have won the popular vote in the Michigan primary on Tuesday,
but Mr. Santorum’s campaign says that he has won just as many delegates as Mr. Romney.
As of Wednesday morning, the Santorum campaign said,
both candidates had won seven delegates, out of possible 30, which John Brabender,
Mr Santorum’s senior strategist, cast as “disaster” for Mr. Romney,
considering that Mr. Romney grew up in Michigan and outspent Mr. Santorum on television ads.

On a conference call with reporters, Mr. Brabender first said that the Michigan secretary of state
had determined the tie, but upon questioning, he stepped back a bit and said,
“I am basing this on anecdotal and empirical data.”
He said he would not vouch for the accuracy of it, but added,
“It’s highly likely that Michigan will end up being in a tie,
based upon the data as we know it right now.”

This is a link to one of YouTube's most popular videos.

It sort of fits with another post today in a different thread