Which Candidate Is Better For Your Spouse's/Fiancee's Country?

[akdiver 3]

I'm not sure I like this idea about handing an electoral vote to the governors.

Well, that's not the only change I would make. I would also eliminate the popular vote for electors entirely. A lot of people don't realize this, but many states didn't have a popular vote for quite some time. Electors were appointed by legislators. I like that model. While each state of course is free to develop its own mechanism for determining electors, I would prefer to see something along the lines of the following:

1). Each state gets a base number of electors based on population. This number would be equal to the state's # of voting reps in the House (435 total). These "base electors" are appointed by state legislatures, not popular vote. These "base electors" must reflect the party affiliation of the legislatures, as close as mathematically possible. So, in other words, if a state's legislature is made up of 30% republicans, 30% democrats, 20% green and 10% libertarian, the political affiliation of the state's base electors must have a similar breakdown, to the extent mathematically possible.

2). Each senator also gets a vote as an elector. That brings the total number of electors to 535.

2). Each state's governor also gets a vote as an elector. That brings the total up to 585 electors.

3). Each member of SCOTUS also gets a vote as an elector. That brings the total up to 594 electors.

The relative power of each group of electors breaks down this way (all figures rounded):

Base electors (appointed by legislature): 73%

Senators (elected by popular vote): 17% (although I think the 17th amendment should be repealed)

Governors (elected by popular vote): 8%

SCOTUS: 2%

To win an absolute majority, one would currently need 298 votes. So, if you could convince about 69% of the base electors to vote for you, then the other groups wouldn't matter. However, this is not likely. If you could pick up half of the vote among the base electors, and half of the senate vote, that would give you about 268 votes - still not enough to win. So, then you would need to make your case to the governors. You'd need 30 of them to vote for you - or a little more than half. Now - this is key. Assuming a divided country, a candidate would still need to convince enough state governors that he or she was the right man for the job. This would go a long way toward keeping the small states from getting screwed. But, even so, after all of that - if it were still close, the influence of SCOTUS would be the determining factor. These people tend to be old, wise, and have a lifetime appointment - and would tend to have a moderating influence.

Overall, I think this would be a lot better than what we have now. It would also do wonders to take the money out of the race for president. Instead of raising a half billion dollars to convince individual voters, candidates would now have to largely convince state legislatures - after all, they have about 75% of the overall influence, and it is direct influence. Governors and Senators have about 25% of the remaining influence - so candidates would have to appeal to individual state leaders - which are in turn responsible to the people.

This is a FAR better representation of a union of sovereign states, joined in a republic via a subservient federal government, than what we have now.

Edited November 5, 2008 by akdiver

[Brad and Vika 129]

My wife thinks McCain is too old and Obama is not a good choice either... She votes (if she could) for NEITHER...

She feels the same way about Yushenko, Yanukovich and Tymeshenko as well, that none are fit for service

Interesting. I heard somewhere that Russia used to have a voting category "against all candidates", and that it was a kind of protest vote in elections of the past. That sounds like a good idea to me. Any Russian VJers care to comment on this, or why it was eliminated? Just curious.

[slim 1,514]

Of course I realize that it cannot be done; but somehow I find the reality where welfare folks get to vote rather upsetting, too. At some point, the share of welfare-supported population reaches a certain critical mass when socialists will ALWAYS win the elections.

This smacks of "a black person are 3/5 of a person" to me and very bizarre paranoia. I think you need to consider what a democracy is before you make statements about how it should be run if you're so concerned about socialism.

Where did I mention black people, or maintain that non-taxpayer is less of a person?

All I said was, non-taxpayers will always vote for socialists who increase welfare, thus creating more non-taxpayers who will vote for socialists... et cetera.

For your information, in the original Athenian democracy franchise was quite limited (only male citizens could vote - women, slaves and non-citizens were excluded). Also those citizens who had dwelling close to the city walls were excluded from voting on issues of war, because they were considered to have personal interest in the decisions.

I would hope that society has advanced since thousands of years ago. And giving wealthy people more value is no different from giving white people more value.

Not paying taxes is not synonymous with being on welfare, either. I don't have to pay taxes in the US and I have never even gone to public school.

There's a simple fix to this.... you're on public assistance, you don't vote. Period. Slim's campaign platform would also feature such things as sterilization of all women on the dole, licensing requirements for all parents, permits to bear children, mandatory public service for all teens, citizenship testing and then to keep your status current, you'd have to maintain a minimum level of productivity and that could be from a variety of things like being a student, making investments, working, or even in retirement or cases of disability. But it would never, never be in cases of sitting around in a free house watching free cable while everyone else pays for you and your kids to survive. All "hand outs" would be suspended immediately and indefinitely. OK, I'm going to stop typing because there's no way I'd ever get elected.

Interesting. I heard somewhere that Russia used to have a voting category "against all candidates", and that it was a kind of protest vote in elections of the past. That sounds like a good idea to me. Any Russian VJers care to comment on this, or why it was eliminated? Just curious.

Now that would definitely get me to the polls! This is the main reason I do not vote. Folks always say, "well if you don't vote then you have no right to b!tch." Well, this would not only get me voting, but it would then solidify my right to b!tch that comes along with voting.

I didn't see anyone's stickers today that said, "now I can b!tch about whatever I want because I voted." I did see a whole bunch of people who looked satisfied that they'd taken part in what they thought was being part of a democratic system. Of what they thought was making them better than the rest of the world. Baaaah! Baaaaaaah!

"Against all candidates."

[akdiver 3]

There's a simple fix to this....

you're on the right track - but not quite there.

you're on public assistance, you don't vote. Period.

Agree

such things as sterilization of all women on the dole

Disagree.

licensing requirements for all parents

Disagree

permits to bear children

Disagree

However, I would make it a lot easier to take your children away from you for economic reasons. You can't afford them? You lose them. Into the orphanage and up for adoption they go.

mandatory public service for all teens

Disagree. Forced labour is slavery. No thanks.

citizenship testing and then to keep your status current, you'd have to maintain a minimum level of productivity

I'd get rid of the notion of national citizenship and make it align at the state level. Allow states to set their own requirements for maintaining citizenship.

Bottom line: very small federal government for actual federal matters.

[mox 298]

Heh. It's threads like this that make me realize how good we really have it. Thanks slim and akdiver.

I don't think citizenship at the state level would work. That would mean passports issued by the states. It would also mean that each state would have to set up their own consulates in every country we have an embassy and negotiate their own status agreements, which even any Federalist will tell you is way out of the pervue of the states. It would open up all kinds of weirdness when dealing with foreign governments. And if you wanted to delegate all those operations over to the Federal government on behalf of the states, then you really have nothing different except another layer of bureaucracy.

Slim, there is a way to register your vote "against all candidates." Go to the polls and simply don't select a candidate. You can still cast your vote on the local issues that affect you most and which your vote has the most impact. It's only the President that uses the Electoral system. Everything else is one person, one vote.

[slim 1,514]

I'd get rid of the notion of national citizenship and make it align at the state level. Allow states to set their own requirements for maintaining citizenship.

Bottom line: very small federal government for actual federal matters.

Only problem with that is one state's citizenship would be worth more than another's. That is, unless the Fed balanced them out, which pretty much puts us back to where we are now. I agree 100% with your second statement.

Slim, there is a way to register your vote "against all candidates." Go to the polls and simply don't select a candidate. You can still cast your vote on the local issues that affect you most and which your vote has the most impact. It's only the President that uses the Electoral system. Everything else is one person, one vote.

Not showing up is also a good way to vote "against all candidates."

Among the local issues.... whether pay day lenders should be allowed to have 250% interest rates for short term loans, whether or not the state could open a casino, if the city could post red light cameras, and if city council members should be elected via appointees or some other useless ####### like that.

Gosh, I really feel like I should've been there to weigh in on those hefty issues.

[slim 1,514]

I'd get rid of the notion of national citizenship and make it align at the state level. Allow states to set their own requirements for maintaining citizenship.

Bottom line: very small federal government for actual federal matters.

Only problem with that is one state's citizenship would be worth more than another's. That is, unless the Fed balanced them out, which pretty much puts us back to where we are now. I agree 100% with your second statement.

Slim, there is a way to register your vote "against all candidates." Go to the polls and simply don't select a candidate. You can still cast your vote on the local issues that affect you most and which your vote has the most impact. It's only the President that uses the Electoral system. Everything else is one person, one vote.

Not showing up is also a good way to vote "against all candidates."

Among the local issues.... whether pay day lenders should be allowed to have 250% interest rates for short term loans, whether or not the state could open a casino, if the city could post red light cameras, and if city council members should be elected via appointees or some other useless ####### like that.

Gosh, I really feel like I should've been there to weigh in on those hefty issues.

[mox 298]

Not showing up is also a good way to vote "against all candidates."

Among the local issues.... whether pay day lenders should be allowed to have 250% interest rates for short term loans, whether or not the state could open a casino, if the city could post red light cameras, and if city council members should be elected via appointees or some other useless ####### like that.

Gosh, I really feel like I should've been there to weigh in on those hefty issues.

I'm just sayin', your primary grievance seems to be that the Electoral College is bogus. But the Electoral College is only for one candidate. For everything else, you are one man and you get one vote. So really, your only valid objection now is that you are not a wealthy landowner and therefore not entitled to vote.

Here in California we had some really big issues that I was glad to be able to weigh in on. The Obama victory is kind of bittersweet, since it looks like Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage) will wind up passing because the Mormon church piled about eleventy billion dollars into making sure it passed. It's really heartbreaking to know that thousands of Californians will have their marriages nullified because a bunch of religious asshоles who don't even live here can't bear to see people treated with the dignity and respect they themselves enjoy.

[KGSodie 0]

Drop the electoral college

A lot of people think this - and it is flawed thinking. The EC is the only thing that keeps the most populous 5 or 6 states from dominating the entire country. People don't realize this, or think about it this way because they forget that the country was set up as, and is SUPPOSED TO BE RUN AS a REPUBLIC, of equal and sovereign states. From that perspective, the EC allows the "small states" as entities unto themselves to have some representation, in addition to giving people as individuals some representation. If the EC ever gets abolished and we go to just a pure popular vote, then the small states are just screwed. Of course, if it were up to me, I would still completely change how the EC works. Among other things, I would give the governor of each state a vote in the EC.

I agree with about getting on the ballots though. Anyone and everyone who wants on the ballot and pays a $1000 "anti-nuisance fee" should be able to get on.

Uh, the small states get a handful of EC votes, and the big states get buckets full. So, what was the point, again?

[akdiver 3]

I don't think citizenship at the state level would work. That would mean passports issued by the states. It would also mean that each state would have to set up their own consulates in every country we have an embassy and negotiate their own status agreements, which even any Federalist will tell you is way out of the pervue of the states. It would open up all kinds of weirdness when dealing with foreign governments. And if you wanted to delegate all those operations over to the Federal government on behalf of the states, then you really have nothing different except another layer of bureaucracy.

I will clarify my comment. What I was indicating is that individual states would establish criteria for being a state citizen, and being entitled to the fruits of state citizenship and the rights accorded to state citizens. FEDERAL citizenship would entitle you to a passport and not a whole lot more else, other than what is actually specified in the constitution. The federal government would maintain relations with exterior entities and so forth.

Actually, the concept of dual state/federal citizenship already exists and is well represented throughout our body of law. What I'm talking about is increasing the power of states to with respect to this.

Edited November 6, 2008 by akdiver

[akdiver 3]

Only problem with that is one state's citizenship would be worth more than another's.

I don't have a problem with this. Face it - some states are worth more than others. As much as I hate California - look at its contribution relative to say, Mississippi. Think of states as companies, competing for business. States that are well run, and afford their citizens good rights, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will prosper - attract new citizens (carefully selected, of course) and do well. States that are run poorly will suffer - become less attractive for productive citizens, who will choose to move elsewhere. Lack of tax base will force such states to either get their #### together, or whither and die.

whether pay day lenders should be allowed to have 250% interest rates for short term loans

Yes. Don't like the rate, don't take the loan.

whether or not the state could open a casino

No - make it legal for private businesses to do so and let them compete

if the city could post red light cameras

No. If the city wants to enforce the law, if it is that important, it can hire someone to do so.

and if city council members should be elected via appointees or some other useless ####### like that.

Need more info. Edited November 6, 2008 by akdiver

[akdiver 3]

Uh, the small states get a handful of EC votes, and the big states get buckets full. So, what was the point, again?

See the original post.

[mox 298]

I will clarify my comment. What I was indicating is that individual states would establish criteria for being a state citizen, and being entitled to the fruits of state citizenship and the rights accorded to state citizens. FEDERAL citizenship would entitle you to a passport and not a whole lot more else, other than what is actually specified in the constitution. The federal government would maintain relations with exterior entities and so forth.

Actually, the concept of dual state/federal citizenship already exists and is well represented throughout our body of law. What I'm talking about is increasing the power of states to with respect to this.

Ah, gotcha. I can see where this would be a good thing. Anything that hands power back to the states without creating an overall burden is fine by me.

Uh, the small states get a handful of EC votes, and the big states get buckets full. So, what was the point, again?

Look back to the last Presidential election. Colorado with a paltry 9 electoral votes was a battleground state, and came within a hair of putting Kerry in office. And in fact even Alaska with their 3 EV's could have put Kerry in office if they had been anywhere near tipping. That's a lot of power for such a small population.

The idea behind EV's is not to make Wyoming's aggregate vote count as much as California's, because that would also be unfair. But under a popular vote, Wyoming's votes would never count at all. So it's a compromise, and it's not perfect. But just like most of the framework that came from our founding fathers, I've yet to hear a better idea.

[slim 1,514]

Here in California we had some really big issues that I was glad to be able to weigh in on. The Obama victory is kind of bittersweet, since it looks like Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage) will wind up passing because the Mormon church piled about eleventy billion dollars into making sure it passed. It's really heartbreaking to know that thousands of Californians will have their marriages nullified because a bunch of religious asshоles who don't even live here can't bear to see people treated with the dignity and respect they themselves enjoy.

We just had one out of state casino fund a "no" campaign to restrict another out of state casino from creating over 5000 jobs in our state. Result, gamblers still spend their money out of state and now, in a state with rising unemployment, over 5000 jobs will not be created. Sounds like a win for our state, right?

I will clarify my comment. What I was indicating is that individual states would establish criteria for being a state citizen, and being entitled to the fruits of state citizenship and the rights accorded to state citizens. FEDERAL citizenship would entitle you to a passport and not a whole lot more else, other than what is actually specified in the constitution. The federal government would maintain relations with exterior entities and so forth.

Now that.... that I really like!

But under a popular vote, Wyoming's votes would never count at all. So it's a compromise, and it's not perfect. But just like most of the framework that came from our founding fathers, I've yet to hear a better idea.

Why would they not count? If you counted every single person's vote individually and then the candidate with the most votes won, in effect, every state's votes would count because every single person's vote would count. The way it is now, like you said, a state with a relatively low population influences the election with it's electoral votes. If it was simply a "most votes wins" election, it wouldn't matter what state a voter lived in because their vote would be counted.

[mox 298]

But under a popular vote, Wyoming's votes would never count at all. So it's a compromise, and it's not perfect. But just like most of the framework that came from our founding fathers, I've yet to hear a better idea.

Why would they not count? If you counted every single person's vote individually and then the candidate with the most votes won, in effect, every state's votes would count because every single person's vote would count. The way it is now, like you said, a state with a relatively low population influences the election with it's electoral votes. If it was simply a "most votes wins" election, it wouldn't matter what state a voter lived in because their vote would be counted.

It goes back to the US being a Representative Democracy, not a true Democracy. So when I talk about "Wyoming's vote," I literally mean the State of Wyoming's vote, not the individuals who make up the state, although the individual is still the underlying mechanism. Each state gets Electoral Votes equal to their total number of Senators and House members, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it...you're guaranteed 3 EV's no matter what your population is, just like Congress. As a Federalist, this should actually appeal to you, because it gives the state to the popular vote of that state instead of diluting the vote nationally. A nationwide popular vote actually goes against your Federalist ideology.

There are two states, Maine and one of the Eastern states (New Hampshire? Deleware? Maine?) that divide their EV's up based on who wins the Congressional District, and it's a system I like a lot. I think if every state did this there would be more opportunity for 3rd parties to make a difference. Which is why it won't happen. But at least it's the State making the decision as to how their EV's are counted, and not the Federal Government.

This is all academic of course. President Obama will herald in a new era of socialism. He'll replace Congress with a Duma, seize your property so he can fund abortions and mandatory gay marriages, ship your children off to Muslim madrases, and invite Secretary of State Osama bin Laden to set up camp in the Lincoln bedroom. Those of us who voted for him will be appointed Camp "re-educators." Because you didn't actually vote Slim you'll just have your guns taken away and sent to Alaska to build a bridge to Russia. Anyone who voted McCain will...er...you did see One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, right?