Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on November 08, 2000, 08:55:00 AM
-
What needs to be changed in the US electoral process:
Kill exit polls - skewed results with the FL premature tally
One person, one vote - in FL we still use paper punch cards without any identity to vote. I'd like to see better scrutiny of voter ID and an electronic means to vote. Faster results, this day and age a tally should be immediate and accurate.
Rehashing or eliminating the Electoral College. How does crazy CA warrant over double 90% of the other states? The numbers need to be closer or kill the entire college.
More emphasis on popular vote (accurate votes, see #1). Require the media to show real numbers, not projections geared toward their own agendas.
that's a few, your thoughts and comments please
Eagler
-
I'd like to get rid of the electoral thing too, but it's an amendment. And if you modify or eliminate one amendment, then you set a legal precedent to do likewise to other amendments. It could get kind of dicey.
-
Why do you imply that they media changes the out come of the vote? They work on a prediction system that is over 90% accurate and they don't report on a state until the polling is closed in that state.
Do you think it is a conspiracy?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Why do you imply that they media changes the out come of the vote? They work on a prediction system that is over 90% accurate and they don't report on a state until the polling is closed in that state.
Do you think it is a conspiracy?
When they predict a winner with less than 20% of the voting districts reporting and the spread is less than 5%, something is wrong. And yes, in the name of ratings, they screw the system by influencing the simple minded.
Eagler
-
What I can't believe is that Florida still uses paper punch cards.
And yes, I too believe that the Electoral College should go away.
-
Eagler,
The booths in Florida were long closed before they first, mistakenly, gave it away.
The media predictions were annoying, but they had NO effect on the Florida race.
California is worth 54 Electoral votes because of a thing called "population". Maybe you've heard of it.
If this election were going on popular vote, Al Gore would already have made his acceptance speach.
As it is, I expect George W Bush to win.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Eagler,
The booths in Florida were long closed before they first, mistakenly, gave it away.
The media predictions were annoying, but they had NO effect on the Florida race.
California is worth 54 Electoral votes because of a thing called "population". Maybe you've heard of it.
If this election were going on popular vote, Al Gore would already have made his acceptance speech.
As it is, I expect George W Bush to win.
Sisu
-Karnak
Yes, I speak of the rest of the country's vote not FL. Many undecided wait and see which way the momentum is swinging before voting so they can say they voted for the winner. They (the media) should be required to wait until ALL voting booths across the nation are closed before they "predict" a winner. They can show the numbers as they come in but leave it at that.
Eagler
-
Asking people exiting the voting boths is legal. So is publishing any conclusion you draw from it, whether valid or not.
Are newspeople trying to influence the voting? Quite possibly. But that is what they do openly by endorsing the candidates and pushing their views.
You cannot forbid the slimy lying bastards (media) to conduct and publish the exit polls without adding another constitution amendment, because it would contradict the Freedom of Speech.
If the public is so ignorant as to be influenced by that, that is the root of the problem, not influence.
Declaring Florida for Gore may have helped Bush because some democrats may have decided their vote was no longer important.
Leonid,
What on Earth do you mean by "if you modify or eliminate one amendment, then you set a legal precedent to do likewise to other amendments. It could get kind of dicey."???
Not only there is nothing wrong with amending the Constitution to keep it up-todate with times, but we have plenty of "precedents" already - count the number of the amendments.
Constitution is not a holy scripture but a legal document. The Founding Fathers were not prophets to foresee everything.
Granted, some of of them arguably made things worse (like letting women vote (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)), but you cannot presume that any change would be for the worse...
miko
-
"Granted, some of of them arguably made things worse (like letting women vote ), but you cannot presume that any change would be for the worse..." Miko
Man, you better hope that Yankee don't read this, and if she does, don't plan on making any Cons in the future cause she WHOOP ya!
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 11-08-2000).]
-
Prohibition was an amendment, and its repeal was an amendment. I don't think doing away with the electoral college taints the sanctity of our constitution or makes it any easier to change it.
The electoral college needs to go away. It was necessary when created to protect a fledgling republic, and to deal with problems of communication and transportation in a less technologically advanced world. There is no longer any purpose for it.
-
Florida also covers two time zones. The media had predicted a winner while the polls still had over thirty minutes to vote in the panhandle. Estimates put over 100,000 votes for Bush (mainly military) from that region. How many votes did they not get because of this false news? Amazing how the media wants to hold everyone else accountable for their actions, i.e. tobacco, but does not hold themselves to the same standard.
Eagler
-
The reason it can have an effect is because polls in other states are still open. I don't think it hurt Bush that CNN miscalled Florida, more likely it hurt Gore as more who had not yet voted may have moved to Nader trying to get him to the magic 5%, thinking Gore had carried Florida so would likely win the election.
It would be in our best interests I think to hold predictions until at least the continental US, if not Alaska and Hawaii, are all closed.
For the record I don't have a problem with the Electorate, with the states submitting their opinion as a block they tend to hold more value to the candidates (but then again, I moved from one important state (FL) to another (TX), I wouldn't be suprised to see a different opinion from those living in smaller states).
-
Originally posted by leonid:
I'd like to get rid of the electoral thing too, but it's an amendment. And if you modify or eliminate one amendment, then you set a legal precedent to do likewise to other amendments. It could get kind of dicey.
Do you understand the how's and why's of amendments? Who do you think wrote the first ones? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
F4UDOA: Why do you imply that they media changes the out come of the vote? They work on a prediction system that is over 90% accurate...
They absolutely change the outcome of the vote. Particularly when they announce before polls are closed in all states. (There are documented studies on this, btw.) They are especially bad form when they announce INCORRECTLY (90%? That means they are WRONG 10% of the time) before polls close in all states.
-
This is the first American Presidential elections I've payed close attention to.
I've gotta say looking from the outside, that your elections were a bit of a farce. The media network's involvement in giving the results to the public is a prime example of the 'instant gratification' culture that all our country's seem to strive towards. Democracy in action isn't very exciting (especially when 90 million votes have to counted), but I believe turning it into a horse-race just to create a media event is unadulterated dumbing down of the whole process.
At least the lawyers will have something to do over the next few weeks.
I used to think that the money involved in the advertisement campaigns in British General Elections was pretty bad - but the more I learn of the money used to 'elect' a president the more I'm appalled. The 2 billion pounds spent in this campaign is 30 times more than was spent by all parties over here, in the 1997 general election.
It seems to me the electoral process described in the State of Florida is more akin to that used in a Banana republic, rather than the great democracy the States undoubtedly is.
The process in this country is on a smaller scale, but our media does not give exit polls that are sponsored by media networks, very much credence. They wait for a 'returning officer'. I know in the States that this would take a little longer (a week by the sound of it). But which is more true to the aim of election?
-
What I see is a liberal media who is once again chasing their own agenda, this time they look really silly. This year they have proven that they aren't really unbiased reporters, I have rarely seen so many of them so worried. All day I have heard how some Florida voters were confused and how some overseas folks missed the deadline for absentee. It seems to me if you can't be bothered to read the instructions, or can't be bothered with deadlines, you get what you deserve. Voting is serious business, perhaps some of these people will now realize that.
The electoral college does need looked at, population I understand, but I don't really like California having such sway over the country. The great thing about different states is that people with different idea's can move to a state that is more in line with their thinking (yeah Alaska!!), the present system seems to force other peoples idea's on each other rather than allowing different folks to live different ways, yet be united. I would welcome a popular vote only, even knowing Gore would have won in that system. I would also welcome a return to less US federal government interference world wide.
The funny thing is this, the media had PREPARED the population for GORE to win the electoral and for BUSH to win the popular. Saying that those were the rules and that we all had to live by them, now all they are doing is complaining about it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Oh yeah and lets not forget the dead guy the democrats are trying to elect. The guy is no longer a resident of the state and they think they can vote him, (or his wife!) in. LOL, liberals just do things and then wait to see if it is legal, this needs to stop too.
Wrench - lurker (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Those who want to get rid of the electorate system because the larger states have more electorates, be very careful what you wish for. With some cities' population exceeding some state's populations, the abolishment of the electorate would reduce those states from having a small influence on the result of elections to no influence.
As it stands it is up to each state to decide its own method for voicing its choice for president, and each state's voice is weighted according to population. To convert that to nationwide totals is to completely ignore the voice of the smaller states.
Keep in mind that the nationwide totals are nothing more than adding up all votes in the states, they MEAN nothing, the presidential election is and always has been the equivalent of a state by state referendum.
If you want your state to split its electorates by the vote split within that state, each state is free to decide its own method for choosing electorates, by all means start a movement locally (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Fatty, that is the best argument I've heard for keeping the Electoral College. I've always been one of those questioning it. Well done. Now stop, you're ruining the reputation of the FDB's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
I'll be glad when all this is done and I can return to drunken idiocy, believe me. If you happen to catch the FSU-UF game in about 10 days, I'll be the drunk guy in the stands (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
If you happen to catch the FSU-UF game in about 10 days, I'll be the drunk guy in the stands (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Wow.....that really narrows it down (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) lol
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
I'll be glad when all this is done and I can return to drunken idiocy, believe me. If you happen to catch the FSU-UF game in about 10 days, I'll be the drunk guy in the stands (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Go Gators !!!
Eagler
-
That is correct, Fatty. I can't argue with you that currently smaller states do have a larger influence than they would if the electoral college was done away with.
All I can say about that is "good. Its about time."
I don't think it is a good thing that small segments of the voter population in relatively small geographic areas have the ability to nullify the votes of the majority of our citizens.
I am not saying there was any fraud involved or anything like that. I am only stating that in national elections I feel we should speak as a nation of individuals, not states, and that the voice of a small group of voters shouldn't drown out the voice of the majority of America. Just because small states would lose influence due to change doesn't mean that the change isn't in the best interest of the country as a whole.
You can bet that congressmen from those small states would dig their heels in if such a change were proposed. Senate approval would be very difficult.
Gordo
[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 11-08-2000).]
-
The same as the blance between the house, and representatives based on total population versus the senate, and representatives based on 2 per state, the electorates are weighted per state so as to give more weight to more populated areas while still keeping a voice to the smaller ones.
I'm quite suprised Gordo, our entire system of government is built around this principle.
-
:::shrugs::: Well, firstly, its debatable as to whether the ideal of protecting minority opinion was the purpose behind the electoral college. From what I've been exposed to, a popular vote was deemed undesirable because our founding fathers felt the will of the people needed to be checked during our nation's formative years and because of the logistical problems a national referendum presented given our geographically vast country and available technology. Only then did they decide upon the electoral college. Is that the case? Did they intend for it to be around for 200+ years? Would they abolish it now if they were alive? No one can answer those questions with certainty. The only question we can find an answer to is whether the electoral college benefits our country at this point in time.
As for the rest of your points, it is really just a difference of opinion as to how loud of a voice the individual in a less populated state should have in relation to an individual in a more populated state in one particular area of government. I don't know why that surprises you. People will have differing ideas about this, just as our founding fathers did. It is exactly the reason why there are two houses of congress.
Basically, my views boil down to this: I feel very strongly that no individual citizen's vote should hold more weight than another's -- in our one and only national election. The electoral college was adopted at a time when circumstances dictated a popular vote unworkable and/or undesirable. As those circumstances no longer exist, the electoral college is no longer necessary. The legislative process is a different matter entirely, and one where I think it exceedingly important to protect the minority voice.
Now, where's SOB so he can do his armpit fart version of "Highway to the Danger Zone?" I give us both 50 demerits for lowering ourselves to BBS intellectualism.
Gordo
EDIT: Gotta give me an extra 50 demerits for this. Fatty, next plate of wings is on me.
[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 11-09-2000).]
-
Gotta bad feeling about the recount here in FL.
Less than 950 diff and shrinking. Amazing they are finding as many discrepancies in the first count. Or are these "new" ballots.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Eagler
-
how bout this, real simple.
he who wins the most states wins. If a tie then popular vote is the tie breaker. That way each state counts the same. It would also require the candidates to campaign in each state. Pretty simple.
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
Originally posted by Dnil:
how bout this, real simple.
he who wins the most states wins. If a tie then popular vote is the tie breaker. That way each state counts the same. It would also require the candidates to campaign in each state. Pretty simple.
Never work as New Yorkers and Californians are smarter than people in Florida and Texans don't you know that. So our states are less than theirs and never be counted the same. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Gordo, that's just it. Without the electorate, anyone west of the Michigan, north of Texas, and east of California's vote does not count. At all.
You think it is coincidence they allowed the House to decide the early elections, not the Senate? Followed by the electorate, weighted similarly to the house of representatives? The concern was for rural versus urban areas. The rural areas will never have a significant voting population, and unless they are given a voice, will be living by a set of laws based completely on a few densely populated areas' needs.
-
In this election, 193442 votes seperates the candidates. A few small states that went to Gore would have given Bush the popular vote if the ballots were inversed. That is a say for individuals in those states. They can influence an election and decide its outcome during a close election.
Getting rid of the electoral college doesn't make people in rural areas slaves to the laws made by people in geographically-small-but-densely-populated areas. You have to leave the legislation rhetoric out of your arguments as something other than the electoral college protects smaller state's rights with regards to law-making. I am not talking about abolishing the Senate.
Getting rid of the electoral college simply makes every citizen's vote count equally in our one and only national referendum. An individual vote would no longer take on any more or less significance due to where the individual casting it happens to live. That's all.
You seem to think that the status quo is acceptable, and that's fine. People will hold differing viewpoints about things like this. We'll have to agree to disagree, and you can go on being wrong! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Gordo
[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 11-09-2000).]
-
I noticed this thread and thought you might want to read this.
http://www.capecod.net/~pbaum/vote1.htm (http://www.capecod.net/~pbaum/vote1.htm)
It bring up some valid points about why the electoral college can be bad. It talks about the 1992 elections and whether the outcome would be different. It mainly refers to Ross Perot but it makes valid points in a general sense.
Regards,
Snoopi
-
Yes, Gordo, I like the status quo. I don't want to see candidates' campaigns limited to the NY/NJ/Penn tri-state area with a couple of trips to California to hit LA and San Francisco.
-
Hmm...
I was of the opinion that the Electoral College was antiquated... much like daylight savings time. Neccessary in the past, maybe, but not any longer.
You've completely changed my mind on it Fatty. I never thought that would happen in a thread on the AH BBS (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Realistically, domestic policy is created and enacted based on the net gain of votes. I had not considered that. Not only would you see less attention during a campaign, middle America would get consistantly screwed over during the elected Government's reign. Last time I checked, despite the lack of populace there, they are pretty integral. Unless you don't care for things like food or paper etc. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
This has been a fascinating few days for me.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-10-2000).]
-
Nice link, Snoopi. That was the point I was trying to make, made better and with the numbers to back it up.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree, Fatty. You make better arguments than most do for the electoral college.
As it is, my vote here in Texas meant nothing. Litterally. Bush was going to win the state, so my vote for Gore had no weight whatsoever in who becomes our president. I might as well have stayed home. I went ahead and voted because it makes me feel like I am not shirking my duties as a citizen, even though it was utterly pointless. The same is true for people voting for Bush in states that Gore was going to carry. Where are our voices?
I just think it exceedingly important for all citizens vote to count equally in this one area of Government. The way it is, some have weight, some don't, and some carry more weight than others based on where they live. That is why you only see campaigns in large electoral states or where the race is to be hotly contested.
Gordo
-
Your voices were drowned out by your constituents. Sorry man, next time I won't yell so loud (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Your state has a vote, fairly weighted by its population. You were significantly outvoted in that decision, so my advice to you is not to vote next time. Or you could go back and vote next time even though you didn't make a difference this time.
It's up to you, but I hate to break it to you. Your 1 vote makes no difference in the popular vote either.
Edit PS - The link isn't bad, but the guy ignores the fact that with a popular vote, it's possible for Mass's entire state not make up the difference in a tight NY race.
[This message has been edited by Fatty (edited 11-10-2000).]
-
I just heard the 19,000 ballot story is bogus. It was original reported that these ballots did not count, story I just heard was that these 19k ballots were the ballots redone by voters who error on the ballot and submitted another ballot before they left the polling centers. Can anyone confirm this story?
Eagler
-
It's micro versus macro.
Zoom in to your state and your vote helps decide who gets the weighted electoral votes. In close races your vote has an extreme importance, as we are seeing right now in FL. In landslides, it doesn't.
Zoom out to the national popular vote and your vote helps decide who gets the job. In close races your vote has an extreme importance. In landslides, it doesn't.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I'm with Fatty on this one.
-
Heh! Thanks for illustrating my problem with things. You are 100% right. Our presidential election process is a vote of individual states as opposed to individual citizens. I suppose that makes sense if you are more concerned with protecting the say of geopolitical areas as opposed to the say of the citizens that live within them (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Its a simple fact, your vote may or may not mean a thing based on where you live. It may mean more or less dependant on how contested your state is. That's wrong, imo.
I have to admit, though, the current system makes for an interesting poker game...
Gordo
-
My point is you can say the essentially the exact same thing about a simple majority vote.
In a tight race, you count. In a landslide you don't.
I'm more concerned with protecting the say of citizens that live within small geopolitical areas called states.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
F4UDOA, I may be late but:
>Why do you imply that they media changes the out come of the vote? They work on a prediction system that is over 90% accurate and they don't report on a state until the polling is closed in that state.
Do you think it is a conspiracy?<
Wrong! You see what you want to see.
Poles closed in FL at 8 pm est not 7.
Jeez, I'm really tired of this crap.
PC
-
Most of FL closed at 7 pm EST. The panhandle closed at 8pm EST. Panhandle was voting when they called FL for gore.
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
I just heard the 19,000 ballot story is bogus. It was original reported that these ballots did not count, story I just heard was that these 19k ballots were the ballots redone by voters who error on the ballot and submitted another ballot before they left the polling centers. Can anyone confirm this story?
Eagler
Heard tonite that Duval County (Jacksonville) threw out 22,000 ballots and no recount there. These are damaged/errored ballots which were recast before the voter left the poll so they are counted. The media/democrats have spun the 19k votes in Palm Beach to sound as if they were never counted. This is not true.
Eagler