What is up with the EU

[Albinonewt]

The half a million vote margain really didn't bother me.

100,000,000 votes were cast. Half a million is half a percent. I have no problem with that margain.

However, there could easily be half a percent worth of mistakes and fraud. So if there hadn't been an electoral college there likely could have been a nation wide recount. The electoral college prevented that.

[drg]

The election took 5 weeks to resolve. A recount would be time-consuming, but so, apparently, is the electoral college. Every election these days there are some recounts undertaken, and it would take no longer to have every state do one. It's not like they all happen serially.

[Albinonewt]

I'm sorry, what?

Because one state took 5 weeks then an entire country would take how much time?

And the reason they don't happen serially is because of the electoral college. Most states don't have a win margin that could even warrant being recounted. And even the ones that do typically don't have to be recounted because the electoral votes aren't enough to swing the election one way or the other.

The Washington recount has been going on for nearly 2 months, and still no final victor. A nationwide recount would take less time because of what magic?

Puh-lease.

[drg]

Serially = one after another. All recounts can happen in parallel.

The winner-takes-all nature of the vote is what is delaying it in Washington. So your argument is, well, moot. Any one state would not have to keep counting and counting because there is nothing to win specifically in that state.

[Albinonewt]

That's just stupid. Actually, it's really really really really stupid.

The nationwide election isn't winner take all? What, is Bush President of Middle America and Kerry President of the coasts? I don't remember reading that headline.

And so what that all the recounts go on at once. With all 50 states counting someone is going to take longer then the rest. The manpower allocated by the national parties will be stretched so much that not all the recounts will be able to happen at once, or at best some will be requested again. Because of the size of the nation more irregularities will occur and each will need resolving. And the Washington recount would is not a moot point. If one (relatively small state) can take 2 months to iron out a winner how long could it take an entire nation? It could legitemately takes 6 months or more, which would make it impossible to inagaurate a President in January. And let's not forget, the last time we had a one state recount the stock market collapsed. Any system that allows for a nationwide recount is moronic, disasterous, and is just begging for trouble.

The electoral college works. It stays.

[drg]

That's just stupid. Actually, it's really really really really stupid.

The nationwide election isn't winner take all? What, is Bush President of Middle America and Kerry President of the coasts? I don't remember reading that headline.

And so what that all the recounts go on at once. With all 50 states counting someone is going to take longer then the rest. The manpower allocated by the national parties will be stretched so much that not all the recounts will be able to happen at once, or at best some will be requested again. Because of the size of the nation more irregularities will occur and each will need resolving. And the Washington recount would is not a moot point. If one (relatively small state) can take 2 months to iron out a winner how long could it take an entire nation? It could legitemately takes 6 months or more, which would make it impossible to inagaurate a President in January. And let's not forget, the last time we had a one state recount the stock market collapsed. Any system that allows for a nationwide recount is moronic, disasterous, and is just begging for trouble.

The electoral college works. It stays.

All elections are handled at the state level. There is no federal aparatus to administer elections. All states already can conduct simultaneous recounts of any and all elections. Every state already has sufficient representatives from national parties, not that it matters anyway.

The Washington election has actually already been over for quite some time. It is the inability of one party to accept the results that is keeping it going now. Ironically that same party called for the other party to accept results before recount proceedings were finished.

Since there is nothing to win, specifically, at the state level, it will be far easier to certify any given recount, even a close one, than in the current system under which, in most cases, all electoral votes go to the winner of each individual state.

So far from being stupid, it actually makes a lot of sense. Personally I could go for proportional electors in all states, that would keep the best parts of the electoral college system and lose the worst parts.

[HoppysMag]

i just want to say the XM8 is a solely US development. just because H&K is a german company doesnt mean that its a joint effort, thats the buety of a global free trade society

[Albinonewt]

All elections are handled at the state level. There is no federal aparatus to administer elections. All states already can conduct simultaneous recounts of any and all elections. Every state already has sufficient representatives from national parties, not that it matters anyway.

And all of this is assuming a recount of single states, and not of an entire country. Kerry sent nearly every representative he had to Ohio and Florida and there was enough to occupy those people even though it really wasn't that close! With a nationwide popular vote a federal aparatus would have to be established, otherwise who certifies the vote?

Nationwide popular vote = Bad Idea

The Washington election has actually already been over for quite some time. It is the inability of one party to accept the results that is keeping it going now. Ironically that same party called for the other party to accept results before recount proceedings were finished.

There's nothing ironic about it. The democrats wanted to win, so they kept calling for recounts and each time they "found" extra ballots (which by the way there weren't permitted to recanvas, only recount) until they won. I think the election should just be put to bed, but the republican party wants to fight that obvious fraud and corruption.

Since there is nothing to win, specifically, at the state level, it will be far easier to certify any given recount, even a close one, than in the current system under which, in most cases, all electoral votes go to the winner of each individual state.

That's not true at all. The Washington example is the perfect point. Evrey new recount the democrats go into their stronghold and make up new votes until they win. Imagine that on the nationwide level. God forbid there wasn't a way to mitagate the damage done to an election by the California illegals voting when they shouldn't (which there is plenty of evidence to support that charge, it just really doesn't matter with the electoral college because Bush would never have won California regardless)

So far from being stupid, it actually makes a lot of sense. Personally I could go for proportional electors in all states, that would keep the best parts of the electoral college system and lose the worst parts.

Well, the popular vote is a pretty stupid idea, but not nearly as stupid as proportional electors. The worest thing a state can do is become a proporational state. Take Colorado as an example (which had it on the ballot). Since the vote will in most cases be pretty close there really wouldn't be a point to spending money in Colrado. In most cases one candidate will win 4 votes and the other 5 votes and so why even bother fighting it out? Better to work in a competitive state. Proporational electoral would mean the true battleground states would be even rarer and the election would be decided by the narrowest of margains by design.

[drg]

Well at this point it's fairly obvious you don't have a good understanding of the US election apparatus. There is no federal apparatus to poll the populace. It doesn't matter one bit what the national parties want to do, with or without them every state can conduct their elections as they choose (by law or court ruling). Certification happens on the state level. There has never been a problem certifying at the federal level, as there are fewer electors and their intentions are already known. It is little more than a formality.

Personally I see nothing wrong with the electoral results representing the popular vote more accurately and a close race showing up as close in electoral totals. I can't see why anyone would not see the merit in the electoral totals reflecting reality as closely as possible. The system now effectively disenfranchises large numbers of individuals in every state.

Proportionality makes plenty of sense. At most, states would be recounting over one electoral vote, so obviously the challenges to certifying the vote are going to be far less than if, as in the example of Ohio, 20 are at stake. While nationwide fraud may total a large number, in practice, since each state conducts its own elections, there would be little if any change from the way things are done now.

It's clear that your partisan bias figures quite prominently into your arguments. You bring up the idea that less money would be spent in most states as a reason to shun proportionality, when most nonpartisan views (and many partisan views) of the electoral process say that more money tends to affect elections negatively. Your party's fundraising aparatus is stronger, as it represents classes with more monetary stake in the electoral process and more monetary resources to devote to it, so your intentions are transparent. You also seem to hold the parties in the Washington dispute to a double standard.

[Albinonewt]

Well at this point it's fairly obvious you don't have a good understanding of the US election apparatus. There is no federal apparatus to poll the populace. It doesn't matter one bit what the national parties want to do, with or without them every state can conduct their elections as they choose (by law or court ruling). Certification happens on the state level. There has never been a problem certifying at the federal level, as there are fewer electors and their intentions are already known. It is little more than a formality.

and it's quite obvious you have no understanding of the change you are advocating. You're talking about the abolition of the electoral college and the institution of a nationwide popular vote. You think there won't be some kind of federal agency overseeing that?

What planet exactly are you on?

Personally I see nothing wrong with the electoral results representing the popular vote more accurately and a close race showing up as close in electoral totals. I can't see why anyone would not see the merit in the electoral totals reflecting reality as closely as possible. The system now effectively disenfranchises large numbers of individuals in every state.

No, it doesn't. Only one person can be President, so the fact that some people won't get the person they voted for shouldn't be a suprise to anyone. The electoral college prevents fraud. The college in all but the most remote circumstances has reflected by and large the popular vote. it works, it does not need to be tinkered with.

Proportionality makes plenty of sense. At most, states would be recounting over one electoral vote, so obviously the challenges to certifying the vote are going to be far less than if, as in the example of Ohio, 20 are at stake. While nationwide fraud may total a large number, in practice, since each state conducts its own elections, there would be little if any change from the way things are done now.

Proportionality reduces the effectiveness of the system in the first place. Once it's proporational there's a reason for fraud again. Sure the republicans can't win california, but once they can start grabbing large chunks of votes without winning why not try to cheat? Same with the other "safe" states.

It's clear that your partisan bias figures quite prominently into your arguments.

It's clear your ignorance influences you. The 2000 vote Bush wins in a land slide if the system were proportional, or didn't anyone tell you? The Blue states are in almost all cases not such a clear landslide for the democrats as the red are for republicans. My party would be in much better shape with your stupid system, but it's still stupid.

You bring up the idea that less money would be spent in most states as a reason to shun proportionality, when most nonpartisan views (and many partisan views) of the electoral process say that more money tends to affect elections negatively.

I'm not talking about money specifically, I'm talking about attention paid to the state in general. I'm talking about campaigning, I'm talking about the entire election process. While it's possible that there's too much money in the system nobody gains from removing the election process entirely from the people. Once you set up a proportional system then there's nothing to the election other then turn out the vote efforts.

Your party's fundraising aparatus is stronger, as it represents classes with more monetary stake in the electoral process and more monetary resources to devote to it, so your intentions are transparent. You also seem to hold the parties in the Washington dispute to a double standard.

More ignorance? What were the odds?

Democrats out spent and out raised republicans this year
the democrats directly appeals to the class of people that don't pay taxes and live off the system

So, you don't know anything. You are completely blind to literally everything. You ideas are stupid. You motives are biased and based on lies. And frankly your ignorance of the entire political landscape is beginning to tire me.

[drg]

You're talking about the abolition of the electoral college and the institution of a nationwide popular vote.

No, I'm advocating the discarding of the winner-take-all system implemented in most states.

The electoral college prevents fraud.

What in the world would lead you to this conclusion? With so much at stake in each state, the benefits of fraud are much greater than under a fairer system.

The college in all but the most remote circumstances has reflected by and large the popular vote. it works, it does not need to be tinkered with.

It has confirmed the results in most instances, but very often has not reflected the actual vote accurately. And in some instances it got it just plain wrong. That is not acceptable in any system that claims to be based on majority rule.

Proportionality reduces the effectiveness of the system in the first place. Once it's proporational there's a reason for fraud again. Sure the republicans can't win california, but once they can start grabbing large chunks of votes without winning why not try to cheat? Same with the other "safe" states.

They can't start "grabbing large chunks of votes without winning." Most disputes will come down to one elector either way. Fraud on any larger scale would be obvious.

It's clear your ignorance influences you. The 2000 vote Bush wins in a land slide if the system were proportional, or didn't anyone tell you? The Blue states are in almost all cases not such a clear landslide for the democrats as the red are for republicans. My party would be in much better shape with your stupid system, but it's still stupid.

That's just a plain and simple falsehood. Proportionality would have returned the correct result in 2000. The only references I have seen to Bush's take improving are uncredited claims in right-wing opinion pieces and models based on Maine or Nebraska's systems, which are not proportional.

I'm not talking about money specifically, I'm talking about attention paid to the state in general. I'm talking about campaigning, I'm talking about the entire election process. While it's possible that there's too much money in the system nobody gains from removing the election process entirely from the people. Once you set up a proportional system then there's nothing to the election other then turn out the vote efforts.

That's nonsensical. Every state would have electors in play, so many states that now get little to no attention from federal candidates would have more attention paid. I can't imagine what would be so wrong with a greater emphasis on get out the vote efforts. Why wouldn't more people voting be better for the process? Might return a result you don't want?

Democrats out spent and out raised republicans this year

Not by any non-skewed accounting. The RNC outspend the DNC by $100m. The Bush campaign outspent the Kerry campaign by $60m. The Republican house totals outstripped the Democrat house totals by far more than the Democrat Senate totals outstripped Republican senate totals.

So, you don't know anything. You are completely blind to literally everything. You ideas are stupid. You motives are biased and based on lies. And frankly your ignorance of the entire political landscape is beginning to tire me.

I submit that based on the facts, these claims are more applicable to you than me.

[Albinonewt]

No, I'm advocating the discarding of the winner-take-all system implemented in most states.

You were going on about using the popular vote, which I again reiterate is a mistake.

What in the world would lead you to this conclusion? With so much at stake in each state, the benefits of fraud are much greater than under a fairer system.

It minimizes the impact of fraud, as the literate have already discovered since I explained it already

It has confirmed the results in most instances, but very often has not reflected the actual vote accurately. And in some instances it got it just plain wrong. That is not acceptable in any system that claims to be based on majority rule.

It has never been "just plain wrong". It has been different then the popular vote within a 3% margain of error though, which may not be as inaccurate as some people think

They can't start "grabbing large chunks of votes without winning." Most disputes will come down to one elector either way. Fraud on any larger scale would be obvious.

They can't cheat to get their 30% share up to 40%? Come again?

That's just a plain and simple falsehood. Proportionality would have returned the correct result in 2000. The only references I have seen to Bush's take improving are uncredited claims in right-wing opinion pieces and models based on Maine or Nebraska's systems, which are not proportional.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There were three electoral maps posted in 2000 once liberals started complaining that proporation would have rendered the "right" result. And in all three they were wrong, and Bush's margain increased.

That's nonsensical. Every state would have electors in play, so many states that now get little to no attention from federal candidates would have more attention paid. I can't imagine what would be so wrong with a greater emphasis on get out the vote efforts. Why wouldn't more people voting be better for the process? Might return a result you don't want?

The non battleground states get little attention, and your system would reduce the number of battleground states. There is nothing wrong with get out the vote efforts, until they're the only thing deciding elections. Once that happens we're talking about only partisan efforts determining the president, which is simply not good. I don't want a system where only partisans matter.

And the myth that higher turnout helps democrats has been proven false this election. Voter turn out was a record high, up nearly 10% from last election and Bush won the first majority in 20 years. So maybe you should stop believing the partisan myths and start learning something about the process.

Not by any non-skewed accounting. The RNC outspend the DNC by $100m. The Bush campaign outspent the Kerry campaign by $60m. The Republican house totals outstripped the Democrat house totals by far more than the Democrat Senate totals outstripped Republican senate totals.

Kerry's own releases demostrate he raised more money the Bush, and Democratic 527's outspend Republican 527's by more then 2:1. So nice try, but once again your wrong.

I submit that based on the facts, these claims are more applicable to you than me.

Please go learn something before you open your mouth again. I'm sick of your nonsense.

[drg]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There were three electoral maps posted in 2000 once liberals started complaining that proporation would have rendered the "right" result. And in all three they were wrong, and Bush's margain increased.

Provide them.
Here's one of mine: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...tional2000.php

The non battleground states get little attention, and your system would reduce the number of battleground state.

No, it would turn every state into a battleground state.

And the myth that higher turnout helps democrats has been proven false this election. Voter turn out was a record high, up nearly 10% from last election and Bush won the first majority in 20 years. So maybe you should stop believing the partisan myths and start learning something about the process.

I made no claims either way. However, no myth has been proven or disproven in one election cycle. Historically high turnouts may have helped one party over another, but only history will say whether 2004 was a new trend or an anomaly.

I am fully aware of the results of the 2004 election and the turnout figures. Even assuming this is a new trend, I don't mind at all if turnouts are boosted. It's better all around. Maybe I'm not as partisan as you think.

Kerry's own releases demostrate he raised more money the Bush

Raised:
George W. Bush (R) $366,554,535

John Kerry (D) $322,574,967

Spent:
George W. Bush (R) $339,280,603

John Kerry (D) $299,852,005

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp?sort=E

nd Democratic 527's outspend Republican 527's by more then 2:1. So nice try, but once again your wrong.

There is no such thing as a "Democratic" or "Republican" 527. That would be illegal.

Please go learn something before you open your mouth again. I'm sick of your nonsense.

Do same.

[Albinonewt]

Provide them.
Here's one of mine: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...tional2000.php

That's the fartherest left leaning one I've seen (there are multiple different proportional methods) and it STILL shows Bush winning slightly. You turned me right around on that one.

No, it would turn every state into a battleground state.

Once the electoral vote magins are purposely designed to be close no matter what (since 70-30 splits aren't likely anytime soon) that turns every state into a potentional litigated state. Plus, what's the point of being a battleground state if all that's at stake is the one odd electoral? In all likelyhood only a couple of states where blowouts are possible would be battleground states, and those are the states where campaigning does the least good.

I made no claims either way. However, no myth has been proven or disproven in one election cycle. Historically high turnouts may have helped one party over another, but only history will say whether 2004 was a new trend or an anomaly.

You just insinuated that higher turnout benefited democrats. Something that may have been true when only one side got out their base

I am fully aware of the results of the 2004 election and the turnout figures. Even assuming this is a new trend, I don't mind at all if turnouts are boosted. It's better all around. Maybe I'm not as partisan as you think.

You're worse then I thought. high turnout isn't always a good thing. I don't want a higher voter turnout if it means more uninformed and single minded people are voting.

Raised:
George W. Bush (R) $366,554,535

John Kerry (D) $322,574,967

Spent:
George W. Bush (R) $339,280,603

John Kerry (D) $299,852,005

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp?sort=E

There is no such thing as a "Democratic" or "Republican" 527. That would be illegal.

well, according to this Bush did slightly edge out kerry, but the 527 race wasn't even close. I'm curious about the candidates numbers though, since that's not what was reported by CNN and other organisations in the first couple of weeks after the election.

And if you want to tell me that Moveon.org's fundraising doesn't directly turn into money spent on the democratic candidate then you're a hopelessly biased partisan hack.

Do same.

Save it.

[drg]

That's the fartherest left leaning one I've seen (there are multiple different proportional methods) and it STILL shows Bush winning slightly. You turned me right around on that one.

I think we have discovered the root of the problem -- you can't read. It shows Gore winning 269-263.

Anyway I'd like to see the charts you refer to. Got links?

Once the electoral vote magins are purposely designed to be close no matter what (since 70-30 splits aren't likely anytime soon) that turns every state into a potentional litigated state. Plus, what's the point of being a battleground state if all that's at stake is the one odd electoral? In all likelyhood only a couple of states where blowouts are possible would be battleground states, and those are the states where campaigning does the least good.

As long as electors are still used, the swings to change the outcome of elections, even for one elector, will still be fairly large. Litigation may increase but it will not be nearly the epidemic you suggest. Results will have to fall within fairly small margins to make re-examination worthwhile.

You're worse then I thought. high turnout isn't always a good thing. I don't want a higher voter turnout if it means more uninformed and single minded people are voting.

I disagree. The closer we get to 100% turnout, the better for everyone. The more people turn out, the more people are invested in the process and policies that become of it. While in the short term an uninformed electorate may make a bad decision, the effect of that bad decision will be to educate said voters. In the end the percentage of the populace that are informed voters increases.

Discouraging voting is not the solution to voter apathy and general civic ignorance.

well, according to this Bush did slightly edge out kerry, but the 527 race wasn't even close. I'm curious about the candidates numbers though, since that's not what was reported by CNN and other organisations in the first couple of weeks after the election.

And if you want to tell me that Moveon.org's fundraising doesn't directly turn into money spent on the democratic candidate then you're a hopelessly biased partisan hack.

First off it is important to note that you can't lump 527 money into the same category as money explicitly spent by parties or candidates. Not all 527s supported one party as much as opposed another. Not all 527s supported any party at all.

Furthermore, money spent with 527s does not directly benefit any candidates. By law, it can't. It can benefit them, true, but not directly. It is far more valuable to have direct contributions to the candidate and his or her party. But 527s on the whole are far less effective per dollar due to the restrictions placed on what they can say and do. In the end those restrictions ended up nullifying a lot of those groups' expenditures in 2004.

Anyway it's time for this thread to die. I say it can work, you say it's fine the way it is. So be it.