The First Man

[Cappy_Smurf]

To me, this way of thinking is a huge part of the problem. It's why 3rd parties have such a difficult path to viability. Is it really better to vote for the lesser of two evils than for someone with whom you agree more ideologically, but who has little to no chance of winning? Not to me. If everyone who is on the fence would consider options beyond D and R, maybe something good for the country could get some traction.

Well, they do take polls beforehand that give a rough estimate of which way people are going. I suppose it depends on how much you trust said polls. I think a lot of people would vote outside of the two parties if another candidate was anywhere close to having a legitimate shot at winning. Otherwise, regardless of how you feel about that line of thinking, the reality is that a vote for a candidate that has no real chance, ends up being a vote for whichever party you least want to see win, because you're taking away a vote for whoever you consider the lesser of two evils.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

I assume you live in Utah. If so, I don't know if you are aware of this, but your presidential vote doesn't count no matter who you vote for. This state's electoral college votes are going to go to the republican candidate, no matter what.

Nope, haven't lived in Utah in 13 years. You bring up a good point, however. The electoral college is an outdated joke that takes away the voice of way too many people. Until we change that, nobody can claim that every vote counts.

 

[Stoked]

Well, they do take polls beforehand that give a rough estimate of which way people are going. I suppose it depends on how much you trust said polls. I think a lot of people would vote outside of the two parties if another candidate was anywhere close to having a legitimate shot at winning. Otherwise, regardless of how you feel about that line of thinking, the reality is that a vote for a candidate that has no real chance, ends up being a vote for whichever party you least want to see win, because you're taking away a vote for whoever you consider the lesser of two evils.

The only way that will happen is if people start saying they are voting for another candidate.

I'd laugh and laugh if it is Clinton v Bush and some random 3rd party candidate gets like 40% of the vote.

 

[Stoked]

Nope, haven't lived in Utah in 13 years. You bring up a good point, however. The electoral college is an outdated joke that takes away the voice of way too many people. Until we change that, nobody can claim that every vote counts.

I'm all for a straight up popular vote. Then the peoples voice is truly heard.

 

[franklin]

I'm all for a straight up popular vote. Then the peoples voice is truly heard.

You mean then the pollsters and political scientists will have you by the balls even further?

The system isn't broke. Results show.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm all for a straight up popular vote. Then the peoples voice is truly heard.

Agreed. And the technology we have can more than handle this, and securely. But no politician will ever go for it because it means they have to campaign all over and cannot just focus on swing states potentially. Now it is easier for them, they can plan on winning certain states which they can then entirely ignore and focus only on, well let's face facts, usually Florida and a few others. If it went to a pure popular vote it would dramatically change the way they have to campaign.

 

[LogGrad98]

You mean then the pollsters and political scientists will have you by the balls even further?

The system isn't broke. Results show.

Yeah, to me it isn't about fixing it, it is about upgrading. Simply the concept bugs me. With the current system if we had an election and the entire country was tied except for California and Utah, annd if literally every single eligible person in Utah voted for the republican candidate, and a single person voted for the democrat in California, then California and the democrat wins. When we have the technology to allow every vote to count, that is what I would like to see.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I'm all for a straight up popular vote. Then the peoples voice is truly heard.

There was obviously a practical reason for the electoral college at one time, but as Cappy says it is outdated. The reason they don't do away with it is that the politicians benefit by being able to concentrate their money and time on the few states that matter. It's insulting and unfair to the residents of the states that don't, though. Because Utah is so biased to the republican side, there might not be another state that matters less as far as presidential politics are concerned.

 

[fishonjazz]

**** the electoral college

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You mean then the pollsters and political scientists will have you by the balls even further?

The system isn't broke. Results show.

Please explain. I didn't know these people had me by the balls now. Why will they have me even further if my vote counts? I would argue that results show that the system is broke, so I don't know where that comment is coming from, either.

 

[Stoked]

Agreed. And the technology we have can more than handle this, and securely. But no politician will ever go for it because it means they have to campaign all over and cannot just focus on swing states potentially. Now it is easier for them, they can plan on winning certain states which they can then entirely ignore and focus only on, well let's face facts, usually Florida and a few others. If it went to a pure popular vote it would dramatically change the way they have to campaign.

Not only can we handle it but it evens the field a little bit. Its not all about CO, FL, NV, IA, MI, PA... places like UT, TX, OR and NY suddenly have more importance.

 

[franklin]

Yeah, to me it isn't about fixing it, it is about upgrading. Simply the concept bugs me. With the current system if we had an election and the entire country was tied except for California and Utah, annd if literally every single eligible person in Utah voted for the republican candidate, and a single person voted for the democrat in California, then California and the democrat wins. When we have the technology to allow every vote to count, that is what I would like to see.

I love to bitch about things as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day we focus on the part of the equation we hate and ignore the part that benefits us.


The current system sucks because you have to win Ohio, which means pandering to the largest corruption capitalism/red state socialism program in the country: the corn lobby. Ethanol is the most wasteful program known to mankind. No benefit whatsoever. Bitch, moan.


Okay, so let's say we fix the system so the poli-sci types cannot game it the same way. Then what? Then they'll game it in a new way, and oh by the way while you're all campaigning and drinking cocktails discussing the ins and outs of it all they will be busy gaming your discussions and planning on how to move the vote one way or another.


So what does this all get you? A new system that is gamed all the same. What a worthless effort.

 

[Stoked]

I love to bitch about things as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day we focus on the part of the equation we hate and ignore the part that benefits us.


The current system sucks because you have to win Ohio, which means pandering to the largest corruption capitalism/red state socialism program in the country: the corn lobby. Ethanol is the most wasteful program known to mankind. No benefit whatsoever. Bitch, moan.


Okay, so let's say we fix the system so the poli-sci types cannot game it the same way. Then what? Then they'll game it in a new way, and oh by the way while you're all campaigning and drinking cocktails discussing the ins and outs of it all they will be busy gaming your discussions and planning on how to move the vote one way or another.


So what does this all get you? A new system that is gamed all the same. What a worthless effort.

So basically because someone will search and finally find a way to game any system we should not want one one that gives us better representation?

That seems like a terrible argument. Guess that D voter in Utah or that R voter in New Jersey should just shut up and not want better representation for themselves.

Any system will have flaws and those that take advantage/game it. But popular vote just seems like a no brainer upgrade over the electoral college.

 

[LogGrad98]

I love to bitch about things as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day we focus on the part of the equation we hate and ignore the part that benefits us.


The current system sucks because you have to win Ohio, which means pandering to the largest corruption capitalism/red state socialism program in the country: the corn lobby. Ethanol is the most wasteful program known to mankind. No benefit whatsoever. Bitch, moan.


Okay, so let's say we fix the system so the poli-sci types cannot game it the same way. Then what? Then they'll game it in a new way, and oh by the way while you're all campaigning and drinking cocktails discussing the ins and outs of it all they will be busy gaming your discussions and planning on how to move the vote one way or another.


So what does this all get you? A new system that is gamed all the same. What a worthless effort.

So basically becasue someone will search and finally find a way to game any system we should not want one one that gives us better representation?

That seems like a terrible argument. Guess that D voter in Utah or that R voter in New Jersey should just shut up and not want better representation for themselves.

Any system will have flaws and those that take advantage/game it. But popular vote just seems like a no brainer upgrade over the electoral college.

I agree with stoked for the most part. I would also argue that the new system would not be as "gamable" as the old system, even if only marginally so. Then we come up with another new iteration at some point down the road. Gradual progress is better than stagnation.

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree with stoked for the most part. I would also argue that the new system would not be as "gamable" as the old system, even if only marginally so. Then we come up with another new iteration at some point down the road. Gradual progress is better than stagnation.

To expand this a bit. In Six Sigma we go after the 80/20 rule. We shoot to find the causes (or causes) that represent 80% of the problem. In the few cases where we find many causes that have roughly equal measure in the results, the rule of thumb is to go after those with the biggest return on investment. So if I can take care of 10% of the problem for $X or 15% for $2X, then I go after the 10% first (the calculations are more complicated obviously, also including the cost of the 5% difference and such, but you get the gist). So we go after a 10% improvement when re-vamping the electoral college. Later we go after another 10%, and so on down the line.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Let's be real. It won't be "the First Man," any more than it has been "the First Woman." That **** just sounds weird. It'll be "the First Gentleman."

Just sayin'.

 

[Gameface]

Let's be real. It won't be "the First Man," any more than it has been "the First Woman." That **** just sounds weird. It'll be "the First Gentleman."

Just sayin'.

Good point. Mods feel free to edit the thread title.

 

[franklin]

So basically because someone will search and finally find a way to game any system we should not want one one that gives us better representation?

That seems like a terrible argument. Guess that D voter in Utah or that R voter in New Jersey should just shut up and not want better representation for themselves.

Any system will have flaws and those that take advantage/game it. But popular vote just seems like a no brainer upgrade over the electoral college.

Not at all. However, you and Log's constant griping that the system is broken and needs fixing is about the level of discourse you'll get from drunks in a smoking room out the back of a bar.


First off, your proposal to have a pure democracy is pure stupidity. Secondly, your complaints about community character and state's rights having a voting effect seem counterproductive to everything both of you seem to stand for. So your democratic vote in this state or your republican vote in that state doesn't count RIGHT THIS MOMENT. So what? Good democratic governments are designed to be slow moving. If you want change and for your vote for the D in Utah to matter (not believing for a second that either of you have ever voted for a single democrat...) then go out and play the long process by campaigning. What you really want but aren't explicitly asking for, or realizing, is instant gratification at the poll booth.


So check this solution out: the pollsters have select districts in select counties in select states that swing the presidential vote. If you two think the presidential vote matters so damn much (it doesn't, congress...) then form a frat club that swings the votes by moving into these swing districts. I'm not kidding either. Probably 1000 people could swing the presidential election every 4th year if they did this effectively.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I would be satisfied with a system that gradually phased out everybody else's vote and eventually made mine the only one that counts.

 

[Gameface]

How about if everyone got two votes, one for and one against?

I think that would encourage a multi-party system.