Cheney: Party man or Self serving?

[atszyman]

I'm not a Republican but I can't help but notice that the Republican ticket this year is kind of a dead end. In most recent elections, after a president's second term the VP will run for president in the next election. Given Cheney's age and health I don't think this would be the case should Bush happen to win a second term. If Cheney is a true Republican I see that within the first two years of Bush's next term he will step down from the VP position (due to health reasons) and Bush will appoint another VP in order to field a viable candidate for the 2008 election (Giuliani?). Cheney could very easily maintain a position as a high level advisor, but will he do it?

We already know Cheney is a bit self serving. When asked to research and find a good running mate in Bush's first run he managed to find himself.

We also know he is a liar. While portraying Kerry as soft on the millitary by talking about the systems that he voted against he fails to point out that at the time he was the Secretary of Defense and was calling for even larger cuts than what Congress was allowing him. See here http://slate.msn.com/id/2106119 and here http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/.

I know Slate happens to be a bit more to the left than a lot of news sites however I trust them since they do their research and admit when they are wrong which is more than a lot of media outlets will do these days. See here http://slate.msn.com/id/2106630 and here http://slate.msn.com/id/109707

So now back to my topic. Will Cheney step down for the benefit of the Republican party? Or will he selfishly hold on to his office and leave the 2008 election up for grabs?

Just some thoughts.

[zimv20]

one of your thoughts had occurred to me as well: that cheney will likely not be the heir apparent to the presidency.

and that's got me a bit scared. i think a 2nd bush term would be an all out War on Giving Up Power. be on the watch for solidifying judicial power for years to come, more erosion of the non-administrative branches, and some reason to suspend elections.

[sorryiwasdreami]

I think he will never step down, given his more-than-vice-president leadership role of the Bush administration. On topics other than religion, I believe Cheney calls the shots; Bush appears just a spokesman.

Cheney is way to crucial to the republican dictatorship we live today in America to resign, even if he is on an operating table.

[stubeeef]

If he does step down, I would think Gov P or G as you said.

But kerry is the liar, and edwards too, nah,nah,nah,nah,nah,,,,,,,

PS you contradict yourself, you say cheney is a liar cause he portray kerry as soft on defense due to votes, yet cheney was not lying....kerry did those votes. Was it deceptive? Mostly! Lying? NOT!

Show me a politician running for Prez, someone hasn't called a liar.

I trust them since they do their research and admit when they are wrong which is more than a lot of media outlets will do these days. I agree CBS should recant!

[blackfox]

If he does step down, I would think Gov P or G as you said.

But kerry is the liar, and edwards too, nah,nah,nah,nah,nah,,,,,,,

PS you contradict yourself, you say cheney is a liar cause he portray kerry as soft on defense due to votes, yet cheney was not lying....kerry did those votes. Was it deceptive? Mostly! Lying? NOT!

Show me a politician running for Prez, someone hasn't called a liar.

I agree CBS should recant!

Stu,
please don't take this the wrong way, but...

a) how old are you exactly?
b) what medication are you on and have you been taking it?
c) do you have ADD or some kind of hyperactivity?

I ask because your posts are a little wierd sometimes...not so much in what you say but in how you say it...

[atszyman]

If he does step down, I would think Gov P or G as you said.

But kerry is the liar, and edwards too, nah,nah,nah,nah,nah,,,,,,,

PS you contradict yourself, you say cheney is a liar cause he portray kerry as soft on defense due to votes, yet cheney was not lying....kerry did those votes. Was it deceptive? Mostly! Lying? NOT!

Show me a politician running for Prez, someone hasn't called a liar.

I agree CBS should recant!

No it is a lie. Read the article.

"It is the claim that John Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter; the F-14, F-16, and F-18 jet fighters; and just about every other weapon system that has kept our nation free and strong.

Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees.

This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.

What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush's father—was truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough:

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them." -Fred Kaplan

They are making the claim that Kerry is softer on defense than they are based on these votes.

Cheney wanted more cuts at the time of these votes. So who are we supposed to believe is softer on defense? It's a lie of omission.

Another lie is that he voted specifically against the systems named. The systems were part of a larger bill. That's like saying a politician voted against fixing potholes on main street when it was attached to an $200 million stadium deal for a local sports franchise.

They are lies. I'm surprised that they haven't turned these right around on Cheney.

I don't much like the choices in this election. But be honest with yourself. If Clinton had piloted us into record deficits, a war without adequate planning for the aftermath, and a loss of jobs you'd be calling for his head on a platter.

The best result from this election would be for Kerry to lose the popular vote but win the Electoral College so we can get some bi-partison support to eliminate the Electoral College. Unfortunately I live in Texas so my vote is worthless. I can vote for Kerry to try to get Bush out of office but Bush will win TX anyway and get the Electoral votes.

[stubeeef]

Senator Inouye, Very Liberal (D) from Hawaii had the following comments:* Amendment 1452, 1994, Senate Floor


*The amendment offered by Senator Kerry would reduce the 1994 appropriations for national defense by about $4 billion. I believe the Members of this body should recall that Congress has already reduced DOD's budget in 1994 by more than $18 billion. Moreover, in each and every year of the past 10 years, Congress has cut the funds provided for defense. We have already cut defense spending drastically. ...

Now if I may comment on another section that reduces funding for intelligence programs, and this amendment would reduce such funding by about $1 billion. Madam President, the intelligence budget has already been cut by almost 18 percent over the past 2 years. An additional reduction of $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community's ability to provide decisionmakers and policymakers with information on matters of vital concern to this country.


These issues include nuclear proliferation by North Korea--this has been on the front pages for the past 3 or 4 months--peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Somalia, as well as terrorist threats against American citizens and property. ...


At a time like this, is it prudent to reduce funds for the very intelligence programs which we need to identify these targets? This amendment would do that. It would blind our pilots. Is this the time to cut the satellite programs that give our forces warning of attacks? I hope that we will keep this in mind... If we do and this amendment passes, then we are putting blindfolds over our pilots' eyes. ...

Will you argue the Honorable Sen Inouye's view? Was he a hawk?

Cuts proposed after deep cuts for the peace dividend

Introduces a bill to SLASH Department of Defense Funding by 6.5 Billion* (S. 1580, Introduced Feb 29, 1996)* (No one was willing to co-sponsor this bill!) Voted YES to freeze defense spending for 7 Years, slashing over $34 Billion from defense. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181, May 24, 1995) Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.* Conference Report on H.R. 927; Bill H.R. 927 ; vote number 1996-22 on Mar 5, 1996
In 1997, the conservative Center for Security Policy awarded Kerry a score of 0 out of a possible 100 on 14 key defense votes – including funding for space-based laser programs.
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions.* Motion to table the Lugar Amdt #3156.; Bill S. 2159 ; vote number 1998-201 on Jul 15, 1998


Voted NO on deploying missile defense as soon as possible.* Bill S 1873 ; vote number 1998-262 on Sep 9, 1998


Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures.* Bill S.1059 ; vote number 1999-147 on May 26, 1999


Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion.* H.R. 2606 Conference Report; Bill H.R. 2606 ; vote number 1999-312 on Oct 6, 1999


Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.* Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; Bill Treaty Document #105-28 ; vote number 1999-325 on Oct 13, 1999


B-2 Stealth Bomber:* Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate B-2 Stealth Bomber



(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203, 9/26/89)
(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310, 11/18/89)
(S. 2884, CQ Vote #208, 8/2/90)
(S. 2884, CQ Vote #209, 8/2/90)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #174, 8/1/91)
(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206, 9/25/91)
(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #216,9/18/92)


(S. 2182, CQ Vote #179, 7/1/94)
*



Missile Defense:* Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate Missile Defense



(S. 1507, CQ Vote #168, 7/31/91)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #171, 8/1/91)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #172, 8/1/91)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #173, 8/1/91)
(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207, 9/25/91)
(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #182, 8/7/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #214, 9/17/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #215, 9/17/92)
(S. 1298, CQ Vote #251, 10/9/93)
(S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64, 3/22/94)
(S. 1026, CQ Vote #354, 8/3/95)
(S. 1087, CQ Vote #384, 8/10/95)
(S. 1745, CQ Vote #160, 6/19/96)
(S. 1873, CQ Vote #131:, 5/13/98)
(S. 1873, CQ Vote #262, 9/9/98)
(S 1635, CQ Vote #157, 6/4/96)
(S. 2549, CQ Vote #178, 7/13/00)

Can you find republicans that voted the same on some yes, how many democrats voted the same please, mr jfk is on the record, read the 57 bills and resolutions thread too.

Is there spin and manuevering? Absolutely! The liar decry reminds me of the ole hag (played billy crystal's wife) in the princess bride, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!
Pants on fire. :rolleyes:

[stubeeef]

How embarassing to have a worthless vote, maybe you can get with the Nader supporters in Florida and have a pow-wow.

I am not from Tx, but I imagine there is more on the ballot on election day than the Prez election.

The electoral college is wise beyond its years. I live in a state that has about the population of New York City & metro area, and if you think I want them to have a bigger say in a Presidental Election than my entire state you're nutz.

Why not say there shouldn't be 2 senators from RI. :rolleyes:

from atszyman
Unfortunately I live in Texas so my vote is worthless.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I had heard one of the talking heads during the RNC, that said not to rule out Cheney in 2004. Age doesn't play that much in to it as does his health over the next fours years if Bush wins.

[atszyman]

How embarassing to have a worthless vote, maybe you can get with the Nader supporters in Florida and have a pow-wow.

I am not from Tx, but I imagine there is more on the ballot on election day than the Prez election.

The electoral college is wise beyond its years. I live in a state that has about the population of New York City & metro area, and if you think I want them to have a bigger say in a Presidental Election than my entire state you're nutz.

Why not say there shouldn't be 2 senators from RI. :rolleyes:

from atszyman

I'm not saying that we should take away representation, but election of the president by popular vote would make more sense than the system we have now. Read this http://slate.msn.com/id/2105055.

"In their book Electoral College Primer 2000 (which, alas, was not updated for 2004), Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce calculated that the states enjoying higher-than-average voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in declining order):

California
Texas
New York
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois

The states with the least voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in ascending order):

Montana
Kansas
West Virginia
Maine
Arkansas
Utah
Nevada"

Popular vote or even awarding electors based on proportonal voting schemes, i.e. A state has 3 Electors and has a 66/33% vote divide. One elector goes to the winner of the 33% vote while the other 2 go to the 66% winner. It would improve voter turnout in areas like TX where left leaning people don't feel like we have a say since we are so outnumbered by the right.

Your telling me you'd still support the system if Bush were to win the popular vote but not the college? I find that hard to believe.


As for the voting record post.

"B-2 Stealth Bomber:* Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate B-2 Stealth Bomber



(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203, 9/26/89)
(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310, 11/18/89)
(S. 2884, CQ Vote #208, 8/2/90)
(S. 2884, CQ Vote #209, 8/2/90)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #174, 8/1/91)
(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206, 9/25/91)
(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #216,9/18/92)


(S. 2182, CQ Vote #179, 7/1/94)
*"

I did some research and these are all just general Defense budget bills. Saying that Kerry voted against the Stealth Bomber based on these bills is like my previous example of fixing potholes on main street as a part of a bill to get the community to fund a new stadium for the local NFL team.

Don't even get me started on Missile defense. Given the poor performance in prior tests, I cannot believe that we pulled out of a treaty (another of Bush's dismal foreign policy mistakes) to try to build the system. It's a losing game. Even if we had a perfect system our enemy only has to build one more Nuke than we have interceptors in order to hit us. Given the past performance of the system the only need a few nukes and a lot of balloons and they could manage to hit us. Missile defense could very well lead to another arms race.

BTW, I don't consider it an embarrassment to be a victim of a flaw in the system.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The problem we have with the electoral college system today is, the candidates are now pandering to just 10 "battleground" states. I guess the other 40 can just go suck eggs.

[stubeeef]

I am for the electoral college after clinton won, and will be if kerry wins. BELIEVE IT, EVEN THOUGH KENNEDY WON IN A NARROW VICTORY AND NIXON IN ONE IN 68. There is an argument for distribution of electoral votes, which is not the same as some want- the elimination, I am not for the distribution although I understand the argument.

I included the votes on the bills that you mentioned along with the ones that didn't apply to the liar claim.

I missed your response to Sen Iouyne's comment though.

Each state has each own personallity, if you don't like texas try another. As my state sen. said in a letter he sent me concerning my request he vote in favor of a Federal Marrage amendment, he prefered each state to take their own action in this, that out of respect for the US Constitution, he did not like amending it (Sen Edwards). I am glad he is not up for re-election, (he knew he was toast anyway-why not run for president? After all he is a rich personal injury lawyer)
Each state is unique in taxes, education, property rights, etc....... Part of what gives each state its power is the electoral system. So we disagree.

you'll be happy though-i have to end today's macrumors banter-actually have to work till late tonight. I do get to fly a Republican Candidate tomorrow!! YEA!

[IJ Reilly]

Why do states need electoral power? What is the problem with one person, one vote?

[mischief]

Why do states need electoral power? What is the problem with one person, one vote?

The original thought was that it'd leave small states out in the cold. Though with all the changes in infrastructure and culture I think it comes down to one-man-one-vote being a little too fair and difficult to manipulate.

[IJ Reilly]

The original thought was that it'd leave small states out in the cold. Though with all the changes in infrastructure and culture I think it comes down to one-man-one-vote being a little too fair and difficult to manipulate.

Heh heh heh. Cynical as always -- I knew I could count on you. :)

Seriously though, it's a serious question. By what reasoning do "states," large or small, need a voice in selecting a president? By what rationale does someone living in Montana deserve a substantially larger say in a presidential election than someone living in California?

[mischief]

Heh heh heh. Cynical as always -- I knew I could count on you. :)

Seriously though, it's a serious question. By what reasoning do "states," large or small, need a voice in selecting a president? By what rationale does someone living in Montana deserve a substantially larger say in a presidential election than someone living in California?

If I recall correctly this is one of the remaining anachronisms from a period in American history when hamstringing the Fed was a major priority for a people united mostly by the desire to stop paying taxes to Britain.

The other legislation in the same veign included seperate state millitias with NO standing millitary, state-by-state currencies, limitations on the Fed that essentially made it impossible for it to act as much more than a localized UN and Native-American-Genocide Enforement agency until reality and powermongering eroded away all but the most manipulable of the original controls.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Why do states need electoral power? What is the problem with one person, one vote?

I think it has to do with the DNC and RNC wanting to be able to play games when it comes to money. Far easier to confuse or win the votes in 10 states, than it is to do it in 50 states.

If it relied on, one person-one vote, then they would have to have real policies for the future. This way they can just play the game of words to win the hearts of voters.

[katchow]

The electoral college is wise beyond its years. I live in a state that has about the population of New York City & metro area, and if you think I want them to have a bigger say in a Presidental Election than my entire state you're nutz.


i really couldn't give a rats behind what everyone else thinks in my state. Its a dumb assumption to say we are all like-minded because we live in proximity of each other (granfallons)...i'm voting for a president of the united states, you know, the u.s.a, as the name implies, as a whole.

i've actually been told that maybe i should move if i don't like the way my state votes...what kind of democracy is that?

[zimv20]

Senator Inouye, Very Liberal (D) from Hawaii had the following comments:* Amendment 1452, 1994, Senate Floor

dude, you gotta provide links for this stuff. it's the way. and who was inouye talking to when he addressed "madam president?"

if i had a link, i could have a look for myself. as it is, it's suspect.

and you can drop the "very liberal" ****. doesn't make me want to read many more of your posts.

[IJ Reilly]

what kind of democracy is that?

An incomplete one.

I understand the historical rationale behind the Electoral College system, which principally was that the founders were concerned about the election of plurality presidents from the more powerful and populous states (especially, Virginia). So they created a system that required a majority vote (from the College), and gave every state a minimum say in the election. This was also in the days before political parties, so it was presumed that states would vote like parties members do today -- in virtual lockstep for their favorite sons.

What I don't understand is why anything thinks this system is a reasonable and useful one, let alone fair and democratic, in the 21st century.

[zimv20]

i really couldn't give a rats behind what everyone else thinks in my state. Its a dumb assumption to say we are all like-minded because we live in proximity of each other
agreed. the state is too broad a boundary. the needs of chicagoans, for example, differs greatly from the needs of the rest of illinois.

so one on hand we've got the granularity of the state, on the other, as suggested, we've got the granularity of the voter.

in between is the county. would that be a viable granularity? each county already has an election commission. it would certainly change the way campaign's are run.

[mischief]

in between is the county. would that be a viable granularity? each county already has an election commission. it would certainly change the way campaign's are run.

Only if you made the House districts and Senatorial districts fall via county lines. For the Senatorial Districts you'd have to group regionally to avoid "adjusting for (affilliated) population density".

[zimv20]

Only if you made the House districts and Senatorial districts fall via county lines.
ah yes, gerrymandering has no limits, save the state line.

i'm fine w/ doing away w/ the electoral college and just doing the popular vote. information is free flowing these days, i don't need an electorate to represent my vote for me. and i certainly don't need my vote to be rendered irrelevent by where i choose to live.

[takao]

election system: popular vote all the way.. the current one of the US is ridiculous....1 person 1 vote...no 'battleground states'

cheney: not acceptable.period.

[atszyman]

I missed your response to Sen Iouyne's comment though.

Each state has each own personallity, if you don't like texas try another.


First off I didn't respond to Sen Iouyne's comment. You provided no reference for the comment for one. I also never said that Kerry was perfect. He has made some mistakes, he's only human.

As for moving. I like my job, I generally like living in TX, my wife won't move. Trying another state is not an option. Why should I have to move to make my vote count?

I'm tired of typing so for the remainder of this post EC = Electoral College

Let's do some math. Hypothetical situation. 10 states each with equal populations and 20 electoral votes. Candidate A wins the election with 120 electoral votes by winning 51% of the vote in 6 states. Candidate B wins 100% of the vote in the remaining 4 states. Each state has 10% of the overall population. So the popular vote comes down to
5.1%*6 = 30.6% of the people voted for A
4.9*6+40 = 69.4 % of the people voted for B

70% of the people wanted B for the office yet only 30% of the people wanted the winner. Oversimplified sure but all it takes to carry the US election is to win 51% in the 11 highest electoral states. 100% of the people in the remaining 39 states could vote for the opponent who would still lose. The system is flawed. If Bush were to win the popular vote but lose the college Republicans will really start to push to remove or reform the EC.

[IJ Reilly]

All true, but the necessary minimum margin of victory is 50% +1, not 51% (so you might have slightly understated the case).

Also, some states assign electoral college votes proportionally though most are still winner-take-all. Even if all the states went to proportional assignment, that would not much change the basic inequities in the system.

[atszyman]

Man, we've strayed off topic quite a bit. Should probably spin the EC discussion to a new thread.

2008 should prove to be quite interesting if Bush wins in November. I'm pretty sure Cheney won't step down and Giuliani will have been out of the public eye for quite a while and he seems like the best hope for the GOP in 208. Possibly Edwards vs Giuliani?

[mischief]

All true, but the necessary minimum margin of victory is 50% +1, not 51% (so you might have slightly understated the case).

Also, some states assign electoral college votes proportionally though most are still winner-take-all. Even if all the states went to proportional assignment, that would not much change the basic inequities in the system.

Further reforms are neccessary. We need uniform standardization of Ballot method. We need to increase turnout. Perhaps moving to an Absentee-only system with prepaid postage, included #2 pencils (with erasers) and VERY LARGE PRINT.

[LethalWolfe]

election system: popular vote all the way.. the current one of the US is ridiculous....1 person 1 vote...no 'battleground states'

cheney: not acceptable.period.

The states w/the biggest populations would still be "battleground states."


Lethal

[katchow]

The states w/the biggest populations would still be "battleground states."


this is true, but it would be more difficult to declare a total victory in a state if all of the votes were counted. Maybe you got 55% but you couldn't say you carried the state.

[takao]

The states w/the biggest populations would still be "battleground states."

yeah but that would be more logical than the current 'all voters are equal,but some are more equal than others' version (not only more logical but more democratic as well)

the only ones who have an advantage in the current system are the two big parties

[atszyman]

All true, but the necessary minimum margin of victory is 50% +1, not 51% (so you might have slightly understated the case).

Also, some states assign electoral college votes proportionally though most are still winner-take-all. Even if all the states went to proportional assignment, that would not much change the basic inequities in the system.

Only 2 states assign electors proportionally, Nebraska and Maine. Neither of which is in the top 11 for EC votes. Which ar listed below with their Electoral Counts.

CA 55
TX 34
NY 31
FL 27
IL 21
PA 21
OH 20
MI 17
NC 15
NJ 15
GA 15

The 30% rule appears to hold true if you assume everyone can vote and use the populations from the 2000 census 30% of the US population is enough to elect a president. Proportionality would at least make it harder to win an election without winning the popular vote although it could still happen.

[IJ Reilly]

The states w/the biggest populations would still be "battleground states."

The states would be utterly erased as factors in presidential elections, so there is absolutely no reason to draw this conclusion. Why does no one speak of "battleground counties" in gubernatorial elections? It'd be an absurd concept, that's why.

I would say going to a direct election would tend to increase campaigning in large urban areas, but that'd be mainly the case because these places represent media markets that can be reached with television ads.

[IJ Reilly]

this is true, but it would be more difficult to declare a total victory in a state if all of the votes were counted. Maybe you got 55% but you couldn't say you carried the state.

To repeat myself to repeat myself -- no, the concept of "battlegrounds" would vanish. They exist today only in the presidential elections because all other elections are decided by direct popular vote. Eliminate the Electoral College, and you automatically render the battleground concept obsolete.

[mischief]

Perhaps we should go to the Reality TV model:

Live debates all day on C-SPAN on election day with running tallies. Polls open via 800 # at 6PM Central. You log in using your SSN and State ID #
( CDL # for instance) and vote.

[katchow]

i dunno, i think the "concept" of highly populated states being "battlegrounds" might remain but i agree that the reality is that they would be seeking the individuals vote and not the state concensus...

[katchow]

Perhaps we should go to the Reality TV model:


and run the risk of Clay Aiken becoming president? I think not! :)

[IJ Reilly]

i dunno, i think the "concept" of highly populated states being "battlegrounds" might remain but i agree that the reality is that they would be seeking the individuals vote and not the state concensus...

Just call them "media markets" and we probably agree.

Looking at what happens in statewide elections in California, the candidates tend to spend a lot of money and time in the populous counties because they can reach more voters for the energy expended. I think this would make a good model for what would happen nationwide. So I can see a shift in emphasis in campaigning from rural to urban areas resulting from popular voting, but not much else in terms of "battleground" campaigns.

As it stands now, the candidates are virtually ignoring the most populous state in the nation because it doesn't matter if the vote here is decided by a margin of one or one million. It's crazy.

[katchow]

Just call them "media markets" and we probably agree.


works for me :)

[Taft]

The electoral college is wise beyond its years. I live in a state that has about the population of New York City & metro area, and if you think I want them to have a bigger say in a Presidental Election than my entire state you're nutz.

Why not say there shouldn't be 2 senators from RI. :rolleyes:


If more people live in NY City than your state, why shouldn't they have a bigger voice in choosing a president? Your answer to this question is crucial to our understanding of your position, so please answer.

I can think of exactly one reason the electoral system we have now would be useful: if people from state to state had such differing laws, customs and opinions that it actually made a material difference which state you picked to live in. Now, I will concede that the difference between North and South and the difference between rural and urban America is quite great. However, as many others here have pointed out, laws, customs and opinions from state to state do not differ all that much. I could move to Columbus Ohio (squarely in a red state) and the net effect to my lifestyle would be about zero, compared to living in Chicago. Same with urban California, New York, Texas, Florida, etc., etc. There just isn't a material difference between states to the point where a person picks a state because of their system of government.

And that is why the electoral system is silly today. People don't view their choice of state as an endorsement of that state's system of government or general political ideology. BIG issues (like taxation and gun control) play a role in the decisions of a small proportion of US citizens, but not even close to the majority. And if people don't link their choice of state to a particular ideology, the idea that the whole state should vote together for a federal position seems arbitrary. If the people in the state don't feel connected to everyone else in the state in such a way that they collectively want to protect their interests, then what good is it to have them vote collectively?

I, and most Americans, view states in the context of the modern US as a somewhat arbitrary division of US soil. And because most states are becoming more like each other than less, this view is likely to increase. And as we increasingly see ourselves as Americans instead of Illinoisians, Michiganders, and Californians the idea that a group of people you are arbitrarily lumped with should collectively make a choice for President becomes unfair. Why should dinky little Rhode Island get more of a voice in who is president than all of NYC or Chicago? That choice effects less people in Rhode Island than in either city, so why do they get more of a voice?

If I saw a trend in this country to increased states' rights where my choice in state would seriously effect my life and I had more of a sense of "togetherness" with the rest of the people in my state, I might have a different opinion. However, in my view, we are moving away from more states' rights and toward a more unified America. You may not like that, but its the way it is. And given that fact (that states have less importance today than they once did), it makes far more sense for voters to cast their votes as individuals. Each citizen of the US makes their own choice.

The immediate benefit, as others have noted, is that your choice in state doesn't affect the importance of your vote. If I moved to Wisconsin, all of a sudden my vote matters, wheras in Illinois it does not. Why should that be? Why should only battleground states choose who is President? Why do a get a smaller voice and less attention from the parties than your average Wisconsin resident?

In the modern world, it doesn't make sense.

Taft

[wwworry]

New York City pays OUT a lot more in federal taxes than it recieves. Maybe if the electoral college was eliminated there might be a bit more equity.

In fact the blue states, as a whole, subsidize the red states.

[katchow]

well put taft :)

i wonder if we will see some numbers this election of those who didn't vote because their states were already decided...after the last election it seems to be coming up quite a bit. I even heard Pat Buchanan (of all people) the other day saying his vote didn't make any difference beacause of the state he lives in. I've heard countless collegues saying the same things...guess georgie would have to lose the electoral and win the popular vote before this topic ever sees the light of day. I mean, nevermind what a lot of americans are already saying...

wow, ol' Dick really got off the hook w/ this thread :)

[Rebel]

BIG issues (like taxation and gun control) play a role in the decisions of a small proportion of US citizens, but not even close to the majority. (I definitely agree with this statement)

I, and most Americans, view states in the context of the modern US as a somewhat arbitrary division of US soil. And because most states are becoming more like each other than less, this view is likely to increase. And as we increasingly see ourselves as Americans instead of Illinoisans, Michiganders, and Californians Taft

As the lines of state boundaries fade, we should more appropriately be called the United Citizens of America (no spam link). The power of individual statehood had a purpose in it's time. That time has passed.

[Taft]

New York City pays OUT a lot more in federal taxes than it recieves. Maybe if the electoral college was eliminated there might be a bit more equity.

In fact the blue states, as a whole, subsidize the red states.

That is quite an interesting tidbit. Got a link? I'd like to cite that statistic in the future. :)

So the people who want to be taxed less in this country actually receive proportionally more tax dollars than the people who want to pay taxes. Interesting indeed.

Taft