Third Party & Independents: Archives

It’s funny, as a 15-year resident of New York, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Presidential candidate advertise on TV, in print, on billboards, or on the radio. Sadly, we New Yorkers are forced to rely on newspapers. :)

-Cf

First of all the President doe not make law, he enforces it, Congress makes the laws.

I think they called swing states because their constituency is almost equally divided between Republican and Democrat, with large numbers of Independents thrown into the mix. The whit, they are neither Red, nor Blue. Living in a solidly Democratic state, I still believe my vote counts. If everyone in the one of the non-swing state decided not to vote, would there be an election? The answer is no. Just because I do not see political ads directed my way every evening on the television doesn’t mean that I and my vote do not count to the candidates. Nor, does it mean the Electoral College system is flawed, and should be replaced.

Even if the Electoral College were replaced by direct elections the same lines would still be drawn; there would still be red and blue states, and those states that are evenly, or almost even divided. They would still be swing states and the candidate would still cater to them in an effort to win their votes. Same picture, different paint scheme, so to speak. What would change by allowing direct elections?

(1) the president has the greatest initiative in creating law in our country. Plus, he can veto any bill. He has a important roll in deciding what laws are passed.

(2) what would change- (a) a indepedent swing voter in massachusetts would be as important as one in florida- if you decided to change your mind and vote for another candidate, your change of mind would be just as important, no matter what state you were registered in; (b) the candidates wouldnt be able to focus on just a couple of states; (C) the person who wins more vote would always be preident.

Let me put it this way- lets say you were from Florida but lived right now in Texas- you would have to be foolish not to keep your Florida registration. a system that encourages that makes no sense.

Misha:

An interesting possibility would be to modify the Electoral College from being all-or-nothing to a percentage standpoint.

Currently, whether a candidate wins a state by 1% or by 30%, they win the entire electoral vote for that state. Consider that if the “loser” of the state got a percentage of the electoral vote though. That candidate would care whether he lost the state by 1% or by 30% since it would have an effect on the electoral vote.

This would bring the safe states back into play so that votes in a New York, or Massachusetts etc would still be as important as a vote in Florida.

Whattaya think?

its a better plan then we have now, thats for sure. If it was completely proportional, then it would be just like my plan. But what if someone got like 10% of Wyoming? would they get like half an electoral vote? I think just having direct population would be best. when they came up with this system, there was really no other feasible way to do it (administratively)- its not longer 1789.

(1) the president has the greatest initiative in creating law in our country. Plus, he can veto any bill. He has a important roll in deciding what laws are passed.

Please explain this statement in more detail; what is this great initiative? While I will concede the President has the right to veto a law, his office has not the power to legislate, or create them. And as powerful as the veto is, the Congress has the power to overturn one, and the President I then powerless to prevent its enactment.

I must admit that I am still confused by your reasoning vis-à-vis the Presidential electoral process; perhaps I am just dense today. Your reasoning (as far as I understand it) forgets the fact that Americans hold dual citizenship; you are a citizen of the state in which you reside, and a citizen of the United States. Just because you were born in Florida, doesn’t mean your residency is always therein, unless you are in the military. Are you stating that once a Florida resident, always a Florida resident no matter what other state I, or this another person move to and set up residency in? For legal purposes, one cannot be a resident of two states at once, and one cannot live in one state and vote in another, unless you are in the military, in which that vote would be cast absentee.

I do not know about your state, but in Illinois I am free to vote for whomever I chose in the general election. So if I decided while walking into the polling booth that I wanted to vote for G.W. Bush (Lord forbid) I could do so…

“What would change by allowing direct elections?”

Ummm…. We would have a different administration right now.

as a PRATICAL matter, the president controls a lot of what laws are made in the nation. he is the leader of the party, and often bills that are proposed in Congress come directly from the president’s office, and then he uses the same political power to push it through Congress (see the recently Medicare bill as a perfect example of this). He also controls a lot of the way laws are enforced through his power over the agencies (like the FCC, EPA).

You do not have to change your registration for some time. For example, I still vote in masscahusetts even though I go to school in D.C., just on an absentee ballot. I could vote in D.C. if I chose. There was a girl I was talking to yesturday who still votes in Michigan (I believe- or some other swing state), even though she goes to school now in D.C. and before went to school in Massachusetts- technically she could have been a voter in any one of those states for the next election.

Misha—

In order to vote in the general election you have to be registered in one place or the other. As soon as you register in D.C., for instance in order to vote there, you would no longer be able to legally vote in MA. Same goes for your friend. You can only vote where you are registered, and to register you have to be resident of the state. You cannot legally be the resident of more then one state.

As a practical matter, the electoral college is meaningless. Every state has laws which direct their electors to vote the way of the majority. Supposedly, if they do not (called Faithless Electors), they are breaking the law. Someone did this in 00 in North Carolina (I think), although I do not think anything happened to her.
There is no Constitutional rule which says it has to be winner take all. One state, Nebraska or somewhere near there, divies up their electoral votes according to their popular vote.

I favor winner take all electors and not just a popular vote or parceling electors. Without it, small population states would be ignored. Elections would be decided by LA, Chicago, New York, etc. Great if you are a liberal, but not so good if you are anyone else. This is the reason the college was included in the first place. Rhode Island and Connecticut (among others) did not want national politics dominated by New York and Virginia (among others). Made sense then and makes sense now.
I can’t imagine the parties would go for it in any event. Assuming California is 70-30 Democrat, can you imagine the Dems agreeing to a plan that would reduce the number of votes they get?

Todd- i get your point, but its just not the case. The republicans currently hold the majority of the country (just look at the house of representatives). Who cares if small STATES are ignored? say there are 150,000 people in wyoming- why are they more important than 150,000 people in California or Texas? We have a federalist form of government with limited powers for our national government- but when it exercizes those powers, it acts upon the people, as individuals, not on them as parts of states. Therefor, it is the people, not the states, who should be represented. See that quote from Wilson in my original post.

P.S. i have never voted for a democrat in my life, and I have almost always voted for republicans. But unfair is unfair, no matter which party it benefits.