3rd November 2004, 1:54 PM
Honestly that's the best possible reform of the electoral system, and as this guy points out, each individual state DOES need to have a sense of power. In the lesser states, being completely drowned out means their votes simply don't count, and that'll be the case election after election. With electorals, their votes DO have an effect, even if it's small.
Having the electorals decided district by district within the states however is better than that, for the mathematical reasons this fellow stated. At a time, I had a problem with the electoral college too, but this fellow pretty much points out that, in order for states to keep their power, we have to keep it. Reform it, certainly after what he's said, but a nationwide system with only the overall votes just has too much going against it, as in, total disenfranchisement among a lot of people no matter HOW important an election may be.
I think the best part of this is that presidential candidates would suddenly be forced to consider the needs of a lot more areas rather than ignoring entire states because of standard defaulting to one party that a lot do. It's kinda disenfranchising when you know your whole state is going to counter your vote too, but if it's just your district, hey, that seems managable :D.
But anyway, as this guy said, there is no perfect voting system, but rather, it's whatever people agree on before hand, and to suddenly contest the agreed upon rules (note that places where the rules have actually been violated are another story entirely, and SHOULD be contested) after the fact is being a sore looser, of the kind that says "alright, best two out of three". I'm certainly glad we don't do round robin voting anyway :D.
Having the electorals decided district by district within the states however is better than that, for the mathematical reasons this fellow stated. At a time, I had a problem with the electoral college too, but this fellow pretty much points out that, in order for states to keep their power, we have to keep it. Reform it, certainly after what he's said, but a nationwide system with only the overall votes just has too much going against it, as in, total disenfranchisement among a lot of people no matter HOW important an election may be.
I think the best part of this is that presidential candidates would suddenly be forced to consider the needs of a lot more areas rather than ignoring entire states because of standard defaulting to one party that a lot do. It's kinda disenfranchising when you know your whole state is going to counter your vote too, but if it's just your district, hey, that seems managable :D.
But anyway, as this guy said, there is no perfect voting system, but rather, it's whatever people agree on before hand, and to suddenly contest the agreed upon rules (note that places where the rules have actually been violated are another story entirely, and SHOULD be contested) after the fact is being a sore looser, of the kind that says "alright, best two out of three". I'm certainly glad we don't do round robin voting anyway :D.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)