Do you think there should be voting restrictions?

[Pedro Cerrano]

No I'm not being unfair because that is exactly what it is and what would happen. And if you think I'm wrong look at what some states are doing now with ID regulations.

Those rules disproportionately target the poor, elderly and minority. It is also not a coincidence that these laws are being passed by GOP legislatures and they target demographics that primarily vote democrat. They are completely illegal for this reason: The 26th amendment outlaw poll taxes - you can not be forced to pay a fee for your right to vote hence registration is completely free.

But if you need to pay a fee to get a driver's license or a state ID - and if that ID is now required to vote - then you have to pay to vote, BAM illegal.

But of course this won't stop thousands from being disenfranchised for the next election cycle.

The democratic states would do it to GOP demographics too if these tests were allowed, this is what happens when you start restricting the right to vote.

I'm sorry that SG has decided not to engage me here, because that is ridiculous.

You're being unfair in that the jim crow laws were patently racist. This is quite different from SG's bottom line and I doubt (not to speak for him) he'd have any problem with educated african americans being able to vote.

Again, I disagree with his premise, but for you to say "oh this is just like the jim crow laws" is unfair.

[mweb]

It certainly is a problem, Kennedy beat Nixon by .17 percent of the vote, certainly within the margin of error for vote counting, Gore beat Bush by .51 percent.
In a close election we would have to monitor every single voting center in ever county in the country. Voter fraud would certainly increase (what would be the benefit to voter fraud in 90 percent of the states today?) With how much polling is done today voter fraud would likely run rampant in any election likely to be close. You have to be in fairy land if you think individual county board of elections are not corruptible. It would be a nightmare. The lawsuits would never end and Bush v. Gore would become the norm rather than the exceptions.

Further, the Electoral College promotes federalism, the system that our country was built on. What if there was a hurricane in the gulf coast before the election? Their votes would be worth less under a popular vote system. Turnout is greatly affected by weather or external factors, I would hate to think that a Republican was elected due to a November rain storm in the north-east corridor, or a Democrat was elected because of tornadoes ripping through trailer parks.

I recognize the potential issues with counting votes, etc, but I don't think that's a reason why not to do what imo, is the most fair and logical approach to a national election.

[Sports Guy]

I recognize the potential issues with counting votes, etc, but I don't think that's a reason why not to do what imo, is the most fair and logical approach to a national election.

No system is perfect and, just like everything else, their are going to be reasons why you should and shouldn't do something.

But, since this is the system that works for the individual state elections, why can't it be used for the entire country?

[SilentJames]

Agreed.

Why not break up the counties into an electoral type thing when it comes to state elections? Why is it popular vote within the state?

Because that is how the states set it up!

I know you are not engaging me but damnit listen - THE SATES REGULATE VOTING LAW, that is it.

Over time how votes are counted have changed. In fact for the fist five Presidents there was no direct voting for President at all. The only direct elections in the United States were for State legislatures, House of Reps and Governor - but even that was only in a few states.

The Jackson administration changed that, the Jacksonian democrats worked to expand suffrage to all white men of a certain age. They broke down land, education, wealth and in some places even religious barriers to voting.

At the same time voting rights for free blacks begin to be rolled back.

Civil War happens

13,14,15 amendments are passed 13-free slaves, 14-guarantess them due process rights and equal protection 15-gives them the right to vote.

The 15th amendment fails because of how it is worded: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

It doesn't say Black people can vote, it says that race can not be used as a basis of disenfranchisement so the states found other means to keep people they didn't want voting from voting.

Namely poll taxes and literacy tests. These were done under the SAME argument of "if you can't pass a basic test...." but they were worded, scored and distributed with the clear intent to disenfranchise a specific group. And if you think for a second that it wouldn't happen again you are kidding yourself.

Of course, maybe it wouldn't happen again but why even take the chance? Just let everyone vote. I thought we were supposed to be the shining white city on the hill? I thought we were the beacon of free democracy in the world? Why do some want to turn us into something less.

[mweb]

I see what you're saying here, but again, the reason that the United States is technically a republic and not a pure democracy was to ensure that even the people in the minority had a voice -- had some sort of a say.

New York City has over 8 million people -- I'd venture that that's more than the 10 least populated states in the country combined (just a guess -- I may be off). When you have a population distribution where people in the highly populated areas all (theoretically) have similar political ideas and beliefs, a straight popular vote basically leaves anyone in the middle of the country voiceless. And it shouldn't be that way.

Not to mention Murphdogg's examples (although I didn't care for the "trailer park" example)...if there is a freak blizzard in the Northeast corridor one early November, what do you do when 60% of the people living in those major cities can't leave their houses to go vote?

The electoral college isn't perfect, but I think it's better than just a simple straight vote.

People still have some sort of say in a popular vote. In fact, they all would have the same say.

What SJ and now you're saying about the middle states losing their power is not accurate imo. Those states still hold a lot of people and their population is reflected in the electoral college anyway Plus, again the recent popular elections have not shown SJ's comment regarding a popular voting ensuring Dem presidents for the foreseeable future to be true.

Otherwise, states like NY and CA that almost always vote Democratic have plenty of Republicans, especially outside of the cites, why are you guys ok with taking away their say because they have the same populous centers you're referring to in your argument about minimizing the smaller states?

Those smaller states are already minimized by the electoral college unless they are swing states, and even then their value is a product of their population.

And your freak blizzard example is a big problem in an electoral college as well imo, but why not just give those people affected more time to vote?

[MurphDogg]

No system is perfect and, just like everything else, their are going to be reasons why you should and shouldn't do something.

But, since this is the system that works for the individual state elections, why can't it be used for the entire country?

Federalism, weather patterns, isolation of electoral fraud, etc.

Oh, and all the states that seek modifying the electoral college system to a popular vote system are Democratic leaning states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...rstate_Compact

[SilentJames]

You're being unfair in that the jim crow laws were patently racist. This is quite different from SG's bottom line and I doubt (not to speak for him) he'd have any problem with educated african americans being able to vote.

Again, I disagree with his premise, but for you to say "oh this is just like the jim crow laws" is unfair.

No, I said that the last time we had these tests was during Jim crow. and no they themselves WEREN'T racist laws. The laws didn't say "blacks couldn't vote" That would violate the 15th amendment. So they were written in race neutral language to remove all trace of racial bias.

But of course those laws were specifically applied for the sole purpose of disenfranchising a group of people. I mean that is why you make any sort of entrance test, you are looking for a reason to keep people out. It is EXACTLY like that.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I recognize the potential issues with counting votes, etc, but I don't think that's a reason why not to do what imo, is the most fair and logical approach to a national election.

Say you're a farmer living in Nebraska. Say a guy is running for office (this is completely made up) that wants to slash income and property taxes for anyone living in a city of 500,000 people or more by 50%.

To make up for that cut to help balance the budget, this candidate is planning on taxing the hell out of farmers. Property, goods (both production and sales) on crops.

Obviously everyone in the big cities are enthralled with this guy and, using their substantial muscle, put all other issues aside because hey, a 50% tax cut is pretty cool!

You and your farmer friends go out and vote against this guy but, unfortunately, there ain't that many of you and the guy wins in a landslide with New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philly, Houston, etc etc all having record turn outs to vote in the guy that is about to increase their bank account by a large sum.

Is a straight popular vote still good with you?

[mweb]

No system is perfect and, just like everything else, their are going to be reasons why you should and shouldn't do something.

But, since this is the system that works for the individual state elections, why can't it be used for the entire country?

Plenty of other countries do it.

[MurphDogg]

Not to mention Murphdogg's examples (although I didn't care for the "trailer park" example).

Sorry about that, unfortunately that particular issue is more susceptible to favoring Republicans than Democrats due to the more concentrated populations in Democratic areas. I should have gone the other way and said that the weather being unseasonably warm in the northeast would give Democrats an advantage.

[SilentJames]

Plenty of other countries do it.

A lot of those countries are also a lot smaller in both demographics and geogrpahics than the United States

[MurphDogg]

Plenty of other countries do it.

Federalism (I reply meekly for the third time).

[mweb]

Say you're a farmer living in Nebraska. Say a guy is running for office (this is completely made up) that wants to slash income and property taxes for anyone living in a city of 500,000 people or more by 50%.

To make up for that cut to help balance the budget, this candidate is planning on taxing the hell out of farmers. Property, goods (both production and sales) on crops.

Obviously everyone in the big cities are enthralled with this guy and, using their substantial muscle, put all other issues aside because hey, a 50% tax cut is pretty cool!

You and your farmer friends go out and vote against this guy but, unfortunately, there ain't that many of you and the guy wins in a landslide with New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philly, Houston, etc etc all having record turn outs to vote in the guy that is about to increase their bank account by a large sum.

Is a straight popular vote still good with you?

How is that different than an electoral college? The highly populated cities have the majority of the power as it is. Nebraska has 5 of the 538 electoral votes and it would be a given what way they'd vote in that election or a real life presidential election. So the state carries very little power as is, and the individuals in the state don't carry much weight regardless of who they want to vote for because those 5 electoral votes are basically decided beforehand.

And again, how about the farmers and non city folk in NY, CA, etc who are overwhelmed by the cities in their own states? Why do the farmers in NE matter more than the ones in CA and NY? Why not have all farmers have true equal votes? Same with all city folk, etc.

[mweb]

A lot of those countries are also a lot smaller in both demographics and geogrpahics than the United States

Sure. I'm not saying there aren't obstacles, but I think it's the best and most fair system.

[SilentJames]

How is that different than an electoral college? The highly populated cities have the majority of the power as it is. Nebraska has 5 of the 538 electoral votes and it would be a given what way they'd vote in that election or a real life presidential election. So the state carries very little power as is, and the individuals in the state don't carry much weight regardless of who they want to vote for because those 5 electoral votes are basically decided beforehand.

And again, how about the farmers and non city folk in NY, CA, etc who are overwhelmed by the cities in their own states? Why do the farmers in NE matter more than the ones in CA and NY? Why not have all farmers have true equal votes? Same with all city folk, etc.

When the smaller states along the midwest and south vote as a block they have a much more powerful voice.

Fact: only one President has ever become President without carrying a single Southern state - Lincoln

The fact that Presidential candidates can not afford to completely ignore these areas means that under the electoral college these regions have a much stronger voice and have at least a chance of influencing policy on a national level. Under one-man-one-vote these regions are even more marginalized.