Do you think there should be voting restrictions?

[Pedro Cerrano]

We're also forgetting the fundamental principles this country was founded only -- namely a decentralized gov't. That's why we have states. If we took away the Electoral College and basically made it every vote for itself, it would slightly take away some states' rights.

[mweb]

Back to the farmers since they are a group the pro-electoral college people seem to be concerned with...

Top 10 agricultural states as of 2004:

California (by far)
Texas
Iowa
Nebraska
Minnesota
Illinois
Kansas
North Carolina
Wisconsin
Florida

7 of those states voted for Obama in 2008.

If we want to be concerned with farmers and rural people, we should be focusing on all of them, meaning from a mixture of states, some red, some blue, and some swing states. Not just the states where lots of those types of people live, but don't have a strong population from cities to overwhelm them, or if they do, many of the city folk are conservative (Texas).

[Pedro Cerrano]

Farmers was just an example. I'm more concerned with the residents of the smaller states be they farmers, doctors, accountants, whatever. Without an electoral college they don't have a say.

[BRobinsonfan]

But it really doesn't because their population is so small that the results won't affect the end totals in any meaningful way. It's just a matter of which states will be ignored during the election. I prefer that the swing states be the focus because they're more diversified than other states, forcing candidates to appeal to a greater variety of voters. That's just my preference, though.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "their population is so small..."

All votes would be equal. In winner take all states any votes above 50 % + 1 are essentially meaningless.

Also... The swing states change from cycle to cycle... If your argument is diversity... Few states are more diverse than California and its not a swing state.

[Sports Guy]

Farmers was just an example. I'm more concerned with the residents of the smaller states be they farmers, doctors, accountants, whatever. Without an electoral college they don't have a say.

In Maryland, I don't have a say either.

[Moose Milligan]

To answer SG's initial question (sorry, I haven't read the whole thread), yes, I believe their should be.

I'm in favor of voters answering some basic questions on how the government works and what the candidates policies are in order to have their vote count. Some said earlier that they doubt the people who can't name the VP aren't the ones voting, I don't believe that to be true at all. You won't have to look far to find evidence of people voting for candidates just because of one reason or another.

Bill Maher had Alexandra Pelosi go to rural Mississippi and asked people why they vote the way they do. On the flip side of the coin, next week she went to NYC to see how people from the inner city vote the way they do. I won't link to them here because it'll probably send this thread off the deep end, but you should take a look. A quick google search will help you find both of them.

Now both videos are hack jobs on a few levels, but it doesn't take away from the fact that ignorant people still have their ignorant reasons for voting. I'm sorry for being un politically correct and probably stepping on a few toes and offending people, but it makes me sick that people like this have a vote.

[crissfan172]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "their population is so small..."

All votes would be equal. In winner take all states any votes above 50 % + 1 are essentially meaningless.

Also... The swing states change from cycle to cycle... If your argument is diversity... Few states are more diverse than California and its not a swing state.

I'm simply saying that the results in Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, etc won't affect the results in an election. Their votes will be drowned out by the big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. For example, if a candidate wins New York City by 52%-46% margin, it will have a much greater impact on the result of the elections than winning a state like Rhode Island 57%-41%. Basically, whoever wins the big cities would likely win the election, much like it is now with swing states. As you said, though, swing states change, which gives other areas a chance to decide elections.

Oh...and when I say diverse, I don't mean race, religion, etc...I mean politically speaking.

[Sports Guy]

To answer SG's initial question (sorry, I haven't read the whole thread), yes, I believe their should be.

I'm in favor of voters answering some basic questions on how the government works and what the candidates policies are in order to have their vote count. Some said earlier that they doubt the people who can't name the VP aren't the ones voting, I don't believe that to be true at all. You won't have to look far to find evidence of people voting for candidates just because of one reason or another.

Bill Maher had Alexandra Pelosi go to rural Mississippi and asked people why they vote the way they do. On the flip side of the coin, next week she went to NYC to see how people from the inner city vote the way they do. I won't link to them here because it'll probably send this thread off the deep end, but you should take a look. A quick google search will help you find both of them.

Now both videos are hack jobs on a few levels, but it doesn't take away from the fact that ignorant people still have their ignorant reasons for voting. I'm sorry for being un politically correct and probably stepping on a few toes and offending people, but it makes me sick that people like this have a vote.

It probably will piss some off but so what...I agree with you 100%.

I remember Howard Stern conducting interviews for those in favor of Obama and he would ask them, are you glad Palin is running with Obama and they would be like, yea she is great, etc....

That is just awful.

[Moose Milligan]

It probably will piss some off but so what...I agree with you 100%.

I remember Howard Stern conducting interviews for those in favor of Obama and he would ask them, are you glad Palin is running with Obama and they would be like, yea she is great, etc....

That is just awful.

Exactly. I remember those interviews. He'd ask Obama voters questions about Obama's "policies" which were entirely Republican. They were all for it, having no idea what Obama really believed in.

Now I don't care if people vote for Obama if they really like his views and know what his policies are. I don't care if people are going to vote for whoever the Repbulican candidate is, as long as they understand what that candidates policies are.

Ignorance has no place in the voting booth. If someone from the inner city wants to vote for Obama because Obama's black, fine. If that really sets their soul on fire and inspires them, great. However if they really want their vote to count, then they should be so inspired to inform themselves on Obama's policies and have a basic understanding of the country's history and how our government works. Fair trade-off and they come away from the experience a little more informed.

[waroriole]

Exactly. I remember those interviews. He'd ask Obama voters questions about Obama's "policies" which were entirely Republican. They were all for it, having no idea what Obama really believed in.

Now I don't care if people vote for Obama if they really like his views and know what his policies are. I don't care if people are going to vote for whoever the Repbulican candidate is, as long as they understand what that candidates policies are.

Ignorance has no place in the voting booth. If someone from the inner city wants to vote for Obama because Obama's black, fine. If that really sets their soul on fire and inspires them, great. However if they really want their vote to count, then they should be so inspired to inform themselves on Obama's policies and have a basic understanding of the country's history and how our government works. Fair trade-off and they come away from the experience a little more informed.

I don't think anyone would say they want less-informed voters (except maybe the people running for office), the problem is where you draw the line once it's been established that you're going to draw the line. Who makes up the questions? Who checks the questions to make sure they are fair? Too many problems are associated with this.

Also, it's tough to say that those "gotcha" segments on TV and radio that make people look like idiots are representative of anything, other than a handful of stupid, ditsy people.

[Moose Milligan]

I don't think anyone would say they want less-informed voters (except maybe the people running for office), the problem is where you draw the line once it's been established that you're going to draw the line. Who makes up the questions? Who checks the questions to make sure they are fair? Too many problems are associated with this.

Also, it's tough to say that those "gotcha" segments on TV and radio that make people look like idiots are representative of anything, other than a handful of stupid, ditsy people.

Hell if I know where to draw the line, I just think a line should be drawn. I think it'd be unfair to have extensive grad school level questions out there, but do you think it'd be fair if people should be able to name the three branches of government for example?

Those gotcha segments are exactly that...gotcha segments on a handful of stupid, ditsy people. The question is, how many of those people are really out there.

[crissfan172]

Hell if I know where to draw the line, I just think a line should be drawn. I think it'd be unfair to have extensive grad school level questions out there, but do you think it'd be fair if people should be able to name the three branches of government for example?

Those gotcha segments are exactly that...gotcha segments on a handful of stupid, ditsy people. The question is, how many of those people are really out there.

Yes...let's just change the Constitution to take away people's rights.

[Moose Milligan]

Yes...let's just change the Constitution to take away people's rights.

Sorry if I'm offended by people who want to vote for a candidate because he apparently has a direct line to God. Or want to vote for a candidate because he's black.

[crissfan172]

Sorry if I'm offended by people who want to vote for a candidate because he apparently has a direct line to God. Or want to vote for a candidate because he's black.

Voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege. It shouldn't have to be earned.

I'm afraid if we continue this conversation, it will go down a partisan path, and I really don't want that, so I'm just going to stop here.

[Moose Milligan]

Voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege. It shouldn't have to be earned.

I'm afraid if we continue this conversation, it will go down a partisan path, and I really don't want that, so I'm just going to stop here.

I disagree. It's a privilege because it's a privilege to live in this country. It's a privilege to live in a democracy. Votes are powerful, IMO they shouldn't be just given to anyone and everyone with a shallow opinion. You seem like an intelligent guy, does it not trouble you that someone wants to vote for Obama just solely based on his skin color, politics be damned?

It doesn't have to be a partisan conversation. I definitely lean to the right but I'm absolutely embarrassed by some peoples reasons for voting for the same people that I do.