Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Nov 2012 11:37 UTC
In the News "This election won't hinge on technology issues. Just look at prevailing discussions this year at the national level: major candidates have sparred over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the role of government, inane comments on the female body, and to nobody's surprise, the economy. Despite that fact, many decisions will be taken up by the next US president and those in Congress that will affect the world of tech, and by consequence, the real lives of citizens and human beings around the world - from alternative energy, to the use of killer drones, the regulation of wireless spectrum, and policies that aim to control content on the internet. Your chance to vote is just around the corner. Here's what's at stake in tech this election, and how the major candidates could influence our future." Happy voting, American readers. Whatever you pick, please take at least a few minutes to consider that the implications of your choice do not end at the US border.
Thread beginning with comment 541171
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by kenji on Tue 6th Nov 2012 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
kenji
Member since:
2009-04-08

"Not precisely" can have such a big margin, that it can be considered broken. Making it more democratic will also force candidates to pay attention to all states in general, rather than focusing on few selected "swing" ones, disregarding anything else.


This would have no impact on which party would win the majority per State. Demographics play a large role and several States are simply too far in favor of one party or the other for the minority to gain enough ground to win that State. Example - Kansas will not elect a democrat and California will not elect a republican, regardless of attempts to change that.

Swing States (I live in one and I am knee deep in political propaganda) are politically split down the middle more or less and have more independent voters making them critical in deciding Presidential elections because they can be persuaded.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 6th Nov 2012 19:59 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

The side effect of this, is that candidates disregard non swing states as not deserving attention. It's not an acceptable situation. Removing this layered system will make it an even democratic process. There is simply no benefit in keeping this awkward and indirect process in use.

Edited 2012-11-06 20:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by kenji on Tue 6th Nov 2012 20:29 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

The side effect of this, is that candidates disregard non swing states as not deserving attention. It's not an acceptable situation. Removing this layered system will make it an even democratic process. There is simply no benefit in keeping this awkward and indirect process in use.


My point was that in strong left or right leaning States the candidates would be either preaching to the choir or making a futile attempt to gain a majority that they will never achieve. What's the point of doing that when it will not affect the outcome, even if the vote was entirely based and popular votes and the Electoral College was dissolved?

A win is a win and a majority is a majority, electoral college or not.

Another side effect, if you can call it that, is that the swing States get more small town attention. If candidates went to all States, they would stay mostly in large cities and ignore the less populated areas (and even States that are 'too small' to matter entirely). That puts the power in the hands of the 'balanced' or centrist population and ignores the strongly partisan areas, which I think helps the political landscape.

I also appreciate that the candidates and running mates have made several visits to my small city, which would be ignored otherwise.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Luminair on Tue 6th Nov 2012 20:36 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

if you remove the electoral system then the non-swing states that are ignored get traded for small states that are ignored.

you could say this is fine because the president is a national office, and the states have their fair chance to provide local representation through the cronies they elect to congress.

point is, stopping the electoral system is not a clear positive.

Reply Parent Score: 2