BF2S Forums wot is teh tea-party movement?

Here's the results for New York State in 2008.

Total population: 19,490,297
Obama votes: 4,363,386
McCain votes: 2,576,360
Other votes: 80,372

So, approximately 1/3 of the state bothered to vote. I'd wager a fair bit that the turnout was so low because most people here feel that national elections are a forgone conclusion in favor of the Democrats.

Now, if the 2.5M votes for McCain would've counted, the 1.8M difference in votes for Obama could've been made up elsewhere in the country. Instead, all 31 EC votes that New York possesses went to Obama and the 2.5M that voted for McCain basically wasted their time.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Here's the results for New York State in 2008.

Total population: 19,490,297
Obama votes: 4,363,386
McCain votes: 2,576,360
Other votes: 80,372

So, approximately 1/3 of the state bothered to vote. I'd wager a fair bit that the turnout was so low because most people here feel that national elections are a forgone conclusion in favor of the Democrats.

Now, if the 2.5M votes for McCain would've counted, the 1.8M difference in votes for Obama could've been made up elsewhere in the country. Instead, all 31 EC votes that New York possesses went to Obama and the 2.5M that voted for McCain basically wasted their time.

You have a point there. Could be a chicken/egg argument.

Does the EC system drive the low voter turnout? Would a popular vote system be hamstrung by low voter turnout or would it engage the eligible voters to participate? Haven't seen any polling data on that particular question.

If scrapping the EC system would drive the eligible voters to vote, it wouldn't be a bad deal. We would actually see a truly representative election. But if voter turnout were not roughly equivalent across the board, you would have tyranny of the majority/minority. It's not a simplistic issue by any stretch.

FEOS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Here's the results for New York State in 2008.

Total population: 19,490,297
Obama votes: 4,363,386
McCain votes: 2,576,360
Other votes: 80,372

So, approximately 1/3 of the state bothered to vote. I'd wager a fair bit that the turnout was so low because most people here feel that national elections are a forgone conclusion in favor of the Democrats.

Now, if the 2.5M votes for McCain would've counted, the 1.8M difference in votes for Obama could've been made up elsewhere in the country. Instead, all 31 EC votes that New York possesses went to Obama and the 2.5M that voted for McCain basically wasted their time.

You have a point there. Could be a chicken/egg argument.

Does the EC system drive the low voter turnout? Would a popular vote system be hamstrung by low voter turnout or would it engage the eligible voters to participate? Haven't seen any polling data on that particular question.

If scrapping the EC system would drive the eligible voters to vote, it wouldn't be a bad deal. We would actually see a truly representative election. But if voter turnout were not roughly equivalent across the board, you would have tyranny of the majority/minority. It's not a simplistic issue by any stretch.

The EC is specifically designed to keep the status quo two party system in place. It's purpose is to prevent third parties from being viable and to lower voter turnout.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ … procon.php

This is a Pros and Cons list that was written by an EC voter. Straight from the horses mouth.

Cons:
    *  the possibility of electing a minority president
    * the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,
    * the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and
    * its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.

Pros:
    *  contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
    * enhances the status of minority interests,
    * contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
    * maintains a federal system of government and representation.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-20 12:30:15)

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Here's the results for New York State in 2008.

Total population: 19,490,297
Obama votes: 4,363,386
McCain votes: 2,576,360
Other votes: 80,372

So, approximately 1/3 of the state bothered to vote. I'd wager a fair bit that the turnout was so low because most people here feel that national elections are a forgone conclusion in favor of the Democrats.

Now, if the 2.5M votes for McCain would've counted, the 1.8M difference in votes for Obama could've been made up elsewhere in the country. Instead, all 31 EC votes that New York possesses went to Obama and the 2.5M that voted for McCain basically wasted their time.

You have a point there. Could be a chicken/egg argument.

Does the EC system drive the low voter turnout? Would a popular vote system be hamstrung by low voter turnout or would it engage the eligible voters to participate? Haven't seen any polling data on that particular question.

If scrapping the EC system would drive the eligible voters to vote, it wouldn't be a bad deal. We would actually see a truly representative election. But if voter turnout were not roughly equivalent across the board, you would have tyranny of the majority/minority. It's not a simplistic issue by any stretch.

The EC is specifically designed to keep the status quo two party system in place. It's purpose is to prevent third parties from being viable and to lower voter turnout.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ … procon.php

This is a Pros and Cons list that was written by an EC voter. Straight from the horses mouth.

Cons:
    *  the possibility of electing a minority president
    * the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,
    * the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and
    * its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.

Pros:
    *  contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
    * enhances the status of minority interests,
    * contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
    * maintains a federal system of government and representation.

I find the "specifically designed" argument hard to believe, since it was put in place long before the de facto two party system came into being. Additionally, its original purpose was to overcome issues with communication distances (hence the delay between election day and the official casting of electoral ballots and inauguration day). While much of that has been overcome by technological advances, there are other balancing effects of the EC that were either purposely designed into it or were serendipitous to its design that have proven beneficial. But as with any system, it is not perfect.

It has only failed to accurately reflect the popular vote twice (I believe), and there has never been a documented case of a faithless elector affecting the outcome of an election.

Last edited by FEOS (2010-02-20 12:40:28)

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It has only failed to accurately reflect the popular vote twice (I believe), and there has never been a documented case of a faithless elector affecting the outcome of an election.

In the election of Rutherford B. Hayes, it was not a single "faithless" elector that changed the outcome of that election.  There was a bargain struck by the Supreme Court and Congress.  Technically, you could say all of the electors in that election (and Congress itself) were faithless to the will of the people.

Source?

I did quite a bit of research on faithless electors a while back and the only instance I could find was a single elector who voted contrary to his district's polling results by mistake.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It has only failed to accurately reflect the popular vote twice (I believe), and there has never been a documented case of a faithless elector affecting the outcome of an election.

In the election of Rutherford B. Hayes, it was not a single "faithless" elector that changed the outcome of that election.  There was a bargain struck by the Supreme Court and Congress.  Technically, you could say all of the electors in that election (and Congress itself) were faithless to the will of the people.

Source?

I did quite a bit of research on faithless electors a while back and the only instance I could find was a single elector who voted contrary to his district's polling results by mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … tion,_1876

"In Florida (4 votes), Louisiana (8) and South Carolina (7), reported returns favored Tilden, but election results in each state were marked by fraud and threats of violence against Republican voters. One of the points of contention revolved around the design of ballots. At the time parties would print ballots or "tickets" to enable voters to support them in the open ballots. To aid illiterate voters the parties would print symbols on the tickets. However in this election many Democratic ballots were printed with the Republican symbol, Abraham Lincoln, on them.  The Republican-dominated state electoral commissions subsequently disallowed a sufficient number of Democratic votes to award their electoral votes to Hayes.

In the two southern states the governor recognized by the United States had signed the Republican certificates. The Democratic certificates from Florida were signed by the state attorney-general and the new Democratic governor; those from Louisiana by the Democratic gubernatorial candidate; those from South Carolina by no state official, the Tilden electors simply claiming to have been chosen by the popular vote and rejected by the returning board.

Meanwhile, in Oregon, just a single elector was disputed. The statewide result clearly had favored Hayes, but the state's Democratic Governor (LaFayette Grover) claimed that that elector, just-former postmaster John Watts, was ineligible under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, since he was a "person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States". Grover then substituted a Democratic elector in his place. The two Republican electors dismissed Grover's action and each reported three votes for Hayes, while the Democratic elector, C. A. Cronin, reported one vote for Tilden and two votes for Hayes. The two Republican electors presented a certificate signed by the secretary of state. Cronin and the two electors he appointed (Cronin voted for Tilden while his associates voted for Hayes) used a certificate signed by the governor and attested by the secretary of state. Ultimately, all three of Oregon's votes were awarded to Hayes.

Hayes had a majority of one in the electoral college. The Democrats raised the cry of fraud. Suppressed excitement pervaded the country. Threats were even muttered that Hayes would never be inaugurated. In Columbus, somebody fired a shot at Hayes's house as he sat down to dinner. President Grant quietly strengthened the military force in and around Washington.

The Constitution provides that "the President of the Senate shall, in presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the [electoral] certificates, and the votes shall then be counted." Certain Republicans held that the power to count the votes lay with the President of the Senate, the House and Senate being mere spectators. The Democrats objected to this construction, since Mr. Ferry, the Republican president of the Senate, could then count the votes of the disputed states for Hayes. The Democrats insisted that Congress should continue the practice followed since 1865, which was that no vote objected to should be counted except by the concurrence of both houses. The House was strongly Democratic; by throwing out the vote of one state it could elect Tilden.

Facing an unprecedented constitutional crisis, on January 29, 1877, the U.S. Congress passed a law forming a 15-member Electoral Commission to settle the result. Five members came from each house of Congress, and they were joined by five members of the Supreme Court. William M. Evarts served as counsel for the Republican Party. The Compromise of 1877 may have helped the Democrats accept this electoral commission as well.

The majority party in each house named three members and the minority party two. As the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House of Representatives, this yielded five Democratic and five Republican members of the Commission. Of the Supreme Court justices, two Republicans and two Democrats were chosen, with the fifth to be selected by these four.

The justices first selected a political independent, Justice David Davis. According to one historian, "[n]o one, perhaps not even Davis himself, knew which presidential candidate he preferred." Just as the Electoral Commission Bill was passing Congress, the Legislature of Illinois elected Davis to the Senate. Democrats in the Illinois Legislature believed that they had purchased Davis' support by voting for him. However, they had made a miscalculation; instead of staying on the Supreme Court so that he could serve on the Commission, he promptly resigned as a Justice in order to take his Senate seat. All the remaining available justices were Republicans, so the four justices already selected chose Justice Joseph P. Bradley, who was considered the most impartial remaining member of the court. This selection proved decisive.

It was drawing perilously near to inauguration day. The commission met on the last day of January. The cases of Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina were in succession submitted to it by Congress. Eminent counsel appeared for each side. There were double sets of returns from every one of the States named.
The commission first decided not to question any returns that were prima facie lawful. Bradley joined the other seven Republican committee members in a series of 8-7 votes that gave all 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes, giving Hayes a 185-184 electoral vote victory. The commission adjourned on March 2; two days later Hayes was inaugurated without disturbance.

The returns accepted by the Commission placed Hayes' victory margin in South Carolina at 889 votes, making this the second-closest election in U.S. history, after the 2000 election, decided by 537 votes in Florida. Also, Tilden became the first presidential candidate in American history to lose in the electoral college despite winning a majority of the popular vote.

It is not possible to conclude definitively what the result would have been if a fair election had been held without the violence and intimidation, throughout the South, that disenfranchised many African-Americans explicitly eligible to vote under the 15th amendment. Nevertheless, in the likeliest fair scenario Hayes would have won the election with 189 electoral votes to Tilden's 180 by winning all of the states that he did ultimately carry, plus Mississippi but minus Florida. A strong case can be made that South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi, states with an outright majority African-American population, would have gone for Hayes since nearly all African-Americans during this time voted Republican (while nearly all whites in the South during this time voted Democratic). Florida, with a majority white population, would have likely gone to Tilden in a fair election. Clearly Hayes would have won appreciably more of the popular vote in a fair election, albeit arguably still not a plurality or majority."

In short, the election of 1876 could only be technically called an election.  Between the disenfranchisement of black voters, conflicts in reporting electors' votes, disputed eligibility of electors to hold office, ballot corruption, and the convoluted actions of Congress.....  it was clear that America was pretty fucked up at that point.

I'm just glad we're no longer that corrupt.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-20 12:58:17)

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

In the election of Rutherford B. Hayes, it was not a single "faithless" elector that changed the outcome of that election.  There was a bargain struck by the Supreme Court and Congress.  Technically, you could say all of the electors in that election (and Congress itself) were faithless to the will of the people.

Source?

I did quite a bit of research on faithless electors a while back and the only instance I could find was a single elector who voted contrary to his district's polling results by mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … tion,_1876

wall of text

In short, the election of 1876 could only be technically called an election.  Between the disenfranchisement of black voters, conflicts in reporting electors' votes, disputed eligibility of electors to hold office, ballot corruption, and the convoluted actions of Congress.....  it was clear that America was pretty fucked up at that point.

I'm just glad we're no longer that corrupt.

Did you miss the part where it essentially said that the outcome of the election wouldn't have changed regardless? Yes, it was ugly as hell, but Tilden would've most likely lost anyway...as stated previously.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually it is a collection of hard working people who is trying to stop the parasites from voting themselves deeper into their wallets.

Sounds more like a masquerade that will be inevitably swallowed up by the Republican party.

Agreed.

lowing - it would be much easier to take your posts seriously if you actually practiced decent grammar and spelling.

Yes, indeed. Why is that such a problem? You don't take seriously someone giving a speech about economic theory if they're speaking Ebonics, why should I take someone seriously that cannot even take a moment to practice basic grammar and correct spelling mistakes (spelling mistakes that his browser surely points out to him)?

11 Bravo wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Yes, indeed. Why is that such a problem? You don't take seriously someone giving a speech about economic theory if they're speaking Ebonics, why should I take someone seriously that cannot even take a moment to practice basic grammar and correct spelling mistakes (spelling mistakes that his browser surely points out to him)?

its a small video game forum you numpty.

this.

and all of you are poser intellectuals anyway, well, except for Campoe.

CapnNismo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

its a small video game forum you numpty.

So what? This is also a section of the forum that has nothing to do with video games whatsoever.

True, buts it comes of as a petty statement. Unless of of course it actually prevents you from understand what was written.

Pretty sure if you read the OP it's pretty clear it isn't serious. I'm just having a bit of fun, anyway.

jsnipy - it's spelled "comes off", not "comes of" Some posts I've seen here in DST certainly could use some reworking of the grammar and spelling, though.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually it is a collection of hard working people who is trying to stop the parasites from voting themselves deeper into their wallets.

Sounds more like a masquerade that will be inevitably swallowed up by the Republican party.

Why do yu consider this  a masquraid movment?  I beleive they are gonna help shape the future of the Republican partys.  It is to big of movment for them to not be taking seriuosly.