That Electoral College Thing

[frank10]

"clearer differences in interests between different sections of the country."

 

Hunt, has this changed all that much? What is deemed normal in places like CA would never fly in the bible belt. Folks in the northern states wonder why we have to keep sending support for hurricanes when no one bails me out after a blizzard. Farm support?

There are hundreds (thousands?) of issues that are strong for and against by region or state.

 

The EC was set up as a compromise. Small states would have loved to go with one state one vote, since they were all equally independent at the time they had a point. Larger states (think MA at that time not CA and TX)would have liked to have proportional voting. And since they had the larger land mass, more population and there for more resources, they too had a point.

By giving one vote per senator and one for each seat in the HoR, no one got what they wanted, but all got some thing they could live with.

 

The country has grown, but it still seems like a good way to share the power.

[eolesen]

I don''t think the differences in interests has changed much.

 

It used to be that media outlets in Boise, Fort Worth, and Birmingham were on a level footing with those in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington. Now, you''ve got newspapers, radio and TV stations being controlled by national corporations, and they''re just as likely to preach the party line of their flagship paper/stations in NYC, WAS, CHI, or LAX.

[LongHaul]

Lisabob,

First let me say I have no problem with what Michigan and Florida have done. Let me also say that I dont see why Iowa and New Hampshire should have such an influence on who the major parties support for the presidency. The idea that the DMP &RNP dont care about your vote is what confuses me. If my state isnt allowed to go first then my vote doesnt count? I always thought the primaries were intended to give the DNP & RNP an idea of who they should run for office not for the purpose of revenues. You say the feeling is that the system is broken why? Because it does not spread the wealth or because it does not generate the best candidates? Why are Michigan and Florida better suited to pick the candidates than Iowa and New Hampshire? How about if we have all the primaries on the same day? Cut down on the costs of campaigning in states your going win anyway and put your time in where you need to change opinion? How bout if we just scrap the primaries and do the election cold, no preview? Deciding something is broken should be done according to strict guidelines. Car wont start-its broke! The desired goal being that the car starts when you want and gets you where you are going. Lets decide why we have primaries and then decide if the current program is broke. Then we can move on to deciding the best method of fixing the system after we decide what our goals are, more local spending or better choices in candidates.

 

As for the front runners bucking the party dont think for a minute that either party would allow a candidate to usurp power. Party politics works only as far as party loyalties allow. This is about power more than about party, having a Dem in office that wont support party line does little good in the power struggle. The possibility of Obama, Biden or Edwards winning the nomination against party wishes is very slim. They may win Michigan and Michigan may not have any vote at the convention. The real question should be why have the DNP & RNP been so steadfast since the 70s in holding on to the Iowa/New Hampshire kick off. Why not go with the state that represents the diversity of votes most reflective of the Nation as a whole? That would be Illinois by the way.

LongHaul