The New York Times editorial board is supporting an election reform that likely has little chance of happening but is in response to a legitimate frustration. It is urging state legislatures to pass laws requiring that their Electoral College delegates vote for whichever candidate received the most votes nationally. That way, there wouldn’t be a repeat of 2000, when the candidate with the most votes didn’t become president. I’m not so bothered by that problem as I am with another one that the Times noted: Candidates don’t bother campaigning in non-battleground states, which in 2004 amounted to 37 states, including Kansas. “As a result,” the Times wrote, “campaigns and national priorities are stacked in favor of a few strategic states.”
One disadvantage of going to a more direct election format is that candidates might focus mostly on large population centers. Also, the number of a state’s Electoral College votes is based on the size of its congressional delegation. And since every state has two senators, regardless of its population, Kansas and other small states have a disproportionate say in presidential elections.
But then again, candidates don’t come to Kansas now because they know our state isn’t in play. And if you’re a Democrat, there really isn’t much reason to vote for president in Kansas, because all of our state’s electoral votes will go to the GOP candidate.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
50 Comments
Interesting: The prospect of doing away with the Electoral College, in my opinion, would probably increase the number of voters in a Presidential election. The voters would know that their votes DO count. By all means, dump it.
Keep the electoral college. Without it, power between the states will become too unbalanced, more than they already are. There would be essentially no representation for candidates who are in mostly rural areas. Presidential candidates could use all their campaign efforts on a few large cities and ignore the rest of the country. The danger to this is that we need rural areas to be represented or we will suffer in terms of poor farm policy.
OR, have the electoral votes split by the same per centage of the popular vote
“And since every state has two senators, regardless of its population, Kansas and other small states have a disproportionate say in presidential elections.”
That’s just brilliant, Phillip. You want Kansas to have LESS influence in a presidential election. Let’s just let New York and New England decide what’s best for Kansas every four years. Incredibly stupid.
“One man one vote” – I think that is a good idea. There is no reason a person’s vote should be more heavily weighted just because he lives in a sparsely populated area.
Well, except for the one time 20 some years ago when I was young and dumb and voted a straight Republican ticket,my vote has NEVER counted.
Todd? until Kansans show some sign that they can vote with more of an educated open mind, I’ve no problem with Kansas……and a lot of other Red States not being represented at all.
The electoral college is outdated. It should be brought up to date or scrapped.
“Todd? until Kansans show some sign that they can vote with more of an educated open mind, I’ve no problem with Kansas……and a lot of other Red States not being represented at all.”
JR – Of course you don’t. Because your political viewpoint is clouding logic and you have no tolerance for anyone else’s views. Also known as being a knee jerk idealogue.
Keep the electorial college. I know Kansas wouldn’t benefit each way because our population is too small, but the electorial college system is a good one.
The States have no offical representatives in Congress (thanks to the 17th amendment), and the electorial college system is the only thing left for the states.
If you take that a way, we might as well just dissolve the whole idea of states and just be a National government. What’s the point? The Federal government has all the power and people want to give it more.
This whole question has its roots in the 2000 election.
It is not commonly known, but the bush campaign foresaw that the election would be very very close. In this they were right. What they were wrong about was the result they feared……they feared a bush plurality and a Gore electoral college victory. And they already had plans in place to……attack the electoral college!
Todd’s favorite new phrase “a knee jerk idealogue”.
Who’s talking points was that edict issued under?
Did you ever find all those posts I made defending Christians, farmgirl?
I thought not.
The electoral college requires sufficient numbers and distribution of support. Good things in my opinion.
Why not compromise and put the E.C. electors on the ballot – like Nebraska does?
DD – That is the best idea, and one I’ve advocated for a long time.
If we abolish the EC and have majority ( the coasts )rule how will the rights and needs of the minority ( more rural areas ) be protected. seems to go against the ideas argued for by many in the minority on these blogs
scott – It’s only a bad thing if “their” guy loses because of it.
todd,
i’m sorry but you can’t say that. Their ideas are always best, just ask them
Yeah you guys ideas are working out REAL well.
How about Kansas tries something new……you know like electing a Democrat senator.
put up one that worth a crap and i will look at him. not tied to any one party. liked edwards. could you say the same about a conservative candidate. should be someone you think does a good job if you’re open minded
JR – almost as well as the democrats’ election strategies. You can blame Diebold, or the SC, or whoever you want, but the fact remains that the democrats chose to run a couple of palookas that couldn’t defeat the trained monkey that currently inhabits the White House. I can’t think of an easier task to accomplish, and they fell on their asses.
That doesn’t mean Kansas should surrender what little national clout it has.
I posted this on the appropriate thread, but since you asked about it here too…
If anyone wants an example of todd:
a) blindly defending christiansb) teaming up with outlanderc) claiming not to be a christiand) attacking those not christian
just check out ALL his posts on this thread
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/02/why_he_publishe.html#comments
I guess that is what “talking out your ass” really means.
Todd, unless someone else is posting under your name, you are busted. I have more examples in case this isnt enough.
I’ll put anything I said on that thread to the test. No reasonable person could take anything I said on that thread and use it as an example of what you are saying it is.
Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.
Scott says: “how will the rights and needs of the minority ( more rural areas ) be protected.”
Gosh scott, how are the rights of minorities like gay people and non-christians protected now? Is that current protection not good enough for your rural minority? It has to be good enough for us, so why not you?
In case you havent noticed, the EC thing is not protecting your “rural minority” now. All CDBG funding for rural areas continues to be cut, and farm subsidies are going away (yay) as are USDA offices in rural areas, etc. Be sure to thank both your kansas senators for bush’s consideration of us rural folks.
SO much for the EC, and your republican christain legislators protecting that “rural minority” now. But heaven forbid anything should change the current course of kansas.
Todd, if anyone is interested, and I cant imagine why they would be, they can click on the link and read it for themselves. They can also decide who should be ashamed. I am fine with the truth.
Do you want more examples? Or are you just another guy who cant admit he is wrong?
ROFLMQAAO..who is gonna be believed,…todd or those lying eyes?
I’m enjoying your weak attempts to bolster your position. It reminds me of a little girl sitting in the corner holding her breath. Please, continue. Truly laughable.
Typical rhetorical retreat there Todd….. ridicule the poster cause ya can’t refute the post.
Not the first time for Todd to attack the poster JR. I dont think it is dems or athiests that he hates, I think it is just me. But you have to ask yourself, is it women, gays, or just uppity democrats that he hates?
Who could forget his charitable posts on this thread?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/02/sheehan_weakeni.html#comments
Sticks and stones todd. Holding my breath? LOL, no I think I am actively posting the truth about your words.
Want some more?
ksg,
obviously i’m not an intellectual match for you, but aren’t the rights of homosexuals being protetected right now as well as minorities. Maybe not as well as they should be, but i do believe they are protected by law.
things are never perfect, but giving all the power to one group is rarely a good thing.
by the way if i came on here everyday and bashed homosexuals would it offend you. something to think about
i know the secular / progressive world has all the answesr to the worlds ills, but if you don’t mind i would still like to express my thoughts occassionally, if thats ok with all the truly smart people on here
Yeah kfg, on the homeless thread he came outta nowhere and started making ME and my posts the issue as opposed to posting the issue!
I’m gonna go check out the thread you posted, I gotta learn to do that soemtime.
Good thread.
scott, of course your posts are most welcome and you have the right to say whatever you are thinking.
If you are thinking, (every day!) about homosexuals, then by all means post it! I gave up being offended by disagreement a long time ago.
And while I gave up being offended, I DID NOT give up the right to disagree with you, or to present facts that might not agree with your position.
Sorry if you dont like people disagreeing with you or your positions. Sorry if you take that as me not wanting you to post. I love when you post! If you are looking for affirmation, perhaps a conservative blog would be more enjoyable.
Also sorry if you dont like “my facts”, but you are certainly welcome to post “your facts”. Research is easy. Go to http://www.google.com and type in whatever you are seeking.
Facts are just an amazing, if disagreeable thing!
I know how hard it is to read something that doesnt agree with you but…
I knew I would find the source of the current “knee jerk left” meme. Click on the Amy Sullivan link to see, then go back to follow Digby.
Good post about the left and the religious right, but you have to take the time to click the links.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/03/religion-and-politics.html
not looking for affirmation, but civility to ideas that others don’t agree with would be nice. maybe its just my christian upbringing
as usual the point escaped most posters. you don’t have to agree with christianity, it certainly has it problems, but the constant bashing cheapens the discourse.
as for your condescension, i can take it or leave. at one point you were one of the ones who stayed above the fray and actually discussed ideas and i found your insights interesting and thought provoking.
i have no problem researching or reading when time permits, but i gotta teach, gotta coach, gotta raise my kids. don’t have time to read and rant all day
Ksfrmgrl already found the bottom line on this issue and stated it on a previous post–it won’t change as long as Republicans think they benefit from it.
So far, they have.
But Kerry almost burned them in Ohio last time. If Blackwell hadn’t pulled the voting machines out of Cleveland, we’d be talking about “President Kerry” right now, based on the electoral college.
As long as our country is as evenly divided as it is, EC “victories” and popular vote losses are a distinct possibility.
It’s an archaic system. We should have one person, one vote.
If we had real democracy in this country, President Gore wouldn’t have bogged down in Iraq right now . . .
For small states, it may be comforting to think that their extra electoral votes give them a little more weight during elections. The price the individual pays is that this is only effective if the voter happens to vote the way the state does — which for thousands of people isn’t the case.
What does Kansas buy for the heavy price of rendering meaningless the votes of everyone who didn’t vote for the candidate the state chose? Do its extra electoral votes translate into influence? Hardly.
Of the 13 smallest states in America, only New Hampshire was a battleground, and not even that important of a battleground. Kansas isn’t even close when it comes to campaign attention.
I guess I don’t understand the impression that Kansas has a say in any election right now. It doesn’t. But it would under a national popular vote. Why? Because people live there, and they vote!
Time to revise. The Founders wisely gave us the tools to do so.
scott, I went back and re-read my posts on this thread. I did not find anything uncivil. I did find posts that point out the fallacies in your line of thinking. I wont apologize for pointing out falsehoods, but…
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I am sorry the truth doesnt suit you. I am sorry for being a big, mean, athiest, female, gay, liberal ex-democrat and all…
Ryan–good post! Keep ‘em coming.
Is anyone who disagrees with christians bashing them? Just a little thin skinned, or does the truth hurt? If the christians want to stop the “bashing”, there are simple solutions.
Quit trying to impose your beliefs on others. Stop trying to censor the media and entertainment outlets. Stop pushing your religion as the official form of government in this state and this country.
Quit turning this country into a theocracy. Quit acting like the taliban and you wont be called the taliban.
Great post ryan.
“For small states, it may be comforting to think that their extra electoral votes give them a little more weight during elections”
So how is that working for kansas? How has bush helped the state? What did we get in exchange for our vote for him?
As long as we only have four congressional seats, (soon to be three if population trends continue) the preznit doesnt care what we think. No matter how many EC votes we deliver as reliably as death and taxes.
Remember, if sam is god’s senator and pat is bush’s senator, who represents kansas? Bush? ROFLMAO…laughing, laughing, laughing.
I have been saying for years that we need to do away with the electoral college – it is an antiquated system that is no longer needed!
“If anyone wants an example of todd:
a) blindly defending christiansb) teaming up with outlanderc) claiming not to be a christiand) attacking those not christian”
kfg: If Todd is teaming up with me, great. We need more common sense and balance on this blog, which is increasingly being dominated by the left.
It appears to me from your posts, that you are becoming increasingly intolerant of any ideology or opinion other than your own. It borders on intimidation. The pot calling the kettle black.
Oh, BTW, we should keep the electoral college. It’s a state’s rights issue.
Well, well, well, outlander, I posted this yesterday on another thread. Not to flatter you of course, but to give you your due:
“Lol, JR, I dont mind outlander, and in fact I like him. He is consistant, admits who he is, and defends his positions well. I dont agree with him most of the time, but I welcome his posts.”
I’ll try to be a little more intolerant and intimidating next time. I see my image as “the mauler” is slipping. It wont happen again. :)
ROFLMDAO, not with you but at you!
The Electoral College was principally created to apportion voting power under a condition in which slavery states were given 3/5’s of a proxy vote per slave. The slaves could not vote, of course, but the number of Electors, as well as House Representatives was set for each state, giving a lot more “votes” per white land-holder in the South, than in the North.
This was done to create a new union. But it became a grave thorn in the side of Yankees, which became one of the reasons for the Civil War.
Today, blacks can vote, and the original constitutional formula is obsolete. What is irrelevant is that in states such as Kansas, democratic votes are completely erased.
Correction, I meant relevant. If people want, they can have a benevolent king. If they want a representative republic, in which every person’s vote counts, then the electoral system needs to be changed.
Republican votes are just as worthless as Democratic votes here in Kansas, as well. It’s not like 1, 100, or 10,000 Republican votes even matter. We are still going to carry the state.
I say do away with it. How can we be touting Democracy when we don’t even elect our President by popular vote.
kfg: I certainly appreciate your ability to advocate a position (which I am almost certain to disagree with). But you gotta get me a list of those abbreviations!
ROFLMDAO
First time I ever saw Out look all humble.
Think you image is secure KFG.
Otherwise, how will I know when I’m being insulted? DXVBFEN!
Now I KNOW it is!
What they should do is destroy the pathetic capitalistic swine-herd nation that is America. Then our dream of a truly free and equal global society shall come to fruition. Marx was real true philanthropist!
Quit trying to impose your beliefs on others. Stop trying to censor the media and entertainment outlets. Stop pushing your religion as the official form of government in this state and this country.
This is true! All these sick christian zealots deserve to be shot! Spreading their pie in the sky beliefs is akin to spreading cancer. And how do we cure cancer? By cutting out the organ infected!
Good post! It seems some of you have some sense after all! Now all you need to do is take up arms against your feudal lords, and I would be happy to call you “comrade!”