Doctor Fate wrote:The swing states change over time. The major media markets . . . less so.

Not too sure about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellwether#United_States

Nevada, Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico have all been swing states for about 100 years, none of them more that 2 elections away from being 100% bellwethers since 1928. In 1928 there was only 1 TV station.

Now, yeah, I get that population centres (the big cities) will be the basis of the main media markets, as they are the basis for most consumer markets simply due to density. And yeah, a popular vote system would mean that the votes of Californians, Texans, New Yorkers would be seen to be more significant than they are already.

We see the same thing in the UK (although we have pretty much national media markets and no political TV paid ads) - the 100 seats that determine the election are where the effort is made. The bulk of the voters don't live in those places, and live in places where the result is usually obvious from the start (with Scotland the exception this time)

The other question is what do you mean by "main media markets?
You may be surprised to know that LA, New York and Chicago together comprise only about 14% of the national television homes (audience) . Which i assume is almost the same as the voting populace.
Why would a national campaign focus on only 14% of the populace?

The top twenty markets account for only 46% of households... The top 40, less than 60% (There are 208 television markets) Can a campaign really afford to ignore 40% of the country and concentrate on only the top 40?

The population of the US is actually not all that concentrated ..

http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2 ... _Ranks.pdf

rickyp wrote:fate

Furthermore, without the electoral college, we'd see very little campaigning anywhere other than major media markets

This is actually pretty doubtful.
The most efficient way to buy broadcast media is nationally. The cost per thousand advertising impressions is lowest. (whether network television, network radio, or nationally available cable)
Currently there isn't that much of a presidential campaign's spending going nationally because there are only 10 states that are competitive and they think are worth investing in....

If every vote mattered equally, no matter what state it is in, then buying national media would be the norm. Your CNNs and Foxes and NBCs would be happy. Your local broadcaster or newspaper in Miami, not so happy.

"Campaigning" . . . look it up.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The swing states change over time. The major media markets . . . less so.

Not too sure about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellwether#United_States

Nevada, Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico have all been swing states for about 100 years, none of them more that 2 elections away from being 100% bellwethers since 1928. In 1928 there was only 1 TV station.

Now, yeah, I get that population centres (the big cities) will be the basis of the main media markets, as they are the basis for most consumer markets simply due to density. And yeah, a popular vote system would mean that the votes of Californians, Texans, New Yorkers would be seen to be more significant than they are already.

We see the same thing in the UK (although we have pretty much national media markets and no political TV paid ads) - the 100 seats that determine the election are where the effort is made. The bulk of the voters don't live in those places, and live in places where the result is usually obvious from the start (with Scotland the exception this time)

But, if you ask the "experts" to name the current swing states, they would certainly include North Carolina, New Hampshire and Virginia.

I like a popular system in the sense that my vote would actually have meaning.

However, I'd go to arms against it until voter fraud in Chicago and other Democratic strongholds is eradicated.

(Oh, and please, let's not have another "prove it" thing here)

Currently you see very little campaigning anywhere other than the 10 swing states - or aimed at a national audience.

Um.......aren't the debates and advertisements national? I mean that's what they mean by "national news". They campaign in Maryland and it's not a swing state, and only has 10 electoral votes, on TV, on local radio....whatever the Washiington Post may say. Seriously guys, you need to find a new source for stuff like this. It's like Fox News, but for the Left. Second in raggishness only to the Baltimore Sun.

(Oh, and please, let's not have another "prove it" thing here)

Well, what would a good argument on Redscape be without absolute, solid, argument-proof "proof" from the Washington Post?

And Dr. Fate's right. How can I prove it? Look at a map from the last three elections. Virginia is now a swing state. Florida is now a swing state. Etc....even strongholds can flip.

Yeah, Ricky, when Dr Fate said look up campaigning, he's right. We live here and watch our own local news, as I said about Maryland, for example (10 electoral votes and a solid blue state since Andrew Jackson was president). How much "local news" from Miami do you guys watch?

The population of the US is actually not all that concentrated ..

And........perhaps that is why you need a mode of electing the president which is not concentrated? One in which you have to win "whole states" to get electoral votes (winner take all) rather than just winning a crap-ton of votes overall?

hacker

And........perhaps that is why you need a mode of electing the president which is not concentrated?

And what would be the least concentrated? Counting votes across the entire nation.
Right now, the electoral college "concentrates" voting into 50 separate elections. 53 if you count Nebraska's unique college.


hacker

Um.......aren't the debates and advertisements national?

In the past few elections, national advertisements make up only a small portion of election spending.
And as much as Fate wants to say campaigning would be limited to the 3 "media markets", since the electorate is spread pretty evenly .... personal appearances would be spread pretty evenly for exactly the same reasons that the media spend would be spread more evenly.
Right now, candidates spend most of their face time in the battleground states.

fate

However, I'd go to arms against it until voter fraud in Chicago and other Democratic strongholds is eradicated

Yes, there's such strong evidence of voter fraud, and none of voter suppression tactics.

You could eliminate even the hint of either with electoral enumerations by an independent electoral commission and national identity cards. (Or national health cards). Th enumeration would be an interesting constitutional change too.
Hacker, Enumeration by an independent and effective bureaucracy is an example of a democratic institution that strengthens respect for the democratic process, and adds legitimacy to the process. The current registration system used in the US is a barrier intended to depress voting and limit the franchise.

rickyp wrote:You could eliminate even the hint of either with electoral enumerations by an independent electoral commission and national identity cards.

Or, considering this is for an election... Here is a thought. How about Voter ID? An ID card for voting in an election. You want to have a national ID card, but not a voter ID? Explain the difference.

What other excuses do you have that would not apply to an national ID card, but would apply to a Voter ID card?

bbauska

An ID card for voting in an election. You want to have a national ID card, but not a voter ID? Explain the difference.

There are none. I just assume that the card might have purposes beyond voter identification.
The point of enumerating and providing people with an ID card as a result of enumeration is to eliminate the cost to an individual in securing identification that allows them in the voting booth.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

An ID card for voting in an election. You want to have a national ID card, but not a voter ID? Explain the difference.

There are none. I just assume that the card might have purposes beyond voter identification.
The point of enumerating and providing people with an ID card as a result of enumeration is to eliminate the cost to an individual in securing identification that allows them in the voting booth.

If there is not difference, why the big deal about voter ID cards? If people have to pay to get driver's licenses, student id and the like; why did you put up such a fuss about it in the past?

People have the right to drive, go to school and to vote. Nothing wrong with asking for ID at any of these.

Perhaps you have changed?

Oh Danivon, you mentioned a while ago about some states having been swing states, or non-swing states, since the late 19th century.

Take into account that Americans, even some self-proclaimed liberals, are conservative in our institutions. What it meant to be a "Democrat" in 1910 doesn't mean the same as it does now, ditto the Republicans. So the consistency of a particular state you're mentioning doesn't necessarily mean anything.

bbauska

ff there is not difference, why the big deal about voter ID cards?

?
I think identification at the polling booths is no big deal. As I understand it, in the US, many people lack photo ID. And that is why people get in arms. Usually these would be poor and/or elderly people.
Enumerating the voting populace and providing free photo ID would solve that problem and the largely mythical problem of fraudulent voting as well.

Ricky, about the National ID cards for voters: actually you have to show your Driver's license or State ID card when you vote in Maryland. (A "State ID card" looks just like a driver's license, and is also issued by the Motor Vehicle Administration of Maryland, but it's specifically for people who don't drive a motor vehicle of any sort.) They don't even ask you "May I see your Voter Registration card?" ever. If you hand them that before they can get the words out of their mouth, they'll look at it and hand it back and ask for the driver's license/State ID, please.

That's why my so-called voter registration card just says at the top, in bold face:

CARROLL COUNTY MARYLAND
VOTER NOTIFICATION CARD
NOT FOR PROOF OF AGE

All it really does is notify you of all the info you need to vote and your current registration information. There's a "voter ID" number with a bar code, but it doesn't mean much except maybe to an election judge, who, as I said, won't ask for it anyway. I haven't even bothered to sign at the bottom where it says to do so. No point. Probably why it says Voter Notification card at the top instead of "Voter ID card" or something. And of course your picture isn't on it (which is obviously why they ask for the Driver's license/State ID). I've never been asked for it.

It probably doesn't cost the state a damn thing; especially seeing as how it's printed on thick paper instead of plastic.

Nobody lacks photo ID. The Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA as I said is responsible for issuing State ID cards to anybody who cannot/does not drive). Asking for the Driver's License/State ID solves the problem of fraudulent voting for lack of proper ID.

Maryland is very progressive...You still have to register to vote though right?
Its not that way nationally according to this..

The 11 percent of eligible voters who lack the required photo ID must travel to a designated government office to obtain one. Yet many citizens will have trouble making this trip. In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws:

Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.
More than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.
1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. People of color are more likely to be disenfranchised by these laws since they are less likely to have photo ID than the general population.
Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours. For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays. In other states — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.

http://www.brennancenter.org/publicatio ... tification

Nobody is required to register to vote. Some people used to do it because jury duty was chosen via lots from Voter Registration records. I think most states wised up to that and started using Driver's License numbers. But I think there's like, a $10 administrative fee at the MVA for a license or state ID. Or maybe not.

And I don't think Maryland is as progressive as advertized. People confuse "left" or "Democrat" with "progressive". I don't. Not after trying to get unemployment in Maryland.

But that's wayyy off topic. We were talking about constitutional amendments and, thanks to me, got off on a tangent about the E.C.

My view in summation is that there are two plausible options. One is "mend it, don't end it." The other is to replace it with something equally clever and Byzantine. I wanted to tell you my total opinion on this but I'll wait to better frame it.

I the mean time, DF especially, but all of you: is West Virginia a Swing State or a Red State? Nevada? I'm making a list and checking it twice (excuse the cliche) of the 51 "states" (meaning 50 states and DC), in 2 columns (one for alphabetical order, the other by numerical order of electoral votes (and alpha where they tie).

So how should I determine who is red and blue and swing? the results of the last 3 elections? The last 5? 10?

http://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/fooddeserts.aspx

To further refine the number of people who may be affected by food deserts, a 10-mile marker is used to consider food access in rural areas. 2.3 million people live in low-income rural areas that are more than 10 miles from a supermarket.

Just because something is more than 10 miles away does not mean it is a problem. People are more than 10 miles away from a supermarket, but they seem to get food because it is important.

If voting is important to them, then they should get the ID. If it is not, well, I really don't feel the need to franchise them if they don't want to put out the effort.

Now if voting were mandatory... That is an entire different subject!