From what I've read on the subject, the reason you cited is only one of several which led the Founding Fathers to write the Electoral College into the Constitution. They were concerned that the fairly uneducated populace of the time wouldn't know enough about candidates from different regions to make an informed decision, as well as being concerned about wild (unstable) swings in popular opinion from the aforementioned uneducated public. The idea was that the people would elect more educated electors who would then decide for them who the President should be. The framers were fairly well versed in the ancient Greek and Roman political systems, and knew quite a bit about their strengths & weaknesses - the Constitution was written with that in mind.

Given the outstanding idiocy of the majority of Americans these days, I'm not sure most people are any better qualified now to directly elect a President than they were in the late 1700's.

However, I think one could make a strong argument that since national-level political parties have completely taken over the process and electors simply vote down the party line, the original intent described in the Constitution is pretty much dead.

No, the Electoral College is based on the population of a state, much like the House of Representatives, rather then the Senate.

Thats why California gets 55 Electoral votes, and Nevada gets 4.

I was just going to bring this point up. "Majority rule" by popular vote is inherently bad, because then you have the tyranny of the majority instead of freedom. Recent elections are excellent examples of this. What the maps clearly illustrate is the tendancy of the highly-concentrated populations to vote opposite less-dense areas. Daily living, priorities, and problems within these two catagories are starkly different naturally. Thus, laws passed by the concentrated populations really don't apply too well to anybody outside their cities, resulting in oppression and non-representation. By gradually changing our election methods to popular voting over the last 100 years or so, our government not only has more centralized control, but also is less obligated to serve the land and all segments of the population.

If that's what you want, fine. But don't claim that its "fair", "equitable", "in the best interests of the USA", or anything suggesting that it was what the country's designers had in mind.

A classic example of this is shown by California's nutty gun laws. Many highly-restrictive laws relating to firearms have been passed by the ultra-liberal California legislature (dominated by politicians representing the majority of the population in LA and the Bay Area). Laws limiting transportation methods of guns (locked in a case outside the passenger compartment separate from ammo), laws against types of guns (like Colt AR-15-type rifles), and even laws against single-shot long range target rifles (50 BMG rifles). All of these said examples are perfectly legal here in Nevada, and are quite prolific. While limiting these Constitutional freedoms may be OK with the majority of people in the city areas, in reality these people take up a very small amount of land in CA. That means that EVERYONE outside those cities is still subject to the same idiocies. We're talking people in the mountains, people in Northern Cal, people in the desert, and people travelling or visiting the CA countryside like me. There's a LOT of area and a LOT of people that have to put up with the stupidity, to their own disadvantage.

Rule by the majority is basically a signal to the rest of the populace: "We don't think your freedoms count, because we said so". That's not what America was all about. It's kinda like "no taxation without representation", even though England held the majority of the population. The original US government was designed to prevent it from happening again --- except very few leaders over the decades have tried to preserve that mindset in the law as the US has grown. Instead, it was a gradual shift from statemanship into "politicianhood".

I think I'll step down now.... :roll:

You said:

and posted the county election map that supports the 83%/17% numbers by square mileage.

Saying that "geographically it was a[n 83%] landslide" *is* saying "the 1000 people that voted in a giant, virtually unpopulated county in Alaska count the same as the million votes from New York, Los Angeles and the Bay Area combined". You're making the conclusion that if our election was counted by square mileage that the vote was overwhelmingly for Bush, as if the population density didn't matter, and as backed up by the map you linked to.

So, I'm saying that statistic, and the supporting USA Today (who are *notorious* for publishing misleading and useless graphics instead of writing articles) map, is a rediculous, and totally useless analysis of the election.

I understand the point of the electoral college, as well as why the House is represented by population while the Senate is given equal seats per state. This map has nothing to do with that. What that map describes is "if the people of the nation we weighted by county square-mileage, the landmass of the US would have reelected Bush president in a landslide".

Now, if you had stated that the map is interesting because it allows a higher resolution inspection of where the Kerry vs. Bush supports live, then I would agree with you. While it doesn't necessarily matter where in each state individual voters live due to the electoral college, it *is* interesting in an accidemic/demographics/curiosity sense. However, comparing square-mileage, as that map's sidebar does and as your 1st statment implied, is abso-friggen-lutely retarded.

Electoral count is based on both the House and Senate - the total number for each state is equal to the number of their Representatives (in the House) plus the number of Senators (always two).

Not quite. Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to the number of representatives and senators from that state. Thus, while it is to a large extent driven by population, since it includes 2 for each state regardless of population, it is not solely population based.

I will not engage in any discussion where any member calls any other member names, in this case "retarded".

Peace to all.

Austin, Nick, Scott... your posts make me feel good that I'm not the only one that "gets it"... all I can seem to do is rant uncontrolably. Thank you for clear, and directed posts that seem to read my mind.

And along the lines of Scott's post... It's always seems that in the past, the representatives of the people have had a sense of historical perspective about their jobs. Even with all the party politics and BS in the government, those people still deep down inside knew what their jobs were, and why the governement was designed the way it was.

However, the "game" on Capitol Hill has become so rediculous, it seems like our representatives have forgotten what it's really all about. They sit in the House, the Senate, the Oval Office, and all they see are dollar signs and poll results. They don't remember a lone horseman riding the streets of Boston carrying the message of War. They don't remember the long nights in Philadelphia where debate and compromise built our Constitution. They don't remember brother fighting brother, and father fighing son, when Lincoln refused to let our country divide. They don't seem to remember a President slumped over in the back of a black convertable.

These people that are supposed to stand up for our Consitution, and stand up for the rights of *all* citizens, only stand up for whatever keeps them in office. The only branch that's been somewhat exempt from this corruption has been the Supreme Court, and even that's threatened now. Our reps talk about "morals" these days, yet none of them seem too concerned with the morality of taking lobby money or campaign contributions, nor the morality of excluding the rights of the citizens in the minority, as long as the majority is happy. These are the people that are supposed to stand up for *all* of us, not just 51% of us.

...oops, there I go ranting again.

Yes, I know. But that still leaves 439 votes in the House and 100 in the Senate. Its overwhelmingly a population based vote in my opinion.

:roll:

If I were calling you "retarded" I would have said "you're retarded". What I actually said was:

which means exactly what I wrote, that that map and the concept of a square-mileage based "landslide" is retarded.

If you feel offened, I appologize, as it wasn't my intent. I try to mean what I type, and type what I mean. In this case, I truly was directing my "retarded" comment at the map and the idea of the landslide, and not you personally. I honestly do my best to leave personal attacks out of discussion like this since they're logical fallacies, and do nothing constructive.

...

JC, although I find that really funny, and perhaps a bit telling... wasn't it already disproven, or at least discredited?

You are probably thinking of this...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/gop.asp

Not the same thing. I'm not sure about the chart to be frank. It wouldn't surprise me if it's true. Obviously what states are red and blue is true. I'm 99% sure the Southern states have lower avg. IQs too. I thought NV was lower though.

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm

Haha, I find it difficult to believe that CA, CT, and MA all have average IQ's over 100. I wonder if IQ tests are biased towards one type of intelligence or not.....of course, this could start up a whole row about why University populations are more liberal --- as any of you that have attended college knows, student of "higher learning" aren't always (usually?) the most capable people in the world..... :?

I'm not one to assume an average measure of 'high IQ' makes any population more suitable than another for making sound judgements. If it were true, you would think the 'high IQ' states would be the most successful and richest in the nation. And yet look at California's pitiful situation.

omg the purple map this thread is OVER!

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAV...2004_small.gif

California has the fifth largest economy in the world dear. That's not successful? :roll:

I thought california's economy was in the toilet right now. :?:

I thought it was the 7th largest? it's around 1.3 trillion

It doesn't really matter.

a $30+BILLION budget deficit along with the state's bonds in Junk status. I'm no economy expert but that does not seem to me to be a definition of success.

The US' deficit is much larger, not to mention our huge debt, and instability. Is the US not successful? The intelligence of the people may build the economy, but they don't manage it.

We're talking about individuals, not the 'state' as a whole. There are genii (I always wanted to use that in a sentence :P) and brilliant entrepeneuers in CA. I have seen much of the country, and I don't doubt that the 'average' Californian is smarter than the 'average' American, however you want to measure it.

Isn't an IQ of 100 by definition "average"?

It seems to me that the most telling information in that chart is that the United States is full of stupid people.

It's ok, it's all so ridiculous that we all have to rant sometimes. :lol:

WTF, I had almost this exact conversation with my mother over a political e-mail she sent me a couple weeks ago (which I responded to strongly disagreeing). :roll: Like Scott said, just because you respond to the content of something does not mean you're trying to personally insult whoever said it. Don't take things so personally, guys...

Here is my favorite. By county, and shows the weight of the population in each county.