Our brains are prewired to liberal or conservative?

[trekgeezer]

Derf, I agree with a lot of what you said.  I love the way the Feds force the states to pass laws (55mph speed limit & 21 for the drinking age come to mind) by withholding funds. If you or I do that kind of thing it's called blackmail. 

I whole heartedly agree that the government should stay the hell out people's personal matters and not take on the role of morality police.

[nshumate]

I may not have "explained" what I wrote, but I still believe it.  The purpose of the electoral college (particularly in the context of a poor 18th century backwater calling itself the United States of America where a majority could neither read nor write) was and is to safeguard the elite.  In colonial America, that would have been your gentleman farmer, the educated professional, and the businessman.  My thoughts are hardly a new idea.   

I still honestly do not understand.  How does or did the electoral college, then or now, promote elitism?  At worst, it reapportions electoral power among the states in more arbitrary proportions than a popular vote would, but it appears that the balance of power is always slightly skewed toward the less populated states, which would be seen as more rural and populist-oriented.

[CheezeFlixz]

I may not have "explained" what I wrote, but I still believe it.  The purpose of the electoral college (particularly in the context of a poor 18th century backwater calling itself the United States of America where a majority could neither read nor write) was and is to safeguard the elite.  In colonial America, that would have been your gentleman farmer, the educated professional, and the businessman.  My thoughts are hardly a new idea.   

I still honestly do not understand.  How does or did the electoral college, then or now, promote elitism?  At worst, it reapportions electoral power among the states in more arbitrary proportions than a popular vote would, but it appears that the balance of power is always slightly skewed toward the less populated states, which would be seen as more rural and populist-oriented.

How? Look at the number of states it takes just to balance out the number of votes California has alone.

[nshumate]

Still not getting you.  What do you think the population of the other states is?

Let's take an extreme example.  California's population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is 36,457,549; California has 55 electoral votes.  Wyoming's population, for contrast, is 515,004 (unless that family of four moved.  ); it has 3 electoral votes.

So although Wyoming's population is roughly 1.5% that of California's, its electoral college votes are worth roughly 5.5% of California's -- they have electoral weight out of proportion to their population.  A vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California.

So unless you're complaining about those elitist Wyomingites, I can't see your argument.

[Allhallowsday]

Still not getting you.  What do you think the population of the other states is?
Let's take an extreme example.  California's population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is 36,457,549; California has 55 electoral votes.  Wyoming's population, for contrast, is 515,004 (unless that family of four moved.  ); it has 3 electoral votes.
So although Wyoming's population is roughly 1.5% that of California's, its electoral college votes are worth roughly 5.5% of California's -- they have electoral weight out of proportion to their population.  A vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California.

So unless you're complaining about those elitist Wyomingites, I can't see your argument.

Hey, now you're responding to Cheezeflix, not me.   That's not my argument. 
I will say both Wyoming and California were not states until much later than the creation of the U.S. electoral college, and I have no comment about the weight of any single electoral vote.  My point was that in some states, the members of the college, though expected to vote as guided by the populace,  may vote as they wish.  Many states over time have rejected that idea, but of course must work with the electoral system.  The idea of not electing a president by popular vote, but by an electoral college, was intended to give the powerbrokers the opportunity to have ultimate control over who gets elected.   Such electors who vote their conscience as opposed to the candidate they are committed to are now called "faithless electors." 

[nshumate]

ah, okay, NOW I getcha; I was overlooking the "pass-through" of the votes via the actual elector.

(And sorry I conflated your arguments with CheeseFlixz's.)

[ulthar]

Still not getting you.  What do you think the population of the other states is?

Let's take an extreme example.  California's population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is 36,457,549; California has 55 electoral votes.  Wyoming's population, for contrast, is 515,004 (unless that family of four moved.  ); it has 3 electoral votes.

So although Wyoming's population is roughly 1.5% that of California's, its electoral college votes are worth roughly 5.5% of California's -- they have electoral weight out of proportion to their population.  A vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California.

So unless you're complaining about those elitist Wyomingites, I can't see your argument.

The real issue is ALL of those 55 votes for California going to one party regardless of how the vote shakes down by district - your original point.  If you look at the county results maps for the 2000 and 2004 elections, you can see that the urban centers are basically HEAVILY biasing the country.

2000 (Red is Gore, Blue is Bush):



2004 (red is Kerry, blue is Bush):



Shoot, even if you look at the total state results (ie, not by county), it is very clear that a few states have the potential to determine the political landscape of the whole country.

Now, it might be argued that population-wise this is "fair," but I happen to be in the 'let's get back to decentralization' camp and believe that why on earth should California "govern" Oklahoma, Nebraska or Wyoming, for example, just because CA has more people?  This point is driven home even further when it is noted that not even all of California or New York voted D in these two "hotly contested" elections.

As I see it, there are only two or three NE states that are homogenous in the results.  These maps certainly emphasize, in my mind at least, that one government, far removed from the people governed, is not truly representative.

[Psycho Circus]

Another spammer !!!!

Get HIM!!!! 

They're coming from all over the world! We need Chuck Norris.

[Rev. Powell]

Another spammer !!!!

Get HIM!!!! 

They're coming from all over the world! We need Chuck Norris.

I got him... removed the spam post & Dogget's reply, in case anyone's wondering what's going on.

Does that mean I'm Chuck Norris' equal?

[Psycho Circus]

Another spammer !!!!

Get HIM!!!! 

They're coming from all over the world! We need Chuck Norris.

I got him... removed the spam post & Dogget's reply, in case anyone's wondering what's going on.

Does that mean I'm Chuck Norris' equal?

It surely does. Before he comes for you to restore the balance.

[Jim H]

If you look at the county results maps for the 2000 and 2004 elections, you can see that the urban centers are basically HEAVILY biasing the country.

Don't the majority of people live there?

What I find most interesting is that even in the supposedly extremely liberal or conservative areas, any place with a larger population usually has a percentage spread that often seems pretty minor to me.  IIRC, I remember them describing a place that voted 60% for Bush as basically a landslide.  I think that really shows how evenly divided most places are in the US, even if in that example a republican nominee would almost always win.



Blue is the democrats in this one.  I think this gives a better picture of how equal that election was.  You might notice there is more red, of course, but it's mostly because of less populated large geographical areas - and there's a lot of blue almost everywhere but in the west.

[the ghoul]

The article's just psychobabble.  Liberals and conservatives ie Republicans and Democrats.  They are kind of like coke and pepsi.  One is a little bit sweeter, but they are basically the same thing.  The country is going down the toilet fast and these people are all part of the same problem regardless of which club they belong to.  Obama is taking us down the same path as Bush and those before him, and eventually the U.S. may, for all intents and purposes, become little more than a colony controlled by a greater economic power.  One amusing thing (you've gotta laugh to keep from crying) I've noticed is that the conservatives are usually correct when they are talking about the liberals, and the liberals are usually correct when they are talking about the conservatives.  Personally, I don't follow in lock-step with any group that espouses a list of beliefs on a wide range of unrelated topics.  Doesn't it make more sense to form your own opinions on an issue by issue basis?   

[Frogger]

That article is complete rubbish.

Any way to start with pointing out a few major flaws.

Its a classic its all genetics argument. Women are inferior because of our genes, of course this ignores examples of cultures that have produced reversed gender roles even equal gender roles (an easy to read book on the subject is "The Myth of mars and Venus" by Deborah Cameron). Racism is in our genetics, ignoring the fact that studies on children have proved that racism is learnt and not natural (like all views and ideas).

We are social creatures. The party you most likely vote for is the same your parents vote for. As they have brought you up and installed their values into you. Of course this differs as there are a lot of other factors in your development. For example if you grow up seeing the damage capitalism creates then your view of capitalism greatly differs from someone born into a rich family, gaining the benefits of mass exploitation and suffering.

I also like how socialism has been left off, not too shocking as the media likes to ignore its existence and then only reports on the large scale anti globalization movements if they happen in the USA or violence takes place (but as the majority are peaceful).

So journalism is in a poor state, well at least we still have some great people, such as John Pilger. I personally only trust the BBC for domestic news and Al Jazeera for the rest. Newspapers I normally go for the independent as it takes everything case by case. 

[Nukie 2]

I'm hardwired Nihilist, I dunno about you.