And somehow we still call it a democracy

[Dallas Tex]

Our system has multiple problems.
Disparity in campaign treasure does affect message penetration and skews votes towards better funded messages. That is a problem.
Having 60% of the population fail to vote is a problem.
The influence of big money on lobbyists and the political system is a problem.
Gerrymandering is a problem.
I'm sure there are more problems.

It would be nice if we had only one, textbook simple problem, but we don't. We have quite a few. To say that it's all this or all that or only this because nobody buys my vote is ridiculous.

then you don't understand the problems

and no one on this thread said there was only one problem

[Will Neide]

It is not a participation problem. 543,895 more people voted for Gore in other states. Those 543,895 votes were not as important as 537 votes in Florida were. That does not strike you as a failed system?

No, it doesn't. We aren't a democracy and never were. We are a republic. A nation of states and without the electorate larger states would have even greater sway over the interests of the smaller states. It's a simple set-up with safeguards. There are, rightfully, many fears in a total democracy, which we are not. It's really hard to argue over the "worth" of someones vote since the scenarios change in each election. Those 543,895 other votes mattered in their respective states. Without them, their states may have gone to the other party, in which case it could have made Florida's debacle moot.

I certainly agree that we have a money problem. What's the answer? I've never donated to any party or candidate and am not likely to anytime soon.

[Mark Kelly]

Donation reform is hard, the status quo will fight to make it harder.

Fortunately for us Australia's high court* has just unanimously ruled that the growing number of donation bans (eg the NSW ban on property developers donating to political parties) are constitutional: they ruled that a donation was a financial act, not a speech act.

* Due to a peculiarity of history, the high court here is above the supreme court. Go figure.

[dogrange]

Our system has multiple problems.
Disparity in campaign treasure does affect message penetration and skews votes towards better funded messages. That is a problem.
Having 60% of the population fail to vote is a problem.
The influence of big money on lobbyists and the political system is a problem.
Gerrymandering is a problem.
I'm sure there are more problems.

It would be nice if we had only one, textbook simple problem, but we don't. We have quite a few. To say that it's all this or all that or only this because nobody buys my vote is ridiculous.

Not o mention the initial filter of issues that are quashed before they are even seriously discussed because they are not of interest (or are adverse to) the interests of the $$ contributors to individual legislators.

[dogrange]

What you are failing to see is that when you vote for president, basically you are voting in a state election. The electoral college was set up to ensure that the will of less populous states was not overwhelmed by the will of higher populous states. When you are voting as a state, your vote has the exact same value as anyone else in your state, and may have more or less value than someone in a different state, depending on that election that day.

Anyway, you're off in the weeds with this talk of a vote's 'value', with regards to the original topic and money's influence on elections.

No one is paying me to 'vote' one way or the other. And as far as I know, no one is paying anybody to vote one way or the other. Until that day comes, votes elect presidents not money.

Yes, exactly, the Electoral College is anti-democratic, that is its purpose. One interpretation of history is that it was set up to as a compromise to over-weight the votes of votors in the less populous (less populated by enfranchised non-slave, property-holding white males, that is) states versus the states that had no slaves and higher populations of enfranchised property owning white males.

[Dallas Tex]

Yes, exactly, the Electoral College is anti-democratic, that is its purpose. One interpretation of history is that it was set up to as a compromise to over-weight the votes of votors in the less populous (less populated by enfranchised non-slave, property-holding white males, that is) states versus the states that had no slaves and higher populations of enfranchised property owning white males.

You may be confusing democracy with majority-rules.

[Mabouya]

You may be confusing democracy with majority-rules.

I don't think so.

In the Senate a Rhode Island voter's ballot is worth a lot more than a CA, NY or TX voter's. As noted above for the EC, that's by design, but it is a deviation from "one person, one vote."

[choke]

I don't think so.

In the Senate a Rhode Island voter's ballot is worth a lot more than a CA, NY or TX voter's. As noted above for the EC, that's by design, but it is a deviation from "one person, one vote."

The Senate was originally intended to represent the individual State's interest and the State Legislatures elected the Senators. Once the 17th Amendment was ratified that changed, so the Founding Fathers didn't really apply "one person, one vote" to the Senate.

[Mabouya]

so the Founding Fathers didn't really apply "one person, one vote" to the Senate.

They didn't apply "one person, one vote" in a number of different ways.

[Will Neide]

I don't think so.

In the Senate a Rhode Island voter's ballot is worth a lot more than a CA, NY or TX voter's. As noted above for the EC, that's by design, but it is a deviation from "one person, one vote."

I'm not sure where the "worth" of your vote keeps coming into this equation or what metric you're using to define the worth of your vote. I think you keep coming at the idea of the presidential election as a popular vote, or maybe you wish it were a popular vote. It's each states collective votes, persay. As in, you vote in your state for who your electorates will vote for. Your vote counts in that you vote with your collective residents in your state to tell your electorates whom they should vote for. Also, of note, your electorates don't need to vote the way the popular vote of your state votes (unless that states laws say otherwise).

We are the United STATES. A collection of states. I feel that the idea of balance between state vs federal may be somewhat lost in those that favor a popular vote. The struggle of power between states and the states vs federal govt wasn't lost on the founding fathers. The system they came up with is a brilliant compromise with the ability to be amended.

[Will Neide]

It's really worth reading the constitution. I try to read it once a year, but most specifically around election time. I got tired of hearing candidates from both sides try to tell me what the constitution says, so I decided awhile ago to just read it for myself (repeatedly). It's not even THAT long.

[Joel Benjamin L]

Trump on Oligarchy:
There was a great moment in the first republican debate, in which Donald Trump was challenged why he would donate so much money to Democratic candidates, including the Clintons, if he holds Republican views. I found his non-answer to amount to the following statement: 'Of course I give to Republicans and Democrats across the board, irrespective of political conviction. I want to have politicians in my pocket when it comes time to getting something I want done.'

[Mabouya]

I'm not sure where the "worth" of your vote keeps coming into this equation or what metric you're using to define the worth of your vote.

Worth = Impact = Influence on the outcome

That's the connection between the Electoral College and the Senate: Since the EC is winner-take-all (usually) an individual's vote in a battleground states has way more influence on the final outcome there than say in CA and TX which are already per-determined. Same thing in the Senate - one individual's vote for senator there has more influence say, in RI or ND compared to CA.

[choke]

I wouldn't call it a 'non-answer'...he laid it out plain as day. From ABC:

"I will tell you that our system is broken,” Trump said on stage in Thursday's GOP candidates' debate. “I gave to many people before this -- before two months ago I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. That's a broken system.”

[Mabouya]

That isn't broken - it's behaving exactly as the lawmakers intend it to behave.

If the voter don't bother to fix it, well then shame on them.

[Will Neide]

Worth = Impact = Influence on the outcome

That's the connection between the Electoral College and the Senate: Since the EC is winner-take-all (usually) an individual's vote in a battleground states has way more influence on the final outcome there than say in CA and TX which are already per-determined. Same thing in the Senate - one individual's vote for senator there has more influence say, in RI or ND compared to CA.

What exactly is your proposal to change the current voting system to remedy what you don't like? The only thing I can gather is that you want a popular vote.

To be clear, the number of electors for each state equals the number of Senators and Representatives for each state. No Senator or Representative may be an elector.

The brilliance in this set-up (Congress) is that the States each get 2 senators to represent the STATE and the House or Representatives is represented as a proportion of that states total population. So population is taken into account along with each state having an equal footing in the Senate despite its size. It's a give and take and it works well. It's not perfect and has had some tweaks over the years, but all in all, it's a good system.

[Mabouya]

For one thing, I'd make it way more difficult for politically based gerrymandering of district boundaries.

"Safe" seats are largely the cause of where we are today in the House.

[XR2]

I'm of the opinion that even though it's a good system the big money has cast a virtually impenetrable veil over the true goings on. That is we've been sold out for a long time and are merely along for the ride................unless we can somehow wrest control back from the big businesses that are really pulling the strings. For that to create a vacuum where we can rebuild it properly total worldwide economic collapse would have to occur. And I'm not sure it would be worth the carnage.

[MarkC]

I'm not sure where the "worth" of your vote keeps coming into this equation or what metric you're using to define the worth of your vote.

Will - I'm in close agreement with what you are saying in this thread.

However, I can see where some folks would question the value of their vote. I lived in Utah during the early 1990s and was there for a couple elections, one presidential. Joked at the time that in Utah the polls open at 7am and the results are known at 7:05am and the state went Republican. That's OK, that is the way the majority of the state voted and when moving there one knows darn well what the environment is for politics.

But it does minimize the impact of a non-conservative vote at that moment in time in that particular setting.

What is important is that people choose to consistently vote and let their feelings be known. Even if in a small minority the vote is counted and your voice is heard by someone. Over time things change and attitudes shift. I would always vote and I would vote opposite to the majority. Not out of protest or because I didn't like the way things were being done. But as sign to anyone paying attention to such things that I felt there was room for dialog, improvement and change and that there was support for that conversation and someone cared. I might not vote for you as a candidate but I'd like to hear your voice in the dialog.

Over time, Utah remains very conservative but the politics in SLC have changed. If I still lived there I would welcome that environment and rather than casting a vote to send the message I was thinking of 25 years ago, I'd be looking much more closely at individual candidates, issues I care about and what is best for the city, state and country and vote accordingly.

My impression of folks that complain about the current system is they: (a) don't understand it or (b) do understand it but want things their way now and don't want to work for smart change or compromise over time.

That the founding fathers came up with a system that has worked this well for this long is amazing. They deserve some recognition or something. Wisdom like that seems to have gone the way of the dodo.

Mark

[XR2]

It's not done in the voting booth. That is a major contributor to our current condition. When an important vote in congress is approaching we sit and watch for the result on the TOOB w/o letting our representatives know where we stand. When it goes south we bitch. That was never the intention for the process. We as a people must be involved instead of letting special interest lobbyists control what our representatives think is our wish. Government by the people for the people is missing the people.