Electoral Collage and sneaky politics

[GeckoGeek]

So my radio gently wakes me up this morning like it always does. Then an ad comes on urging Governor Lingle to sign a bill to change the way Hawaii votes in the Electoral Collage.

WHAT!!! :eek: Well I'm awake now! Where the hell did this come from? I read the papers. I listen to the radio. And the first time something of this magnitude comes up it's already silently sailed though our legislature and only now it goes pubic to goad the Governor into signing it? Shouldn't something of this importance have been publicly debated??

While we can debate the merits of the EC (but I'd urge you to read this (http://discovermagazine.com/1996/nov/mathagainsttyran914) first). What I object to most of all is how this bill ran under the publics' radar.

What this bill does is call for Hawaii to cast it's EC votes according to the nation's popular vote. In other words, ignore how Hawaii voted - go with the nation. If this had been in place in 2004, Hawaii would have gone with Bush, not Kerry.

Some people think this will improve Hawaii's stature in the Presidential Election. Preposterous. According to my math, Hawaii cast but 0.35% of the votes in the election but cast 0.74% of the EC votes. If the nation reverts to a pure popular vote, Hawaii looses half of it's already meager influence.

Worse is the full page add to Monday's paper (Hmmmmm, where is all this money coming from??). It claims that a vote in New Hampshire is more valuable then a vote in Hawaii. Funny, that's not what my math says. NH had more then 50% more voters turn out but still only got 4 EC votes. Sure sounds like a vote in Hawaii counts MORE then a vote in NH. (Don't feel too bad for them. NH still got more influence though the EC then though their own popular vote.)

So the first order of business is to email the Governor urging a veto of this horrid action. Hell of a way to start a Monday. :mad:

[mel]

Governor Lingle vetoed this bill yesterday.:)

Details: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=SB1956

From an article in today's Honolulu Advertiser (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070424/NEWS03/704240342/1007/NEWS)



Gov. Linda Lingle has vetoed a bill that would require Hawai'i's four electoral votes to be awarded to the presidential slate that receives the most popular votes across the country.

The purpose of Senate Bill 1956 was to join an "interstate compact" requiring member states to determine the winner of a presidential election by a popular vote. Hawai'i, like most other states, casts all its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in its respective jurisdiction.

[GeckoGeek]

Yes, I woke up to good news this morning. :) However, I think the votes are there for a veto override. :( . I'm still disturbed that something this important got this far before placing itself on the public radar. :mad:

[Pua'i Mana'o]

So my radio gently wakes me up this morning like it always does. Then an ad comes on urging Governor Lingle to sign a bill to change the way Hawaii votes in the Electoral Collage.

WHAT!!! :eek: Well I'm awake now! Where the hell did this come from? I read the papers. I listen to the radio. And the first time something of this magnitude comes up it's already silently sailed though our legislature and only now it goes pubic to goad the Governor into signing it? Shouldn't something of this importance have been publicly debated??

While we can debate the merits of the EC (but I'd urge you to read this (http://discovermagazine.com/1996/nov/mathagainsttyran914) first). What I object to most of all is how this bill ran under the publics' radar.

What this bill does is call for Hawaii to cast it's EC votes according to the nation's popular vote. In other words, ignore how Hawaii voted - go with the nation. If this had been in place in 2004, Hawaii would have gone with Bush, not Kerry.

Some people think this will improve Hawaii's stature in the Presidential Election. Preposterous. According to my math, Hawaii cast but 0.35% of the votes in the election but cast 0.74% of the EC votes. If the nation reverts to a pure popular vote, Hawaii looses half of it's already meager influence.

Worse is the full page add to Monday's paper (Hmmmmm, where is all this money coming from??). It claims that a vote in New Hampshire is more valuable then a vote in Hawaii. Funny, that's not what my math says. NH had more then 50% more voters turn out but still only got 4 EC votes. Sure sounds like a vote in Hawaii counts MORE then a vote in NH. (Don't feel too bad for them. NH still got more influence though the EC then though their own popular vote.)

So the first order of business is to email the Governor urging a veto of this horrid action. Hell of a way to start a Monday. :mad:

aaaaaiiiiii we shoulda stayed one terratooorrry </quote my Portuguese uncle>

[poinographer]

This bill was in both the Honolulu papers while it was being debated. You simply missed it.

[GeckoGeek]

This bill was in both the Honolulu papers while it was being debated. You simply missed it.

I can confirm it was in the Star Bulletin, but I can't find any sign that it was in the Advertiser. It's possible I just missed it, but I can't find it with Google either.

[GeckoGeek]

Dang! They're back at it again! (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/NEWS03/804230398/1007/LOCALNEWSFRONT)

The first word I got of this is that Lingle vetoed it. :) But there's enough votes for a override. :(

Now what I want to know is just why something so basic as how the president is elected is sliding though with almost no mention whatsoever in the media??

OK, I can believe that some people are misguided into thinking this is a good idea on the whole, but everybody thinks it's a good idea to reduce Hawaii's voice in national politics? What's going on?

[Nords]

Now what I want to know is just why something so basic as how the president is elected is sliding though with almost no mention whatsoever in the media??
Kinda ironic. My impression of the Electoral College is that it was created because voting is much too important & difficult to be left to the great unwashed masses... of registered voters.

[GeckoGeek]

Kinda ironic. My impression of the Electoral College is that it was created because voting is much too important & difficult to be left to the great unwashed masses... of registered voters.

Originally, I believe you're right.

But what people are missing is our government is not a pure democracy. If you look at Congress, there's a House (where states are represented by population) and a Senate (where each state is represented equally). The Electoral college was set up to reflect the this balance of power. The number of Electoral votes each state gets is the total number of Representative and Senators. The Electoral College gives small states like Hawaii a little more power then it would otherwise have. To award votes based on nation-wide popular voting defeats this.

Secondly, in our current EC setup, it forces presidential candidates to "spread the charm". Once a state awards all their EC votes (by taking the state in a simple majority), it does no good to continue to increase their popularity there. They have to go find another state to win over. In other words, under the popular vote the candidates can remain in the areas where they are already popular and whip up the people into a voting frenzy. Under popular vote it's mathematically possible to win the presidency by winning only one state. (A landslide in one state can override narrow losses elsewhere.)

But there are other good reasons to keep it. You can read about it here (http://discovermagazine.com/1996/nov/mathagainsttyran914http).

[ilind]

I reported this week on National Popular Vote's belated disclosure of its spending on last year's advertising blitz.

http://ilind.net/2008/04/23/wednesdayshield-law-moving-national-popular-vote-finally-reveals-spending-dot-drops-the-ball-again-and-kilgos-misplaced-trust/

The disclosure followed my inquiry to the Ethics Commission pointing out the group's failure to follow the law.

-Ian Lind