Lowering the Federal Voting Age to 16 (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

No, really it doesn't.

DId you not click on the link or something?  If not, it shows that 2/3 of all general campaign events occurred in only 6 states.  And oddly enough NONE of those 6 states were California or New York.  The condition you are allegedly fearful of happening is already happening, but you're fighting for the status quo.  Can't really make that stuff up, but it's funny (not in the ha ha way) to watch.

 

[roadkill1292]

The location of campaign appearances remains a poor metric by which to measure the representativeness of a government.

 

[zftcg]

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." - Thomas Jefferson

Aside from the fact that this quote is made up, the funniest thing about it is that it expresses a view far more consistent with Jefferson's rival, Hamilton, than with anything Jefferson would have said.

 

[roadkill1292]

If majority rule is a bad thing, is minority rule a good thing?

 

[The Commish]

The location of campaign appearances remains a poor metric by which to measure the representativeness of a government.

I want to be clear, the only reason I posted what I did was because the standard had been set.  My pointing out that what Opie was afraid might happen was already happening wasn't a blessing of his measure.  It was simply to say "uh....it's already happening and you're fighting to keep it that way" which I find very odd.  Of course there will be no further discussion on this.  I didn't even bother to go into validity of the Jefferson "quote" he used  

 

[roadkill1292]

I want to be clear, the only reason I posted what I did was because the standard had been set.  My pointing out that what Opie was afraid might happen was already happening wasn't a blessing of his measure.  It was simply to say "uh....it's already happening and you're fighting to keep it that way" which I find very odd.  Of course there will be no further discussion on this.  I didn't even bother to go into validity of the Jefferson "quote" he used  

My questioning of campaign appearances as a metric should have been directed generally, not specifically at you.

In the modern era, I think candidate appearances have far less effect than the get-out-the-vote prowess of the state's party apparatus, anyway. And we've seen that in numerous recent elections, like when the Pubbies decided to make a concerted effort to dominate state legislatures a decade ago and when the Dems put together effective ground teams in the '18 House contests.

 

[The Commish]

My questioning of campaign appearances as a metric should have been directed generally, not specifically at you.

In the modern era, I think candidate appearances have far less effect than the get-out-the-vote prowess of the state's party apparatus, anyway. And we've seen that in numerous recent elections, like when the Pubbies decided to make a concerted effort to dominate state legislatures a decade ago and when the Dems put together effective ground teams in the '18 House contests.

Agreed

 

[Sand]

The EC makes sure they are just catering to subgroups the States...

Fixed that up for you.

And, as far as catering to subgroups, the blue team pretty much runs off of balkanization.

 

[sho nuff]

Fixed that up for you.

And, as far as catering to subgroups, the blue team pretty much runs off of balkanization.

Your fix made my post less accurate.

And Id prefer they cater to the voters not subgroups and just states that are strategic to the EC.

 

[Ilov80s]

Most people in large cities in most states would vote for a Constitutional Amendment...you'd agree?

And since those votes from those folks in the city would determine how a state votes in a Constitutional Convention the Constitution could be amended...you'd agree?

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." - Thomas Jefferson

2/3 of the States have to agree to call the convention in the first place. 

 

[zftcg]

My questioning of campaign appearances as a metric should have been directed generally, not specifically at you.

In the modern era, I think candidate appearances have far less effect than the get-out-the-vote prowess of the state's party apparatus, anyway. And we've seen that in numerous recent elections, like when the Pubbies decided to make a concerted effort to dominate state legislatures a decade ago and when the Dems put together effective ground teams in the '18 House contests.

Before I moved to Florida a few years ago, I had never lived in a state that was competitive in national elections. If I felt strongly about an election, I had to take a bus to Pennsylvania or do phone banking to strangers in OH.

The weirdest thing about this whole debate is that we pretend that electing leaders via popular vote is some radical change, despite the fact that it is the preferred method for ... (checks notes) ... every other democracy on the planet, including every US state/local election.

(Yes, I know, other countries have parliamentary systems and such, but I'm not aware of any other political system where an individual candidate can get fewer votes than her opponent and still be declared the winner.)

 

[Da Guru]

Before I moved to Florida a few years ago, I had never lived in a state that was competitive in national elections. If I felt strongly about an election, I had to take a bus to Pennsylvania or do phone banking to strangers in OH.

The weirdest thing about this whole debate is that we pretend that electing leaders via popular vote is some radical change, despite the fact that it is the preferred method for ... (checks notes) ... every other democracy on the planet, including every US state/local election.

(Yes, I know, other countries have parliamentary systems and such, but I'm not aware of any other political system where an individual candidate can get fewer votes than her opponent and still be declared the winner.)

Well it is about winning states.   The electoral college was created to promote fairness from  regional perspectives. Individual votes do count, but in a way that is represented by the state you live in. This prevents 2-3 very large states from overwhelming the popular vote count so that a majority of the country can be represented by the government.

 

[roadkill1292]

Well it is about winning states.   The electoral college was created to promote fairness from  regional perspectives. Individual votes do count, but in a way that is represented by the state you live in. This prevents 2-3 very large states from overwhelming the popular vote count so that a majority of the country can be represented by the government.

This is mathematical gibberish.

 

[msommer]

This is mathematical gibberish.

It may be 18th century math, though

 

[Da Guru]

This is mathematical gibberish.

Not my gibberish..it was the founding fathers of the USA who put it into the constitution.

 

[msommer]

Not my gibberish..it was the founding fathers of the USA who put it into the constitution.

Why would you want to keep gibberish in the constitution ?

 

[The Commish]

Well it is about winning states.   The electoral college was created to promote fairness from  regional perspectives. Individual votes do count, but in a way that is represented by the state you live in. This prevents 2-3 very large states from overwhelming the popular vote count so that a majority of the country can be represented by the government.

Yeah...not really.  When a state has 30 'votes' and your voting populace is a 50.1/49.9 split, for the above to be true the guy with 50.1 wouldn't get all 30 votes like they do today.

 

[Da Guru]

Why would you want to keep gibberish in the constitution ?

Where did I say that?

 

[msommer]

Where did I say that?

Do you want to keep the founders' gibberish in the constitution or not?

 

[Da Guru]

Do you want to keep the founders' gibberish in the constitution or not?

I was just explaining  how it works and why it is put in.

 

[msommer]

I was just explaining  how it works and why it is put in.

Why won't you answer my question? I'm interested in your opinion?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You said "our leaders should cater to America....not the wants of subgroups." So I asked:

1. Does this map of 2016 campaign visits look like leaders catering to all Americans, not just subgroups of them? 

2. Do you think that under the current system, presidential candidates care as much about rural voters in South Dakota or Idaho as they do about urban voters in Milwaukee or Philadelphia?

I'll play.

1. The answer is: strictly speaking, the map shows visits, not catering. Politicians visit swing states because they hope their visits will sway a percent or two of voters somehow, and swing states are the places where that percent or two will matter.

Catering is a bit of a different story, IMO. The non-swing states are often non-swing precisely because they've already been sufficiently catered to by one party or the other so that they're now safe (or hopeless, depending on which side has done the catering).

Kansas, for example, isn't a swing state, but that's not because it hasn't been catered to, and the implication isn't that it has disproportionately low political clout in federal policy-making.

2. No (but I'm not sure why we're cherry-picking those locations). With regard to the urban-rural divide in general, my intuition is that rural areas should be favored by the electoral college as compared to the popular vote. The electoral college favors states with small populations rather than big ones, and I'd expect states with small populations to be more rural in general. But Nate Silver says that my intuition is wrong -- that in fact, rural areas and urban areas basically break even with the electoral college as compared to the popular vote. I'll defer to him on that. (I guess the idea is that some states with small populations, like Rhode Island, are still mostly urban; while other states with large populations [Pennsylvania? Florida?] still have large rural contingents.)

 

[msommer]

2. No (but I'm not sure why we're cherry-picking those locations). With regard to the urban-rural divide in general, my intuition is that rural areas should be favored by the electoral college as compared to the popular vote. The electoral college favors states with small populations rather than big ones, and I'd expect states with small populations to be more rural in general. But Nate Silver says that my intuition is wrong -- that in fact, rural areas and urban areas basically break even with the electoral college as compared to the popular vote. I'll defer to him on that. (I guess the idea is that some states with small populations, like Rhode Island, are still mostly urban; while other states with large populations [Pennsylvania? Florida?] still have large rural contingents.)

I would also guess that this is fluid over time. Suppose half a million people got fed up of wherever they were living and went to live in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Wyoming would then possibly swing from being mostly rural to being mostly urban

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Why isn't the senate and to a lesser extent the house enough of a buffer between urban areas imposing their will on rural areas?  I understand the power of the bully pulpit and how the president just sets the tone for the nation, but the "direction of the nation" seems to be appropriately dictated by the majority with the protections coming elsewhere.   Why should the  minority have structural advantages for all branches of government?   Seems like there are still plenty of protections to keep populism in check.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As for voting at 16 year olds, I doubt that enough 16 year olds vote to matter.  Similar to 18 year olds today.  As long as we don't have 16 and 17 year olds voting in their classrooms while attending school I think the volume would be insignificant either way.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

As for voting at 16 year olds, I doubt that enough 16 year olds vote to matter.  Similar to 18 year olds today.  As long as we don't have 16 and 17 year olds voting in their classrooms while attending school I think the volume would be insignificant either way.

Most 16 year olds live at home with their parents.  Seems possible that a lot of parents would take their kids to the polls with them.

 

[Sand]

Most 16 year olds live at home with their parents.  Seems possible that a lot of parents would take their kids to the polls with them.

I take my kids to almost all of my trips to the polls - a good civics lesson. 

 

[Ilov80s]

I take my kids to almost all of my trips to the polls - a good civics lesson. 

Good parenting 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Most 16 year olds live at home with their parents.  Seems possible that a lot of parents would take their kids to the polls with them.

To the extent this happened it would seem like a positive.  Maybe the first election or two the 16 and 17 year olds would just be an extra vote for parents, but if we assume that 18 to 24 year olds get in the early habit of voting as a result then after a few cycles it should result in a larger independent youth vote and maybe more participation throughout government bringing new ways of thinking about our issues.

I still doubt that very many 16 and 17 year olds would actually vote though. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

To the extent this happened it would seem like a positive.  Maybe the first election or two the 16 and 17 year olds would just be an extra vote for parents, but if we assume that 18 to 24 year olds get in the early habit of voting as a result then after a few cycles it should result in a larger independent youth vote and maybe more participation throughout government bringing new ways of thinking about our issues.

Yup.

 

[Herb]

I take my kids to almost all of my trips to the polls - a good civics lesson. 

That's awesome. I hope to take my son with me next time. He'll be 8 by then and pretty sure he'll think it's cool. 

 

[Sand]

That's awesome. I hope to take my son with me next time. He'll be 8 by then and pretty sure he'll think it's cool. 

At that age it's as much about getting the sticker than anything else.  And that's ok.  Now he asks about why I voted for this or that and why I skipped some, etc.  The schools here seem to be very tolerant of me bringing them in late.

 

[parasaurolophus]

My son is going to be 16 soon. He should not be able to vote and among his friends he is one of the more well read and up on current events.

But he still watches videos of people commenting on other people playing video games. 

So yeah. No. 

 

[Ilov80s]

My son is going to be 16 soon. He should not be able to vote and among his friends he is one of the more well read and up on current events.

But he still watches videos of people commenting on other people playing video games. 

So yeah. No. 

I’m not saying he should but perhaps if he was able to vote he might pay more attention or have more opinions on it. 

Also my counter point has always been that we know young people don’t vote very often. Most 16 and 17 year olds wouldn’t bother to vote either. The ones that did are most likely the ones who care and have some knowledge of it.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

No