…and this is a 
Fear of the godless horde
Category: Godlessness • Politics
Posted on: October 22, 2008 11:45 AM, by PZ Myers
We are so scary. Now the fact that godless Americans exist and that people actually talk to us is the subject of a political ad by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Watch this: it's got ominous music, it's got atheists saying there is no god, and Daylight Atheism gets another shout out…and that's about it. And it will effectively motivate the fundie base, I'm sure.
It also has various right wing blowhards huffing and puffing over the fact that atheists would like to remove god from the pledge of allegiance and our money. These guys have no imagination. Those are trivial, superficial issues. We want to change the culture as a whole so people make rational decisions about government and education, rather than relying on superstition and ignorant authority, and that's what ought to scare them more. We have the goal of making people think, something these trembling wahoos are ill-prepared to do.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Diego | October 22, 2008 11:57 AM
What a hack job! The boogey monster tone and the obvious quote-mining editing makes this ad seem to be more satire to me. Then again-- Poe's Law.
Posted by: Azdak | October 22, 2008 11:58 AM
They want to ban Christmas!? There goes the 5 and under demographic...
Posted by: Norman Doering | October 22, 2008 11:58 AM
You mean like this:
http://www.stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=16247
Posted by: S.Scott | October 22, 2008 11:58 AM
Where do I send my $$?
Posted by: David Wiener | October 22, 2008 11:59 AM
PZ -
Many people to not understand why Atheists are so 'militant'. Postings like this one show why - we are in a culture war against barbarians that deserve no quarter. By this I mean that they have the right to believe what they like, but we have the duty to call bullshit on their insanity. Or things will never change.
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 22, 2008 12:00 PM
Could you imagine what our money would look like if we took all that god nonsense off? I mean, think a couple of months after the bills were released into circulation and looney Christians, armed with blessed Sharpies got their hands on it.
Yeah. Our bills would look like Pollack paintings.
Posted by: wazza | October 22, 2008 12:00 PM
If nobody hates you, you're not doing it right...
but what you guys face over there scares me sometimes. You'll be first against the wall, and it's not like you've ever actually done anything...
Posted by: Ian | October 22, 2008 12:05 PM
What are they doing on Fox? Don't they know they're just being used?
Posted by: tristero | October 22, 2008 12:06 PM
I would characterize the music as brooding and sad, not ominous. The effect, to put it into words, is that it is a terrible tragedy that our country has come to this, when godless Americans feel they have a chance of obtaining power.
Slimy stuff.
Posted by: Robert Woerheide | October 22, 2008 12:06 PM
Well put! Superficial issues indeed. Aren't the fundies great at mis-direction? Kind of like the GOP.
Posted by: Jared | October 22, 2008 12:07 PM
PZ: While we do need to change society as a whole, part of the problem IS the little issues. What I feel we need to encourage more is for people to get out of their close little circles of friends and small towns and dogmas and learn.
Posted by: funda62 | October 22, 2008 12:09 PM
:head scratch: Maybe it's just me but that commercial is almost laughable. My synopsis = "Big spooky atheists are coming to get your money and change it's language while we type!"
Posted by: TimG | October 22, 2008 12:10 PM
Hands off Christmas. We can rename it, but it was our mid winter holiday long before the church hijacked it.
Posted by: Carpworld | October 22, 2008 12:10 PM
What, nothing about our diet of babies and kittens?
Posted by: DiEb | October 22, 2008 12:11 PM
Could this people be calmed down if you promised them to put more gods on your money bills? Mercurius is always a good choice, he could be accompanied by Kubera, the Hindu god of wealth...
Posted by: Erik R. | October 22, 2008 12:13 PM
Sweet! I had no idea Kay Hagan was such a heathen when I submitted my ballot voting for her earlier this month. I'm so pleased!
Not that it was hard to vote against Sen. Dole.
Posted by: Jay | October 22, 2008 12:13 PM
Convinced me to donate to Kay Hagan.
Any other godless heathens for me to support?
Posted by: SteveF | October 22, 2008 12:14 PM
It's a bit of a shame that the Godless Americans woman mentioned the Mythical Jesus argument. Mythical Jesus is a fringe, crank position in the main, not accepted by the vast majority of relevant experts, be they Christian or not. We atheists rightly critcise theists when they come up with inane shit like creationism. We should be above this and not promote our own equivalent idiocies. We should be adhering to higher standards of evidence
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 22, 2008 12:15 PM
I just LOVED the shot of Kay Hagan at a party. That was so incriminating. I tell you, I had to turn away in horror!
Posted by: X. Wolp | October 22, 2008 12:16 PM
"Godless politician" ? That's awful, next thing you know everybody is speaking French, health care is socialized and people stop clinging to guns!
Posted by: Sengkelat | October 22, 2008 12:18 PM
Want to contribute to Kay Hagan, who's being slimed in that ad?
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/entity/18560
Posted by: Jared | October 22, 2008 12:18 PM
SteveF: Even IF Jesus were a real person, it has been so mythicized in the texts that we will never know anything about that person. The Jesus of the bible didn't exist, it may be based upon a spiritual leader, but the individual that is the basis for said myths is lost in the noise.
Posted by: Brad D | October 22, 2008 12:19 PM
Wow! All that dramatic music, I didn't even know I was evil!
Posted by: tsg | October 22, 2008 12:20 PM
At least in the arguments I've been involved in, "Mythical Jesus" centers on how much of the biblical account can be false (even ignoring the supernatural stuff) and have it still be "Jesus".
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 22, 2008 12:21 PM
Funny how "atheist" doesn't work for a Halloween party, rather it's religious figures that manage to be scary.
"Atheist" is more of a tribal (prejudicial) fear. So it works in churches, especially the fear that the atheist tribe might not be wrong.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 22, 2008 12:21 PM
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence
Posted by: Richard | October 22, 2008 12:23 PM
So...is there something not mythological about raising the dead, self-resurrection, walking on water, being born (?) by a virgin, etc.? Sounds pretty mythological to me...
Posted by: Katkinkate | October 22, 2008 12:23 PM
Maybe the 'atheist community' needs a big sponsor, like the creos have, who can fund a marketing campaign to push some basic ideas about the basics of science, logic, statistical odds, open-mindedness and stuff like that. After all it works for product advertising and the election campaigns. If something is said often enough, people tend to start accepting it and then believing it. Maybe we should be doing our own infomercials to clarify our case and right thinking.
Posted by: MikeM | October 22, 2008 12:23 PM
Sarah Palin is confident God will do "the right thing for America" on Nov. 4...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/22/palin-god-will-do-the-right-thing-on-election-day/
I actually am sort of worried about this election. There is enough built-in political bias in the Electoral College to where now relative liberals have to win huge in order to win at all. I fear at this point that McCain will win Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio by razor-thin margins, and that'll be enough... Even though Obama may get 1 million more popular votes.
Then, the loonies out there will say that's the way God wants it.
Polling numbers show Prop 8 winning in CA, by the way. Please, I implore you in CA, vote! I already have.
I want Prop 8 to go down in flames. Pun intended.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 22, 2008 12:23 PM
Oh Noes!
They're gonna kill Christmas! Those atheist bastards!
Posted by: Nicole | October 22, 2008 12:24 PM
Video quote mining FTL!!
I don't know... I didn't think the music was ominous. Kind of pretty actually. I'm a pretty and godless American :-)
Posted by: strait woman | October 22, 2008 12:25 PM
This is so great! Where do I sign up?
Posted by: Jason Failes | October 22, 2008 12:25 PM
What shocks me the most is that this was not created by an individual fundamentalist, nor a fundamentalist lobby group, nor such a group surreptitiously created or funded by the Republican party.
It was openly and publicly created by the Republican party.
Do they think that atheists are so reviled and such a small percentage of the American population that we can be openly vilified without political cost?
Do they think that there are no freethinkers, doubters, agnostics, and atheists amongst the Republican party, and its supporters, that might reconsider their allegiance in the face of such blatant and consistent pandering to the religious right, notably at the expense of traditional Republican ideals?
Finally, are they so stupid, or think that their supporters are so stupid, to not realize that PAC is asking for nothing more than the legal separation of church and state that the American Constitution already demands?
Posted by: trj | October 22, 2008 12:26 PM
Goddamn, o'Reilly is one smug bastard.
Posted by: Isherwood | October 22, 2008 12:27 PM
They sure made Ellen Johnson sound creepy.
Wait, she is a bit creepy. In fact, AA itself is a bit creepy, perhaps because the entire organization seems dead. What's with that stagnant, horribly outdated website?
Posted by: tsg | October 22, 2008 12:30 PM
Yes.
Yes.
No, they think that separation of church and state means keeping government out of religion and not the other way around.
Posted by: Tulse | October 22, 2008 12:31 PM
So people shouldn't vote for Hagan because she showed up at an atheist meeting, but people should vote for Palin although she spoke at a traitorous separatist Alaskan political party convention (a party her husband belonged to). Riiiiight...
And why don't religious people hang themselves to get to heaven faster?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 22, 2008 12:31 PM
If only the inter-webs and technology existed to create such a video back in the 50's to bemoan the "forcing of god" into "The Pledge" and onto our currency... I mean, if a godless pledge and godless money was good enough for the founding fathers...
Wait... where have I heard that argument before...
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 22, 2008 12:31 PM
This is why we need to redesign the very structure of our democracy. We need to move to proportional representation where the proportion of the electoral votes determine the proportion of representation in Congress. (A small number of states already practice this.) Of course proportional voting cannot apply to the Executive Branch. I am not sure if we should solely rely upon the popular vote for the Executive Branch; I am leaning in that direction. I also support term limits on every elected position including Congress and reconfirmation of Supreme Court justices.
Posted by: uncle frogy | October 22, 2008 12:31 PM
I have no idea what will be the result of the election that is right around corner. Here is a link to some disturbing videos of crowds of republican supporters. I could not watch all of them all the way through it was too much for me.
http://thismodernworld.com/4513
Posted by: Shaden Freud | October 22, 2008 12:34 PM
Reminds me of an Edward Current quote:
"Barack Obama was wrong: these people don't cling to their guns and their God in tough times...they cling to their guns and their God all the time!"
Posted by: tsg | October 22, 2008 12:37 PM
There is a paper around that I will have to dig for that gives a pretty good explanation why a popular vote doesn't work.
Executive Summary: The Electoral College works for the same reason the World Series is the best of seven games and not the total runs scored.
Posted by: Patricia | October 22, 2008 12:39 PM
Tee-hee-heee!
Snort, cackle - snort.
Posted by: Jason Failes | October 22, 2008 12:39 PM
SteveF @18:
I guess I'm a total crank then.
Due to popularity alone, the burden of proof has been inappropriately shifted to having to prove a historical Jesus didn't exist. There is no justification for this, any more than the idea we should believe Heracles is historical until proven otherwise.
The complete lack of evidence for a historical Jesus is enough for me to tentatively agree with the Jesus-as-myth hypothesis, until such time as positive evidence for his historical existence can be presented.
Posted by: SEF | October 22, 2008 12:40 PM
I know the US has carefully kept various constitutional documents on public display (all the better for the wilfully ignorant to ignore them!) but did anyone think to keep representative samples of all issues of money in museums on public display for people to check such factual matters themselves whenever they want (ie so that those can be similarly ignored by those who'd rather believe religious lies)?Posted by: Kobra | October 22, 2008 12:44 PM
Notice how it cuts off after, "I don't think it should be a federal holiday..." I guarantee the next word was "but."
Posted by: Geral | October 22, 2008 12:45 PM
Hahaha. That's good stuff.
Posted by: Bunk | October 22, 2008 12:52 PM
tsg @ #42, Is this the article you were looking for?
Math against tyranny. Discover, Nov 1996
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n11_v17/ai_18762289
Posted by: Patricia | October 22, 2008 12:53 PM
Perhaps a little visual opinion would be helpful, we all know some of the godly have reading issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5F_BRO69hg
Posted by: SteveF | October 22, 2008 12:54 PM
Yeah, they're all pretty mythical as far as I'm concerned. The Jesus Myth (which is what the Godless American woman seems to be talking about) is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis
It's supported by fringe kooks like AcharyaS and basically isn't taken seriously by anyone in academia (irrespective of whether they are Christians or not). It's proponents and those who are related had to invent their own journal (Journal of Higher Criticism) so they could publish on it. What other groups can we think of who resort to such tactics? Yup, creationists.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 22, 2008 12:56 PM
@ SEF #45
It's not that hard to find out, really... "In God we Trust" was added, by congressional act in 1957, to all paper currency printed in the 1963 series and beyond. Although, the term has appeared on coins dating back to the early 1800's. There's a detailed history of this, interestingly, on the treasury department website.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | October 22, 2008 12:59 PM
I consider the motto on currency to be a rather trivial issue, but amusing nonetheless.
It's a convenient rallying cry for the religious loonies in their whining about "taking god out of the public square", blah, blah, blah.
But it is a good thing that they starting using the motto after the Civil War. Thank god for Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the rise of the KKK.
I mean, if we hadn't acknowledged the Big Guy Upstairs on our currency, things could have got REALLY ugly in this country.
Posted by: tsg | October 22, 2008 1:01 PM
Yes, that's is.
I have a mental block with Alan Natapoff's name. It makes the article hard to find.
Posted by: Nerdcore Steve | October 22, 2008 1:07 PM
Wow! We're really scary! I'm going go try and hide from myself. :P
Posted by: Nerdette | October 22, 2008 1:08 PM
We're in your country, changin your monies! Oh noes!
Posted by: SEF | October 22, 2008 1:08 PM
Oh I know it's true and not hard to find information on the fact of it, I just wondered about the availability of physical evidence - in front of which hordes of school-children might theoretically be dragged in order to inoculate them against that particular fundamentalist lie. As with other vaccinations, it won't be effective on all of them but it might help some individuals and even help the herd immunity a little.Posted by: Dennis N | October 22, 2008 1:09 PM
The Journal of Higher Criticism is edited by Robert Price, I don't know if you've heard him talk, but he's quite knowledgeable about Biblical texts, and a former member of the Jesus Seminar. You should listen to his Bible Geek podcast, he is most certainly not a kook. I've never heard him say anything unreasonable or unsupported.
Posted by: Donalbain | October 22, 2008 1:23 PM
Thought experiment
Run a thematically identical ad, using the same music and editting techniques, but replace the atheists with Jews.
See what happens..
Posted by: CrypticLife | October 22, 2008 1:37 PM
Off currency is not a huge issue for me, but out of the Pledge is pretty significant -- I have kids in third grade and kindergarten who have to hear this stuff daily. My third grader has already had to start having arguments with creationist classmates (he laid the smackdown on 'em, incidentally, and the teacher simply stayed out of the conversation).
Nice how they also brought up the "hanging" reference as if atheists wanted genocide, instead of an argument as to why everyone supposedly believes in God but for some reason is in no hurry to meet him.
Posted by: CW | October 22, 2008 1:43 PM
Tossing up the argumentum ad populum here? Not a very good plan. Evidence, now that might sway folks. Got any extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of the fellow? Direct archaeological evidence? Even one single mention of him in contemporary* works? Anything at all? No? So why in God's name does Jesus get a free pass on historicity?Oh, right, in God's name...
*And yes, I am thoroughly familiar with Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger and all the other post-hoc "chroniclers"
Posted by: David | October 22, 2008 1:50 PM
It makes me happy I already voted for Kay Hagan!
Posted by: CJO | October 22, 2008 1:56 PM
Mythical Jesus is a fringe, crank position in the main, not accepted by the vast majority of relevant experts, be they Christian or not.
Pretty much true. However, I've done a fair amount of reading of those very experts on the subject, and if you approach the question with an agnostic attitude about the historicity of Jesus, some interesting things pop out at you. First, most of these experts will agree, somewhat begrudgingly, that there appears to be a layer of Christ mythology (christology) from the Pauline writings on, that is, the very earliest available Jesus literature is markedly (ha!) mythical in nature. Reading these scholars "against themselves" it is possible to perceive a certain anxiety that the record doesn't preserve a more orderly or expected progression from culture hero to legendary figure to fully mythologized Christ, and furthermore, (again reading agnostically) to note that a more parsimonious explanation than the somewhat tortured efforts by the experts to resolve this seeming difficulty is simply that the myth did precede the legend and that no historical figure need be posited.
Second, when you get these experts actually talking about who they believe this historical figure was, what role he played in the society and religious life of 1st Century Judea, you get as many answers as you have experts. When every witness reports a different outfit on the Emperor, I feel justified at least considering the conclusion that he might be naked.
Third, and last for now, is Paul. Paul, Paul, Paul. (Reading the experts on Paul's theology, I have found, is one of those areas where reading against the grain most clearly brings out the fact that they are disregarding the null hypothesis out of hand --perhaps they're right to, but you'll rarely see a strong argument in the context.) Paul was a fairly pugnacius rhetoritician. We identify the rifts and anxieties of the earliest Christians largely by seeing what the crucial issues were in Paul's arguments. And if there was a historical figure known as a human man to the Twelve, with whom Paul met and had disagreements, why did they make no appeal to their own authority as earlier or more authentic witnesses than Paul, who, after all, only experienced post-Resurrection visions? That they did not is clear from Paul himself, who feels compelled to defend his authority on these grounds not at all in the Epistles. On his trips to Jerusalem 20-30 years after the supposed death of this figure, he evinces no curiosity about Golgotha, the tomb, Nazareth, Bethlehem, or any other historical detail of an earthly life of Jesus.
I could go on (like I haven't already), but I'm out of time for now.
Posted by: Jason failes | October 22, 2008 1:56 PM
We're here!
No fear!*
Get used to it!
*of God (absolute lack of fear is not recommended)
Posted by: CW | October 22, 2008 1:58 PM
Maybe it's time to stop fooling around with shorts and go for a full-on movie. We could call it "The Militant Atheist" as an homage to the classic "Der ewige Jude".Oh, right. Ben Stein already tried that, nevermind.
Posted by: Richard | October 22, 2008 2:00 PM
Well, I read that Wikipedia page and where it says that the "Jesus myth"
it sounds pretty spot on. Are you seriously arguing that all those bits about Jesus performing miracles, being the son of God, and so on are perfectly historical? Given that the identity of Jesus primarily defined by his miraculous performances, it seems perfectly legitimate to say that Jesus is non-historical construct.
Is there something I'm missing? I'm not particularly impressed when it's said "nearly everyone refutes the idea." I mean, nearly everyone refutes the idea that atheism is reasonable. So what?
Posted by: Randy | October 22, 2008 2:07 PM
Oh. My. Gawd.
We are scary. I actually peed myself just a little. I just hope I don't meet me in a dark alley. There's no telling what an atheist like me might do to me.
Posted by: Laser Potato | October 22, 2008 2:09 PM
My hypothesis: Jesus was a real dude, but everything about him got so blown out of proportion (remember, up till a certain point the Bible was passed down VERBALLY) that ordinary acts of kindness turned into over-the-top miracles.
Posted by: Jared Lessl | October 22, 2008 2:17 PM
> The Electoral College works for the same reason the World Series is the best of seven games and not the total runs scored.
Ok, I have to take issue with the politics/sports comparison. We are in this mess largely because people treat their political parties like their favorite sports teams, and stick with them no matter what they do.
Secondly, nearly every presidential election under the EC has resulted in the same winner as the popular vote. The cases where it _wasn't_ were highly suspect and there was much outcry at the seemingly unfair result. This behavior is not an EC fluke, but is an inherent and predictable part of the whole scheme. Can you explain to me why it was good and proper in 1876, 1888, and 2000 for the popular winner to lose? Why it was best for the country that the elections turn out the way they did?
As for the abstract arguments for the EC... the usual claim is that it requires the candidate to have broader support, right? Except it doesn't. A candidate could theoretically win with 50.1% of a mere 11 states. I.e., 28% of the population. The EC means that candidates will ignore any states they are not likely to win in favor of trying hardest in populous battleground states. Nor does it discourage candidates from focusing on heavily populated areas where they can reach the greatest number of people.
I'm thumbing through the whole "pro"s list on Wiki, and I'm not seeing a single one that actually applies exclusively to the EC or is even a good thing. Encourages the two-party system? What nutcase thought that was beneficial?
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 22, 2008 2:19 PM
OoooOOOO... vote for me or the atheists are gonna take over!!!!!
pathetic, but i bet it works :-(
"math against tyrrany" or not... the electoral college as it currently works makes people in "safe" states feel disenfranchised. I mean, when was the last time Wyoming voted democrat? was Wyoming even mentioned ONCE during the election? I wonder how many democrats stuck there and in similar states can't be bothered to vote...
People in swing states have more influence on elections; i can't see how that's fair. It also doesn't help that there's apparently a bunch of solidly republican states (at least for the last 40 years), but only D.C. votes consistently for democrats.
so mathematically it may work out that way, but psychologically it probably doesn't, and you end up with some voters being more powerful than others
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 22, 2008 2:19 PM
Christians, of course, have a built in argument for why they don't hang themselves in a rush to meet god: it's forbidden. You kill yourself, you go to hell. You never meet god.
Of course, this wasn't always the case. In fact, one of the reasons that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine declared suicide a mortal sin was for the very fact that christians were killing themselves off in the middle-ages to get to the bliss of heaven rather than live in the hell-on-earth that was middle-age Europe at the time. This, of course, is bad for business if you are the church. So, like anything else that's bad for business as a christian (birth control), make it a sin, evoke eternal damnation, spread the fear, and there you have it: built in business continuity.
Posted by: CW | October 22, 2008 2:25 PM
Fair enough, but it's quite a stretch from suggesting a hypothesis to painting anyone who doesn't accept it as having "a fringe, crank position". Isn't there usually something that comes after the hypothesis stage of investigation?Posted by: le_sacre | October 22, 2008 2:28 PM
no wonder they're scared: we're getting bigger!
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/25/us/25religion.html
i adore the trend lines in these data. can't wait to see where we'll be in ten years or so.
Posted by: Lago | October 22, 2008 2:38 PM
What is their agenda?? What is it these Godless liberals want??!!!
Well, right now..I am going to take a bath, and read my book. I wonder if it is a coincidence my book is about Texan ghoul who attacks a Presbyterian College History class? (No really, it is)
Later, my agenda will probably to make myself a sandwich, lettuce tomato and cheese, with a little mayo. No meat, because I am also an evil vegetarian.
Posted by: Patricia | October 22, 2008 2:38 PM
Excellent comments CW @60, and CJO @62. :o)
Posted by: JakeS | October 22, 2008 2:46 PM
This has to be a new low for politcal adds. I thought the lowest was in 2004, but they finally broke that record last year. The sad part is that there are going to be five or six WORSE than this one before election day.
Posted by: tsg | October 22, 2008 2:51 PM
That isn't a flaw in the comparison, though (mostly because how many fans a team has doesn't affect whether or not they win), and a popular vote isn't going to fix that anyway.
Quite simply because the President isn't chosen by the popular vote. I'm afraid the burden is on you to show why the popular winner should have been elected.
That has never even come close to happening. Meanwhile, you're complaining about 3 occasions where the popular vote went the other way by a marginal amount (3% in 1876 and less than 1% in the other two).
False dichotomy. That you can't find anything about the EC that you like doesn't make the popular vote the de facto winner.
The mathematics of it is that a districted vote (such as the EC) gives each vote more power. Alan Natapoff's paper (linked above) explains it very well.
Posted by: tsg | October 22, 2008 2:57 PM
That's because the districts are too big, not too small. Remember that the electoral votes in safe states are determined by popular vote.
States whose voters actually think about who they are going to vote for instead of blindly voting down the party lines are not the problem. That's what is supposed to happen. Give the voters in the safe states more power and it fixes it the right way.
Fixing the districts solves this problem. Eliminating them doesn't, it just inflicts it on the entire country.
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 22, 2008 3:18 PM
and how small would the "districts" have to be? at which level does a person no longer feel that there's no point in voting because "everyone else" votes for someone else? that seems like an absurd exercise. besides, unless all of the U.S. is divided into small blocks of equal population-size and approximately even distribution (and being constantly adjusted for both those things), it would always be inherently unfair from a psychological point-of-view. and that it props up the two party system is a massive reason against it. doesn't matter how much power you have in your vote, when the options to vote on are so very limited.
everywhere except in the executive, this is less a problem with the electoral college vs. direct voting, and more a problem with the fact that every election for every position is a win-or-lose situation... either you get 100% or 0%, so if you feel everyone else is voting against you, then it doesn't matter how small or big the group is, a single person will still feel defeated before they've even done anything. on the other hand, when you get representative voting, then every vote is equal, and every vote is powerful, because if 49% voted for Party B, then there's going to be 49% of party B.
Posted by: tsg | October 22, 2008 3:36 PM
I don't know. There is an optimum size however that can be determined.
It's only psychologically unfair because people don't understand it and have a preconception that the popular decision is necessarily the right one.
The problems of a two-party system get worse, not better, with a popular vote. If you really want to fix the two party system, you might want to look into IRV. It allows people to make a "second choice" instead of having to vote for the least objectionable of the only two that can win. The problem with the "first past the post" system is the way two similar candidates can split the vote and give the candidate fewer people chose the election. To take the 2000 election as an example, imagine what could have happened if the people who voted for Nader could have made Gore their second choice.
Posted by: Tulse | October 22, 2008 3:41 PM
Because that's largely what we mean by "democracy"?
On average across all votes it may give each vote more power, but if one looks at specific voters, it gives huge amounts of influence to those voters in the highly contested states (like Iowa and Florida), and practically no power to voters in the minority party in states with solid majorities. In effect, if you're a Democrat in Idaho, your vote counts for practically nothing -- if you're a Democrat in Florida, it could literally tip the balance of the election (as it could have in 2000).
In other words, what the EC does is vastly distort the influence of an individual's vote based on their geography, giving some huge amounts of influence, and effectively disenfranchising others. And that seems to be profoundly anti-democratic, especially as those highly contested regions tend to exert undue influence in Washington and receive special attention (e.g., would the US relations with Cuba be far better if it weren't for the ex-pats in Florida?).
So, the abstract mathematical argument may be well and good, but it ignores the realities of the system.
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 22, 2008 3:43 PM
oh yes, i can see how IRV would be an even better choice that direct, voter-take-all voting in situations where there can only be one winner.
Posted by: tsg | October 22, 2008 3:49 PM
This isn't a democracy.
A popular vote doesn't fix this, it just inflicts it on the entire country. Fix the districting in Iowa and the problem is fixed without crippling the voters in Florida. Really. All you're doing is saying "my vote doesn't count so neither should yours!"
Again, the states whose voters think about who they are going to vote for aren't the problem. Crippling them doesn't solve anything. Fix the safe states by fixing the districts.
It at least has a chance. A popular vote doesn't even attempt to address it.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 22, 2008 3:52 PM
While I understand the reason why the electoral college is set up the way it is, it's always made me a little uneasy, and good points are made about the disenfranchisement that some voters feel as a result of this system.
Maybe I'm over-simplifying things, but I've always thought the following would be a pretty good system for changing the executive branch electoral system:
Each state, using the same criteria that is used to assign the number of House of Representative members per state, is assigned a number. For example, California would be assigned an 18, Rhode Island a 1, New York 12, Georgia 5, etc... This number would then become a multiplier. Votes for each state are counted, and a percentage of the total vote is given to each candidate. That percentage is then multiplied by the state's assigned multiplier. The totals are then tallied for each state, and the candidate with the highest number when all states are added together wins.
OK... so I'm now actually curious of what you all think of this method and why it wouldn't work or wouldn't be properly representative.
Good discussion, by the way.
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 22, 2008 3:59 PM
Not much would have changed.
PRESIDENT 99% of precincts
Candidates Votes Vote % States Won EV
Gore 50,996,116 48 % 21 266
Bush 50,456,169 48 % 30 271
Other 3,874,040 4 % 0 0
Let us assume that all "other" votes went to Nader (which they did not).
Gore would have received a to