Elections and the Electoral College

Odin · September 15, 2002, 18:40

Electoral College- keep it or trash it?

I perfer to get rid of it and replace it with a pure popular vote, especialy after the election in florida,

/RANT ON/

GORE SHOULD"VE WON.

/RANT OFF/

Kyle · September 15, 2002, 18:50

Keep the Electoral College, modify it to give the electoral votes (in each state) to whomever wins the state's congressional districts.

Vlad Antlerkov · September 15, 2002, 19:01

Keep it, but cut each state's EC votes by 1.

Alternatively, Kyle's idea sounds fine (with those last 2 votes going to the winner of the popular vote in that state).

chequita guevara · September 15, 2002, 20:09

Toss it!

red_jon · September 15, 2002, 20:16

Popular vote = proportional representation?

If so then yes, and hopefully we'll follow suit.

leftover_crack · September 15, 2002, 20:21

Keep it. Its a good system that makes rural areas and states actually count. I mean if it were all popular vote. Bush and Gore never would of went to Wyoming or South Dakota.

Just imagine how neglected alaska would feel?

Nubclear · September 15, 2002, 20:28

Either toss it or modify it. Right now its far too easy to just use money to win through it.

Velociryx · September 15, 2002, 20:29

This thread would get lots more attention if the title were done up in "Engrish"....call it Erections and the Erectoral college....you'll get lots more responses....

-=Vel=-

Ethelred · September 15, 2002, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by leftover_crack
Keep it. Its a good system that makes rural areas and states actually count. I mean if it were all popular vote. Bush and Gore never would of went to Wyoming or South Dakota.

Just imagine how neglected alaska would feel?

Yet another person that thinks some people are more equal than others.

Drake Tungsten · September 15, 2002, 20:42

Quote:

Keep the Electoral College, modify it to give the electoral votes (in each state) to whomever wins the state's congressional districts.

This is the best solution. Getting rid of the Electoral College would make most states irrelevant in presidential elections.

Drake Tungsten · September 15, 2002, 20:43

Quote:

Yet another person that thinks some people are more equal than others.

I suppose you think that the Senate is a bad idea as well...

leftover_crack · September 15, 2002, 20:44

"Yet another person that thinks some people are more equal than others."

So your saying that people who live in LA are more important than those who live in Klidedale Wyoming?

Elaborate...

Lefty Scaevola · September 15, 2002, 20:45

If we had had a direct polpular vote In 2000, you would have seen the recounts and lawsuits that happened in the seven counties in Florida in every county of every state. nationwide there was close to 1,000,000 votes (most of them slow mail in votes) not counted, without $miilions of extra lawsuites, because they were not going to swing their states, if it had been direct popular vote, we would still be in litatgation today.

leftover_crack · September 15, 2002, 20:47

People seem to often to forget and blow off rural people. They are extrememly important. Its important the candidates pass through and make promises for them also.

Popular vote will do nothing except concentrate candidate's on cities and downtowns. Not States..Why would Gore go to Klidesdale if the population is only 3,000? Why would he even go to Cheyenne? A population of only 200,000? When candidates have to win states and not just a crowd of urban centers its more fair.

Ethelred · September 15, 2002, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by leftover_crack
"Yet another person that thinks some people are more equal than others."

So your saying that people who live in LA are more important than those who live in Klidedale Wyoming?

Elaborate...

I am not saying that at all since I am for a popular vote which would result in ONE MAN ONE VOTE.

YOU are saying people in Klidedale Wyoming are somehow deserving of more political power than a person in LA. That is what the present Electoral College system does. It gives more power to people in small states. Something they have in the Senate allready.

leftover_crack · September 15, 2002, 20:53

"YOU are saying people in Klidedale Wyoming are somehow deserving of more political power than a person in LA"

and YOU are assuming the opposite. States that dont have large populations would be utterly ignored.

"That is what the present Electoral College system does."
No it doesnt. Cali has somthing like 60 Electoral votes. If a candidate wins in Cali. He's won 20% of the votes he needs. I dont in anyway feel there under represented!

"It gives more power to people in small states. Something they have in the Senate allready."

Ahh soooo Joe Schmo the farmer in North Dakota shouldnt matter. Nor should his farm bill and union. The president is unitnerested in hearing what his pains or his neighbors pains.

loinburger · September 15, 2002, 20:53

Change the electoral system so that each state receives a number of electoral votes equal to the number of representatives it has in the House, but otherwise, the electoral college is a fine system.

leftover_crack · September 15, 2002, 20:56

The whole move to dissolve the college is a pathetic involuntary knee jerk reaction after a once in lifetime election. Of course it was never a problem before. no of course not.

Keep the system.

Ethelred · September 15, 2002, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by leftover_crack

and YOU are assuming the opposite. States that dont have large populations would be utterly ignored.

The President represents the people not the states.

Quote:

"That is what the present Electoral College system does."
No it doesnt. Cali has somthing like 60 Electoral votes. If a candidate wins in Cali. He's won 20% of the votes he needs. I dont in anyway feel there under represented!

Of course you don't. You like it when someone in Wyoming has more of a politcal voice than a Californian does.

Quote:

Ahh soooo Joe Schmo the farmer in North Dakota shouldnt matter. Nor should his farm bill and union. The president is unitnerested in hearing what his pains or his neighbors pains.

I see you just make things up when you don't like the truth. I only said people in smaller states should have the SAME vote for the President as I do while YOU are demanding they have MORE.

The President in any case must have Senators on his side. Even one Senator from Nebraska can make the difference. That is why tobbacco kept getting subsidized.

Ethelred · September 15, 2002, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by leftover_crack
The whole move to dissolve the college is a pathetic involuntary knee jerk reaction after a once in lifetime election. Of course it was never a problem before. no of course not.

Keep the system.

Its been a problem all along. Its broken and now everyone knows it including you but you like it broken.

leftover_crack · September 15, 2002, 21:18

"The President represents the people not the states"

This is stupid. The people are the states.

"Of course you don't. You like it when someone in Wyoming has more of a politcal voice than a Californian does. "

Bzzzzzt... Wrong bro. Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes. Cali has 60. So tell me again how it isnt fair?

"I see you just make things up when you don't like the truth. I only said people in smaller states should have the SAME vote for the President as I do while YOU are demanding they have MORE. "

I am demanding the president go through the midwest and talk up a storm of promises. And not just go to the nearest city and make all the promises. I know them' thar country folk may seem er Dumb and redneck to you. And that they thar seem uncivilized and aint deservin of attention. but they be humans thar too. And this is one of them thar demo-cracy that supposed to help them folk too.

heh..

"The President in any case must have Senators on his side. Even one Senator from Nebraska can make the difference. That is why tobbacco kept getting subsidized."

Oh riighhttt...

"Its been a problem all along. Its broken and now everyone knows it including you but you like it broken."

No it isnt. The flaw in knee-jerk liberal thinking that insists its broke is wrong. If you win the popular vote. 99.9% of the time you win the electoral college. Its that simple. For the flukes and close calls...well thats a fluke. But it still doesnt in anyway make the system "broke". Manual recounts and retarded voters would of still messed up a popular vote count. Like someone said earlier. A million ballots are thrownout every election. Its possible some of those million could of swayed the popular vote back.

loinburger · September 15, 2002, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by leftover_crack
This is stupid. The people are the states.

What are you talking about? My name isn't "Ohio"...

Quote:

Bzzzzzt... Wrong bro. Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes. Cali has 60. So tell me again how it isnt fair?

Every resident of Wyoming has nearly three times the electoral voice of every resident of California, that's why it isn't fair.

Ethelred · September 15, 2002, 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by leftover_crack
"The President represents the people not the states"

This is stupid. The people are the states.

Not if the people in one state have more political power PER PERSON than the people in another state.

Quote:

"Of course you don't. You like it when someone in Wyoming has more of a politcal voice than a Californian does. "

Bzzzzzt... Wrong bro. Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes. Cali has 60. So tell me again how it isnt fair?

Not wrong. You are AGAIN claiming the President should be elected by STATES instead of the People.

In the 2000 election, the one in discussion, California had 54 votes and Wyoming had three.

Population of California in 2000 33,871,648

Population of Wyoming in 2000 493,782

Electoral vote per person

California 1.59425369559815926287377573125465e-6

Wyoming 6.07555560956049430720439384181683e-6

Which give Wyoming voters about 3.75 times the voting power a Californian does.

In what way does 3.8 TIMES AS MUCH power per person make this a fair situation. It wrong.

6.07555560956049430720439384181683e-6

Quote:

I am demanding the president go through the midwest and talk up a storm of promises. And not just go to the nearest city and make all the promises. I know them' thar country folk may seem er Dumb and redneck to you. And that they thar seem uncivilized and aint deservin of attention. but they be humans thar too. And this is one of them thar demo-cracy that supposed to help them folk too.

heh..

You are demanding that the people of Wyoming continue to be 3.8 times more equal than Californians.

Quote:

"The President in any case must have Senators on his side. Even one Senator from Nebraska can make the difference. That is why tobbacco kept getting subsidized."

Oh riighhttt...

Gee even if by accident you got something right. Will wonders never cease? Did you think it was because of the Electoral College?

Quote:

"Its been a problem all along. Its broken and now everyone knows it including you but you like it broken."

No it isnt. The flaw in knee-jerk liberal thinking that insists its broke is wrong.

I see, so then by purely knee jerk thinking of yours I a moderate become a liberal because I use reason and you become magicaly unflawed by claiming that things are only right if they are broken.

What are you drinking and are you in a dry state?

Quote:

If you win the popular vote. 99.9% of the time you win the electoral college.

False. Its happened at least twice. It might be three times. Its broken and has been all along.

You might as well quit making up bogus numbers like 99.9 per cent.

Quote:

Its that simple. For the flukes and close calls...well thats a fluke.

Its happened more than once. Its not a fluke its built into the system.

Quote:

But it still doesnt in anyway make the system "broke".

It sure does. If it fails to give America the President that the plurality of voters wanted then its not Government by the People.

Quote:

Manual recounts and retarded voters would of still messed up a popular vote count. Like someone said earlier. A million ballots are thrownout every election. Its possible some of those million could of swayed the popular vote back.

Possible but that is just getting things as right as they can be. Nothing wrong with that except it will be a bit expensive. Better than having a President that actually had less votes.

Drake Tungsten · September 15, 2002, 22:02

Anyone who thinks that the Electoral College should be abolished is ignoring the federalist priniciples on which our government was founded.

Ethelred · September 15, 2002, 22:37

Is that from the Federalist Papers? The ones written partly by people involved in the Alien and Sedition Acts?

The US is a Nation. The President is supposed to represent the entire Nation not a bunch of states, a tiny portion of which may still have delusions of soveignty.

Drake Tungsten · September 15, 2002, 22:48

Quote:

The US is a Nation.

Actually, the US is a state. [/pedant mode off]

It is also a federal state, not a unitary one. As such, the president does represent the states and the states represent the people. That's the way the Founding Fathers set it up, at any rate. Federalism has been weakened greatly in the past and abolishing the Electoral College would be just another step on the road to a monolithic federal government. I don't think that is such a great idea, but I'm sure there are many here on this board who would disagree with me.

Jon Miller · September 15, 2002, 22:53

I see nothing wrong with the electoral college

it is just one more way that the president represents us as a nation in the whole

Jon Miller

Drake Tungsten · September 16, 2002, 01:28

I bring up the expansion of federal powers and David Floyd hasn't posted anything in response? What the hell is going on?

gorilonblanco · September 16, 2002, 01:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Ethelred
Is that from the Federalist Papers? The ones written partly by people involved in the Alien and Sedition Acts?

The US is a Nation. The President is supposed to represent the entire Nation not a bunch of states, a tiny portion of which may still have delusions of soveignty.

The states created the federal qovernment. Just as the states created the counties within its own borders.

Ned · September 16, 2002, 02:01

The electoral college has the peculiar effect of forcing the election to take place largely in so-called battleground states where the election is close. This forces the candidates to have moderate, centrist views in order to attempt to capture a majority in these states. Extremists simply cannot get elected because of our system.