i'll still have to vote absentee when in college.

so, it's going to have to wait till i'm 22 for my vote to count worth anything.

Um, isn't the more popular candidate supposed to win?


When in college, you can re-register to vote in whichever district your college is located in.

Dont reply until you've read everything comrade red has said. There has yet to be an actual argument against his statement.

in a democracy the majority should win non-the-less.

Pfft, yeah it should be eliminated. It's completely useless. People have information at their fingertips nowadays, we don't need people voting on our behalf. The electoral is useless, and the popular vote should prevail.

it still wouldn't do anything, since it's going to be blue anyway.

the point is to make the vote actually do something. like the example i gave about indiana..sure, there's more red counties, but does that necessarily mean more republican people? (i'm sure there's more republicans in indiana than democrats, but it might not be that way in pennsylvania or ohio, for example.)

You're still mistaken if you think the Electoral College impedes on minorities.

It does nothing but help them, and it's been in working order for over 200 years. You can't just toss out a fool-proof system.

It gets updated almost every decade (with new votes and territories being added to protect more minorities), and it still serves its purpose.

You'd have to provide one substantially good reason to lose it for me, or anyone else who knows about its historical track record, to change my mind.

it only protects minorities interests if you segregate the minorities each into thier own state.

That would defeat the whole purpose.

There will always be a minority, and there's always disappointment in every election.

If only the Popular vote was factored into elections, what reason would a candidate have not to visit only New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago? Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington are all very important blue states, with 10, 7, and 11 electoral votes respectively.

If there was no Electoral College, the candidates would have no reason to visit a state that would otherwise potentially gives them an edge.

I'm not saying that the Electoral College is perfect when it comes to protecting the minority voice, but it beats the living hell out of the alternative.

It wouldn't affect the candidate's visiting schedules; I don't see your logic. People vote based on who they think is the best candidate. What does that have to do with where they live?

ehh. no it doesn't. because, you see, we live in an age of TV.

TVs don't even cover both sides in extreme red/blue areas. only contested areas. i saw 1 bush ad on TV for the election. coverage was limited.

i could care less where they campaign. where they televise and advertise, that should be everywhere. not just battleground states.

I didn't read any of the comments posted before this one, but I will post anyway.

I used to think that the American governmental system could do without the Electoral College, but I have recently come to realize that we need it in order to have fair elections.

In case there is an election that is too close to call (i.e: only by a few hundred or thousdand votes, like in the Election of 2000), we need to have the electoral system in order to avoid a messy political race.

I do believe that we should explore more options to the Electoral College, but what we have right now is the best we've got.

^ The electoral college is what caused the 2000 election mess. With the electoral college, it's not the people voting, it's a group of people voting on your behalf. They are under no obligation to vote for the candidate you picked. Since the electoral college isn't a guaranteed system, we need to abolish it so the people can pick a candidate they truly want.

Our democracy is not just about majority rules. The United States is a FREE country. We cherish FREEDOM. If one group is in control all the time it would end up not free. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Electoral college is under the same princable as checks and balances. The country was founded on freedom not corruption. Yes, that's where freedom leads with abuse, but with great power comes great responsibility. The one elected is duty bound to the entire nation. Not just NYC and LA. There are systems behind this that ensure our FREEDOM and allow democracy to thrive. The economy has to go down to come back up. To make money you must buy low and sell high. I'm using the economy as a metaphor. There must be sacrifices to win. No pain no gain. You have to spend money to make money. NOTHING in this world is ENTIRELY free. There are costs. We sacrifice a fundamental democratic belief to keep democracy alive.

i think it should be eliminated..it alters the votes a little..if you sorta get what i mean? ..i dunno..i hope i got my facts straight

wait wait wait...

how is appealing to LA and NYC going to win an election?

ok, you get some 50 million people, maybe. of the 270 million in the US?

plus, those cities are still politically divided...

what's the percentage of voter turn out? if you campaign and get 100 million votes and only 170 million actually voted you're going to win. LA and NYC usually vote liberal, unless im mistaken.

but, if everyone's vote counts, more people might vote.

as it stands, the candidates didn't try to win many states in the last election. ohio, florida, and i can't think of too many other places..

Keyword might and even then it wouldnt be a fair election. The candidates were on tv in every state.

not really in my state. my state was red territory. no point of campaigning here.

like i said, i saw 1 commercial for bush. and the telivized debates. and interpretations by news stations.

but, what i want, is to know my vote counted. it's too look at the TV, see the numbers, like BUSH: 2348508, KERRY: 2933984 and know i was one of those votes.

if i look at the screen and see "oh, my state went red" or " my state went blue", unless i'm in a battleground state, it didn't really matter if i voted.

There is a popular vote as well. Your vote does count for your state, majority rules. We're the united states not just america.

which doesn't count worth shit.

sorry

If it didnt, how did your state turn red?

ehh. i should have said showed up as red.
it's always been red. it's was like... 65% red.
ok; it's close to the 50% mark, but not close enough so that it counts.

one thing that's bad about the electoral colege is the potential for one candidate to wind 49% of the electoral votes by a landslide, and then the other win 51% of the electoral votes by 51%.

candidate one wins popular by 75%. candidate two wins electoral by 51%.

not very probable; but the possibility remains.

and; with the electoral college, a candidate doesn't hvae to be a president for the entire country. they can be a candidate for just over half the states.

like lincoln.

and we see how that turned out; civil war.