Electoral college, should it be eliminated? Options

[sadolakced acid]

Should the electoral college be eliminated?

with it, a person could loose every state by 1 vote except california, and win california by a landslide and then loose the race.

with it, democrats in red states feel thier vote doesn't count, and republicans in blue states feel thier vote doesn't count.

if the electoral college were to be eliminated, then everyone's vote would count.

[pandamonium]

hmm thats a good thought .. there were a lot of people that voted this election. i think if everybody was heard precisely the election would be much better. so i think it would help if it was eliminated cause then everybody wouldnt have thought that bush cheated or anything (not that he did cheat). but like it would really clear somethings up.. then not as many people wouldnt question bush's re-election.. lol so probably it would help.

[*kryogenix*]

hmm thats a good thought .. there were a lot of people that voted this election. i think if everybody was heard precisely the election would be much better. so i think it would help if it was eliminated cause then everybody wouldnt have thought that bush cheated or anything (not that he did cheat). but like it would really clear somethings up.. then not as many people wouldnt question bush's re-election.. lol so probably it would help.

You realize Bush won a majority in both the electoral college AND the popular vote? So it wouldn't make a difference in this past election. Maybe it would have made a difference in election 2000, but not in this election.

[ComradeRed]

The point of the electoral vote is to protect the rights of minorities, which is something that is very important in a Constitutional Republic.

Without the electoral college, the only places a politician would campaign would be New York City and maybe Los Angeles. It ensures that a politician has to appeal to EVERYBODY, and not just to a specific group in order to get elected.

Example: In the late 1800s, it was VERY common for the Democrats to win the Popular Vote and the Republicans to win the Electoral Vote. Why? Because the Democrats would win 95% of hte vote in the South and 40% everywhere else. That helped preserve democracy, because the democrats had no little outside the minority South.

[*kryogenix*]

The point of the electoral vote is to protect the rights of minorities, which is something that is very important in a Constitutional Republic.

Without the electoral college, the only places a politician would campaign would be New York City and maybe Los Angeles. It ensures that a politician has to appeal to EVERYBODY, and not just to a specific group in order to get elected.

Example: In the late 1800s, it was VERY common for the Democrats to win the Popular Vote and the Republicans to win the Electoral Vote. Why? Because the Democrats would win 95% of hte vote in the South and 40% everywhere else. That helped preserve democracy, because the democrats had no little outside the minority South.

This was pre-name switch right?

[ComradeRed]

This was pre-name switch right?

What name switch?

There was never a name switch. The Republican Party was founded by John C. Fremont in 1856, and the Democratic Party has been founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1800. They are still the same parties they used to be.

Many of their bases have, but they never swtiched their names, nor many of their core ideals. Republicans have traditionally been the pro-big business party, and the Democrats were always the anti-big business party.

However, the distinction is, the Democrats used to be anti-big government AND anti-big business, while the Republicans used to be pro-big government AND pro-big business, but now the Democrats are pro-big government and the Republicans are against (at least in theory), which IMHO is kinda screwed up.

[sadolakced acid]

how would they campain only in big cities? they'd have to campaign everywhere.

for instance: in pure red states wthere are no kerry commercials. one bush commercial is all i've seen.

i had no idea what the issues were untill i looked them up.

pure red and pure blue states are basically ignored.

[sikdragon]

There wasnt a name switch but a support switch. The values changed. The democrats supported the small towns and values of their fathers. The republicans wanted change like abolition and other such things while having the support of big cities where all the "different" people congregated. The name switch was when republicans stopped moving forward and became conservative preserving the small towns and middle america.

[pandamonium]

You realize Bush won a majority in both the electoral college AND the popular vote? So it wouldn't make a difference in this past election. Maybe it would have made a difference in election 2000, but not in this election.

i was just saying... then more people woundnt talk trash about bush if they know how many people voted for him.... i dont care if he won.. he already won whats done is done the election is over.

[ComradeRed]

how would they campain only in big cities? they'd have to campaign everywhere.

for instance: in pure red states wthere are no kerry commercials. one bush commercial is all i've seen.

i had no idea what the issues were untill i looked them up.

pure red and pure blue states are basically ignored.

Without the electoral college, it would be a turnout game. If a candidate got every registered voter in New York City to vote for him, he would win the election without appleaing anywhere. There would be NO reason to run ads where there are few people, because it would become expensive.

[anger_is_my_frie...]

well i still think it's unfair for a republican voter to vote for the republican candidate in an obvious democratic state(like california or new york) cuz your vote doesn't really count like you think it would, but i think the electoral college has its reasons, but hey it can't please everyone

[*kryogenix*]

I wonder what minimum GPA you need to get into electoral college?

[gerundio]

Thank God for the electoral college.

Like the Daily Mirror said, how are 59,054,087 Americans so dumb? It still escapes my mind.

Anyway, there is an electoral college for the good of those 59,054,087 Americans. Unfortunately, the positives of having a representative democracy didn't help much this time.

[sadolakced acid]

do you know why the founding fathers created the electoral college?

because they though the average american was too dumb to choose thier own president... they may be right.

you voted for someone in your community who you could trust to make a good decision to go vote for your area at the electoral college.

but with the advent of politcal parties, pledged electors came about

and now look where it's got us? people don't even know the issues and they scream vote for ____.

[ComradeRed]

The electoral college was created to protect interests of all Americans and don't like a single candidate win just by winning big in one region.

[waccoon]

do you know why the founding fathers created the electoral college?

because they though the average american was too dumb to choose thier own president... they may be right.

you voted for someone in your community who you could trust to make a good decision to go vote for your area at the electoral college.

but with the advent of politcal parties, pledged electors came about

and now look where it's got us? people don't even know the issues and they scream vote for ____.

Electoral college was created to protect minorities.

Your logic here is flawed, because they only have to campaign in the big cities. Think about it - you're running for president, would you visit a small town in Alabama or campaign in New York, where millions of people are?

[sadolakced acid]

APUSH, people.

the electoral college was created because the founding fathers thought the average voting american was too stupid to pick thier president directly.

that's the truth.

[ComradeRed]

So why, then, did they proportionally give MORE votes to people from smaller states such as fronteir states, who were MORE likely to be stupid? If they only wanted smart people to vote, it seems that they would have given all the electoral votes to New England, Virginia, and the Mid-Atlantic, wouldn't it?

[sadolakced acid]

because they didn't think it out clearly.

it still remains, the original reason for it's creation was that the founding fathers though the average american was too stupid to vote directly for thier president so they made it you choose someone to vote for you.

[gerundio]

it still remains, the original reason for it's creation was that the founding fathers though the average american was too stupid to vote directly for thier president so they made it you choose someone to vote for you.

Very true. Also the main reason behind limiting freedoms and having a representative democracy instead of a true democracy.

[picaso_smile]

If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

[ComradeRed]

Very true. Also the main reason behind limiting freedoms and having a representative democracy instead of a true democracy.

Freedom cannot exist in a true democracy.

A true democracy would have no safeguards for minority rights. Without self-restricting laws, a true democracy would turn into two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Kriegsgefangene]

Man.. our 'Democracy' rocks my socks.

WE TRUE DEMOCRACY THROUGH AND THROUGH, BABEH! We need to go out east and show them what VOTING IS FOR!

[Kriegsgefangene]

APUSH, people.

the electoral college was created because the founding fathers thought the average voting american was too stupid to pick thier president directly.

that's the truth.

Well, isn't it true, as well?

[Sumiaki]

Electoral college is fine. It gives all states equal representation. If we had a popular vote then the only states that would matter is New York, California, and Florida.

[aznxdreamer]

yes. i dont see the point of electoral colleges. they see we have the freedom to express our own opinions? i dont see the freedom of expressing here when our vote doesnt even count!

[luvnspecialsaus]

I say yes.
The electoral college was originally created before there was TV and huge, nationwide campaigning. It was so stupid, uninformed America wouldn't make a mistake. It should absolutely be eliminated because of the technology, nationally broadcast debates, and the general political knowledge people have. The majority of our presidents have gotten the lesser popular vote, but win because of the electoral college.
it's silly and outdated and needs to go!
aaaaaaaaaaaaand I'm done.

[*mipadi*]

The majority of our presidents have gotten the lesser popular vote, but win because of the electoral college.

That's not entirely true. As far as I know, it has only happened twice--once in the late 1800's, and once in 2000. It may have happened a handful of other times, but not in the majority of cases.

Having said that, the issue of the electoral college is a sticky one. In some ways, I feel it's time for it to go. As has been pointed out, the electoral college is a throwback to the days when candidates simply could not campaign all over the US; thus most people were uninformed, so they elected proxies who they trusted to make an informed decision. Of course, political parties now have pledged electors, and with the advent of TV and the Internet, it's easy for a candidate to get his message out anywhere in the US.

The issue comes up that candidates may only campaign in major metropolitan areas, such as NYC or LA, and some might say that's not fair; then again, it's also not fair, in my mind, that a lot of people in the south can throw an election, too (such as happened in 2000).

[sadolakced acid]

That's not entirely true. As far as I know, it has only happened twice--once in the late 1800's, and once in 2000. It may have happened a handful of other times, but not in the majority of cases.

Having said that, the issue of the electoral college is a sticky one. In some ways, I feel it's time for it to go. As has been pointed out, the electoral college is a throwback to the days when candidates simply could not campaign all over the US; thus most people were uninformed, so they elected proxies who they trusted to make an informed decision. Of course, political parties now have pledged electors, and with the advent of TV and the Internet, it's easy for a candidate to get his message out anywhere in the US.

The issue comes up that candidates may only campaign in major metropolitan areas, such as NYC or LA, and some might say that's not fair; then again, it's also not fair, in my mind, that a lot of people in the south can throw an election, too (such as happened in 2000).

actuallly it's happened like... 4 or 5 times or so. 1800s presidents; doesn't really make a difference tho.



the main problem with the electoral college is it makes for a president that only appeals to certain sections of the country.

[*mipadi*]

actuallly it's happened like...  4 or 5 times or so.  1800s presidents; doesn't really make a difference tho. 
the main problem with the electoral college is it makes for a president that only appeals to certain sections of the country.

It occurred 4 times: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

[sammi rules you]

i do think the electoral college should be eliminated. as in the case of indiana - there's some counties with a lot of people who tend to lean democratic, and a lot of counties with little amounts of people but who tend to lean republican. indiana is counted as republican because of these little counties, even though the democratic counties have more people. this way indiana is counted as republican votes even though a large chunk of indiana is democratic.

i don't think that's fair..and that's because of the electoral college. if it was based on popular votes, the democratics in indiana would have their vote actually count. this way, it doesn't even matter if you vote if you're democratic in indiana. it's going to turn out republican no matter what.

[sadolakced acid]

i have only spent 3 days of my life in a blue state.

my vote will never count.

which is what i feel. you know. even if i do live in a small island of blue in a sea of red...
(my county has blue leanings... it's about 50/50)

[*mipadi*]

i have only spent 3 days of my life in a blue state.

It must've been the best three days of your life.

[sammi rules you]

i feel your pain justin!
i spent years 0-6 of my life in a blue state, but it's not like i cared then...

[simx]

Electoral college is fine. It gives all states equal representation. If we had a popular vote then the only states that would matter is New York, California, and Florida.

yea... the Electoral College is there for a reason... it's only failed the US a few times.. out of the 50+ elections we've had.... It's fine

[sammi rules you]

^ but what is the real benefit of it? it doesn't really serve much purpose anymore.

[sadolakced acid]

the point of the electoral college is the founding fathers didn't think the average american was smart enough. so they've vote for who they thought was the smartest and most responsible, and this was their elector to the electoral college.

at the electoral college, all the smartest people in the country would vote for who they thought was the smartest, and the smartest person would be president.


therefore; the electoral college is not being used correctly, and thus is pointless.

[*mipadi*]

It's not so much that they weren't smart enough; rather, the Founding Fathers felt that most candidates would not be able to reach each and every voter, and therefore, the average American would not be informed enough to make a good decision. The point remains, though, that today, it's easy for a candidate to reach each and every voter, so the original intent of the electoral college is voided.

[*mona lisa*]

It's not very representative. A state like New York would allow the same or similar number of votes a much lower populated state. The votes should be more well distributed. It also does not include the popular votes.

[*CrackedRearView*]

^ but what is the real benefit of it? it doesn't really serve much purpose anymore.

Oh, contraire. It serves a very useful purpose.

1) If you look at the way the 538 electoral votes are split up, California leads the pack with 55 electoral votes, and states like North Dakota and Wyoming bring up the rear with just three.

That gives you a 3:55 ratio, which equates to ND having 5% of the Electoral influence that CA has.

When it comes to population, CA was estimated at 35,484,453 in 2003, whereas ND weighed in at only 633,837, which isn't even half the size of over a dozen of California's cities.

Now, if only the popular vote was factored into an election, North Dakota's influence would be just 1.7% of California's.

When you look at it this way, I'd say that the Electoral College gives states like North Dakota and Wyoming a much louder voice come election time.

2) It serves as the voice of the people. Only in two states (Nebraska and Maine, Nebraska: 5 electoral votes, Maine: 4 electoral votes) can the Electors split their votes. Hence, in 49 of the 51 U.S. territories, the people are represented exactly how they vote. The Electors are:

a) More qualified in making a leadership decision.
b) Elected by you.
c) Voting according to how you vote.

When you look at how these two scenarios factor into an election, it should be obvious that the Electoral College still holds valuable influence in choosing the commander-in-chief.

[sadolakced acid]

Oh, contraire.  It serves a very useful purpose.

1) If you look at the way the 538 electoral votes are split up, California leads the pack with 55 electoral votes, and states like North Dakota and Wyoming bring up the rear with just three.

That gives you a 3:55 ratio, which equates to ND having 5% of the Electoral influence that CA has.

When it comes to population, CA was estimated at 35,484,453 in 2003, whereas ND weighed in at only 633,837, which isn't even half the size of over a dozen of California's cities.

Now, if only the popular vote was factored into an election, North Dakota's influence would be just 1.7% of California's.

When you look at it this way, I'd say that the Electoral College gives states like North Dakota and Wyoming a much louder voice come election time.

2) It serves as the voice of the people.  Only in two states (Nebraska and Maine, Nebraska: 5 electoral votes, Maine: 4 electoral votes) can the Electors split their votes.  Hence, in 49 of the 51 U.S. territories, the people are represented exactly how they vote.  The Electors are:

a) More qualified in making a leadership decision.
b) Elected by you.
c) Voting according to how you vote.

When you look at how these two scenarios factor into an election, it should be obvious that the Electoral College still holds valuable influence in choosing the commander-in-chief.

ehh.

it gives these states an unfair advantage. a vote in DC counts more than a vote in california.

shouldn't a vote be a vote?

[*CrackedRearView*]

ehh.

it gives these states an unfair advantage.  a vote in DC counts more than a vote in california. 

shouldn't a vote be a vote?

How does it give these states an unfair advantage?

DC's influence Electorally is 5% of California's.

Isn't it the very same people claiming that the Electoral College sucks that are ranting about the 'little guy's' voice not being heard?

Tell me how you please that kind of person...

[lbjshaq2345]

i dont rly care bout politics

[*mipadi*]

a) More qualified in making a leadership decision.
b) Elected by you.
c) Voting according to how you vote.

How do you figure they're more qualified? First of all, anyone can be equally informed about politics today; it's not like in the 18th and 19th centuries, when many people didn't even know their candidates. Secondly, with pledged electors, electors generally vote for their party's candidate, not necessarily who they feel is the best candidate.

[*CrackedRearView*]

How do you figure they're more qualified? First of all, anyone can be equally informed about politics today; it's not like in the 18th and 19th centuries, when many people didn't even know their candidates. Secondly, with pledged electors, electors generally vote for their party's candidate, not necessarily who they feel is the best candidate.

Get real.

At least 75% of the people who vote these days haven't a clue about politics, especially about how influential one decision can be on the outcome of something years down the road.

On the contrary, if you can find one unqualified Elector (and believe me, there are stringent prerequisites that come along with the title), I will retract my subpoint a).

Oh, and by the way, your second statement is untrue. A Republican Elector in California would have been essentially forced to elect Kerry. Why?

The Electoral College makes it so that the Elector votes according to his state.

If anything, the College eliminates fraud such as the instance you pointed out. It doesn't foster it.

[*mipadi*]

Oh, and by the way, your second statement is untrue.  A Republican Elector in California would have been essentially forced to elect Kerry.  Why?

The Electoral College makes it so that the Elector votes according to his state.

If anything, the College eliminates fraud such as the instance you pointed out.  It doesn't foster it.

Do you honestly think the Democratic candidate will pick Republic electors to represent him in a state (or vice-versa)?

Secondly, the Electoral College does not force anything. I can vote for one of Kerry's electors, and he can in turn vote for Bush instead. It has happened before. Electors can also choose not to vote, as one elector did in 2000 (she was from Washington, D.C.).

I'm not sure you understand how the Electoral College works. When you vote, you vote not for a candidate, but for electors who have been sponsored by that candidate's party and have pledged to vote for him. When the candidate carries a state, all his electors go to the College to cast their votes. However, they are in no way obligated to vote for whom they pledged to vote. They usually do, because they are generally some of the most loyal members of the party, but there is no law saying they have to vote how they said they would.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Okay excuse me, I guess I forgot to mention the .00001% of instances.

You and I both know that the Electors from each state usually, 99% of the time vote according to how the people in their state vote.

Next time I'll mention the percentage that doesn't matter.

EDIT//

Which is exactly the point of swing states...

Electoral votes aren't casted until the Electors are sure of the general populus' decision.

[sadolakced acid]

How does it give these states an unfair advantage?

DC's influence Electorally is 5% of California's.

Isn't it the very same people claiming that the Electoral College sucks that are ranting about the 'little guy's' voice not being heard?

Tell me how you please that kind of person...

ehh.

i'm complaining about my vote not counting becasue i'm in a red state.

i don't care about the little guy's voice, if the litte guy is a state. if the little guy is a person, they should get an equal vote.

that being said; my vote counts for nothing.

[TaintedDesires]

Without the electoral college, whoever is more popular would win and the canidates won't spend time campaning in some cities.

[*CrackedRearView*]

ehh. 

i'm complaining about my vote not counting becasue i'm in a red state.

i don't care about the little guy's voice, if the litte guy is a state.  if the little guy is a person, they should get an equal vote.

that being said; my vote counts for nothing.

1) If that's the way you want to look at it, I feel sorry for you.
2) When you're 18, by all means, move to a blue state.

[sadolakced acid]

1) If that's the way you want to look at it, I feel sorry for you.
2) When you're 18, by all means, move to a blue state.

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.

[*mipadi*]

Without the electoral college, whoever is more popular would win and the canidates won't spend time campaning in some cities.

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

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.

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

[sikdragon]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[*not_your_average*]

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.

[sammi rules you]

1) If that's the way you want to look at it, I feel sorry for you.
2) When you're 18, by all means, move to a blue state.

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.)

[*CrackedRearView*]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[*CrackedRearView*]

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.

[*not_your_average*]

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?

[sadolakced acid]

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.

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.

[darinmoore]

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.

[*not_your_average*]

^ 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.

[sikdragon]

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.

[tofuburger]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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...

[sikdragon]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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..

[sikdragon]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[sikdragon]

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

[sadolakced acid]

which doesn't count worth shit.

[sikdragon]

sorry

[sikdragon]

If it didnt, how did your state turn red?

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[sikdragon]

more than half is majority, you just contradicted yourself.

[sadolakced acid]

^ what?

(i'm not sure what you're refering to)

[*CrackedRearView*]

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.

Wait, so let me get this straight.

Unless your party wins, your vote is worthless?

Just because you lost you're losing the will to vote?

That's a principle someone should have taught you a very long time ago.

People lose.

[sadolakced acid]

if my party wins, my vote doesn't matter either.

i can vote all i want- it's not going to make a difference. the only places it would make a difference are battleground states.

[sammi rules you]

exactly, if i voted republican in california or something, it wouldn't matter.

[darinmoore]

^ 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.

It may have been a part of the cause of the 2000 Election mess, but who is to say that the government has to be clean? It may have been a controversy, but every step that was taken (electoral votes vs. popular votes; Supreme Court decision) was all written down in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.

Look at it this way, if the Electoral College were abolished and we went by the popular vote, all that the candidates would need to win is the popular votes in such populous states as Texas, California, and New York. Therefore, the smaller states would have no say in the matter. That is the reason the Electoral College exists.

I wish we didn't have it either, but it's the best we've got until some ingenious politician thinks of another way.

[sikdragon]

Your vote doesnt matter because you're the minority in those states. You just said majority should rule and it does.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Even so, you cannot argue that the Electoral College doesn't give states like Wyoming and Maine a deserved leg up when it comes to standing next to California election-wise.

There's no question.

[sammi rules you]

Look at it this way, if the Electoral College were abolished and we went by the popular vote, all that the candidates would need to win is the popular votes in such populous states as Texas, California, and New York. Therefore, the smaller states would have no say in the matter. That is the reason the Electoral College exists.

no..that's not true.

popular vote doesn't go by states. if they only go to those states and those in the other states vote without knowing, they may sway the whole vote. if there was no electoral college, the cantidates would have to appeal to EVERYONE and not just states whose electoral votes could go either way.

[sadolakced acid]

Even so, you cannot argue that the Electoral College doesn't give states like Wyoming and Maine a deserved leg up when it comes to standing next to California election-wise.

There's no question.

....why exactly do states like wyoming and maine deserve a leg up?

i'd like to think that a vote in DC is worth the same as a vote in california. that's kinda what democracy's about, right? everyone has one vote?

[*CrackedRearView*]

....why exactly do states like wyoming and maine deserve a leg up?

i'd like to think that a vote in DC is worth the same as a vote in california.  that's kinda what democracy's about, right?  everyone has one vote?

Exactly, DC votes are most certainly as important as California votes. You complain about the lack of attention your state receives politically now, imagine the kind of neglection you'd get if the popular vote won you the presidency.

Los Angeles, New York, Dallas, Chicago, Cleveland.

That's it.

[sadolakced acid]

i seriously doubt it that each candidate would only campaign there.

anyways, i could care less where they campaign.

i want my vote to count.

[*CrackedRearView*]

So you think the Popular vote is worthless? Because your vote adds to a 50,000,000+ number that contributes to:

1) How the Electoral results pan out
2) Several protests if instances like the 2000 election occur

It's worthless?

[mocassinsx29]

^ People protested yeah, but what happened in effect of the protesting? He got elected again in 2004. Big victory.

Anywayyy, I totally agree, get rid of the electoral college. My class had a debate on this one. >_o Even though electorals are supposedly more acknowledged about politics then us, then why do we even bother voting? Because it helps the electorals choose? Please.

I think there was a need for electoral colleges in early America since it was very difficult to inform the public about the candidates [sp] through flyers and posters and newspapers since many couldn't read, but now everyone can read [practically] so...

[*CrackedRearView*]

^ People protested yeah, but what happened in effect of the protesting? He got elected again in 2004. Big victory.

Anywayyy, I totally agree, get rid of the electoral college. My class had a debate on this one. >_o Even though electorals are supposedly more acknowledged about politics then us, then why do we even bother voting? Because it helps the electorals choose? Please.

I think there was a need for electoral colleges in early America since it was very difficult to inform the public about the candidates [sp] through flyers and posters and newspapers since many couldn't read, but now everyone can read [practically] so... 

And?

It sounds to me like all the people in this thread need is just a good lesson on how to lose with dignity.

[sadolakced acid]

And?

It sounds to me like all the people in this thread need is just a good lesson on how to lose with dignity.

get over yourself. so the republicans won the last two elections by close margins. that doesn't mean any liberal's talking about the election process is an attack on the election's legitamacy.

i'm complaining about three things with the electoral college:

1. a vote in DC counts more than a vote in california. because of the two senators thing. a vote in DC is worth some fraction of an electoral vote, but a vote in california is worth a smaller fraction of a electoral vote.

2. the elctoral college system allows of the senario where can. one wins 49% of the electoral votes by 100%, and can. two wins 51% of the electoral votes by 51%, meaning that the candidate that won got 51% of the electoral vote, but only 26% of the popular.

the elctoral college system allows for a president that 3/4th of america didn't vote for (but still voted)

3. the electoral college system isn't needed today, because of television. candidates can reach everyone. so everyone can be informed when they go to vote.

[sikdragon]

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS IMPORTANT

By Bob Ward

Editor of the Texas Journal

After every presidential election there is a cry to abolish the electoral college, and it will no doubt be louder and shriller after this one. We may be confronted with the reality, not just the "theoretical possibility" of a president who lost the popular vote and attained the office through the electoral college.

Should that occur, it will be the fourth time in our history and four times out of 52 elections is not bad. And none of them brought down the republic. It is certainly no basis for scrapping a system that has very important benefits.

In fact, it is being generous to critics of the electoral college to concede it has already happened three times. In reality it has only happened once. The first time a candidate became president without winning the popular vote was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson. But Adams lost the electoral college

vote as well. Because no candidate had an electoral college majority in that four man race, the decision was bucked to the U.S. House of Representatives which chose Adams. It was the House that put Adams into office, not the electoral college system which reflected the popular vote, as it usually does.

It supposedly happened again in 1876 when Rutherford B. Hayes became president after losing the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden. But the consensus among historians is that the electoral votes were stolen. In Oregon, for example, the governor violated state law by disqualifying an elector and certifying one he chose himself.

The only real case of a discrepancy between the electoral and popular counts came in 1888 when Grover Cleveland lost his bid for re-election. During his first term, Cleveland managed to anger virtually every part of the country except the South. He alienated the Northeast by attempting to reduce tariffs. He angered Union Civil War veterans by vetoing their pensions and ordering the return of captured Confederate battle flags to the Southern states. He angered the West by vetoing legislation that would have furnished seed grain to Texas counties hit by drought.

Cleveland, despite his popular vote victory, carried only 18 states, all but two of them southern or border states. As a result, he lost the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison. On that occasion, the electoral college saved the nation from being governed by a president with significant support in only one region.

In the current election, for example, we see Al Gore's support confined to the Northeast, Upper Midwest and the West Coast. By contrast, George W. Bush had the backing of the vast expanse of middle America including the plains states, the South and the Mountain West. Without the electoral college, these areas would have virtually no role in electing the President compared to the population heavyweights in the industrial Midwest and along the coasts.

Like the U.S. Senate, which has two members from each state regardless of population, the electoral college makes sure the big states don't eat the little states by guaranteeing each state at least three votes.

Because the Constitution requires an absolute majority of the electoral college, and not just a plurality, to be elected, we have never had a candidate decisively rejected by the American people who nevertheless slithers into office via the electoral college. Ordinarily, the electoral vote amplifies the popular vote.

One improvement might be to make the popular vote in each state binding on the electors or even to eliminate the electors completely and simply put the state's electoral total in the winner's column without the need for unfamiliar persons to cast that vote.

Because the electoral college preserves a lot of important interests including, the political identity of the states, it would be a serious mistake to abolish it just because it thwarts the legacy of Bill Clinton.

[sammi rules you]

*sigh* i hate breaking down posts..

In the current election, for example, we see Al Gore's support confined to the Northeast, Upper Midwest and the West Coast. By contrast, George W. Bush had the backing of the vast expanse of middle America including the plains states, the South and the Mountain West. Without the electoral college, these areas would have virtually no role in electing the President compared to the population heavyweights in the industrial Midwest and along the coasts.

yes, he had a large amount of LAND backing him, but does that really include more individual voters?

Like the U.S. Senate, which has two members from each state regardless of population, the electoral college makes sure the big states don't eat the little states by guaranteeing each state at least three votes.

if it was popular vote, it wouldn't matter. each individual person would get a say instead of the majority of the people in that state.

One improvement might be to make the popular vote in each state binding on the electors or even to eliminate the electors completely and simply put the state's electoral total in the winner's column without the need for unfamiliar persons to cast that vote.

that might be a slight improvement to some, but that's not the problem in me and justie's case. (i'll call justin jr. justie to avoid confusion.)

Because the electoral college preserves a lot of important interests including, the political identity of the states, it would be a serious mistake to abolish it just because it thwarts the legacy of Bill Clinton.

that's not at all why i think it would be a good idea to remove it. bill clinton was president when i was still a little youngin. i wasn't at all in involved with politics then, so i don't quite care much about it thwarting bill clinton's legacy.

[*CrackedRearView*]

get over yourself.  so the republicans won the last two elections by close margins.  that doesn't mean any liberal's talking about the election process is an attack on the election's legitamacy. 

1.  a vote in DC counts more than a vote in california.  because of the two senators thing.  a vote in DC is worth some fraction of an electoral vote, but a vote in california is worth a smaller fraction of a electoral vote. 

2.  the elctoral college system allows of the senario where can.  one wins 49% of the electoral votes by 100%, and can. two wins 51% of the electoral votes by 51%,  meaning that the candidate that won got 51% of the electoral vote, but only 26% of the popular. 

the elctoral college system allows for a president that 3/4th of america didn't vote for (but still voted)

3.  the electoral college system isn't needed today, because of television.  candidates can reach everyone.  so everyone can be informed when they go to vote.

1) I don't need to get over myself. It's quite clear to me that a good majority of the liberal population is pissed that Bush got re-elected. Don't try to argue that, you'll make yourself look stupid.

2) 1. a vote in DC counts more than a vote in california. because of the two senators thing. a vote in DC is worth some fraction of an electoral vote, but a vote in california is worth a smaller fraction of a electoral vote.

But the people of California aren't complaining. Look at the numbers! California holds 10.2% of the decision for president, whereas the people in D.C. claim barely half of 1% of the decision.

You're not looking at the situation in a big enough light. When you break it down, Californians should be thrilled to know that even with a system implemented that tries to dampen such a polar influence, they hold 10% of the marbles.

3) the elctoral college system allows of the senario where can. one wins 49% of the electoral votes by 100%, and can. two wins 51% of the electoral votes by 51%, meaning that the candidate that won got 51% of the electoral vote, but only 26% of the popular.

the elctoral college system allows for a president that 3/4th of america didn't vote for (but still voted)

Well, if you want to look at it in terms of mathematics, bring me the mathematical probability of that ever happening.

As well, show me the probability of that president having any political capital.

4) the electoral college system isn't needed today, because of television. candidates can reach everyone. so everyone can be informed when they go to vote.

a) Does that mean they will? Of course not. If you live in a backwoods state and are already complaining about seeing one campaign ad, think of the neglect you'll get when only LA, NY, CHI, DAL, ATL, HOU, BOS, and a few other big cities are all the candidates are gunning for.

b) We want to start basing our votes on television? Oh wait, half of the uninformed American public already does that! Silly me! I must've forgot that television nowadays is so unbiased that you could base your vote entirely upon it.

How could I be such a fool?

[sadolakced acid]

just becasue liberals are pissed bush got elected doesn't mean everything liberals do is because we're pissed.

think; maybe blocking bush's judicial nominations are just because they're bad? oh, so the conservative christian judge who favors christians and is more than slightly racist is a good choice for a judge?

and you forgot one thing when you talk about states being thrilled. states are entirely blue or red. sectionalism is at a minimum. there is little state loyalty these days.

no, we are the united states of america. singular. i'd say most everyone's loyalty is to the US first, and if they even have a loyalty to thier state, it's after that.

if each state were one entity with one idea and always agreed on which candidate to vote for; then yes, the electoral college works.

but it doesn't work that way.

you're emphasising state's rights here. the state is more imporant than the individual. it doesn't matter that the individual vote counts shit, the state's vote counts something, so it must be good.

[*CrackedRearView*]

just becasue liberals are pissed bush got elected doesn't mean everything liberals do is because we're pissed.

think; maybe blocking bush's judicial nominations are just because they're bad?  oh, so the conservative christian judge who favors christians and is more than slightly racist is a good choice for a judge? 

and you forgot one thing when you talk about states being thrilled.  states are entirely blue or red.  sectionalism is at a minimum.  there is little state loyalty these days. 

no, we are the united states of america.  singular.  i'd say most everyone's loyalty is to the US first, and if they even have a loyalty to thier state, it's after that. 

if each state were one entity with one idea and always agreed on which candidate to vote for; then yes, the electoral college works. 

but it doesn't work that way.

you're emphasising state's rights here. the state is more imporant than the individual.  it doesn't matter that the individual vote counts shit, the state's vote counts something, so it must be good.

Even still, it dampens several things including over-influence and voter fraud. One that I never mentioned is quite important, too.

It saved our ass, for lack of better terminology, in 2000. When you look at the election results, the popular vote played out to give Gore a win by less than one half of one percent. Even with the Electoral College, Gore relentlessly pushed for recounts in Florida.

Imagine no Electoral College. If a national plurality were allowed to choose the president, and the election were as close as it was in 2000, Bush and Gore would have both realized that either of them could demand recounts and mount challenges against ballots in every precinct, in every county, in every state of the Union with the real hope of finding enough votes that the election could have been overturned.

Be real. our courts would have been flooded with complaints of voter fraud, malpractice, and general chaotic claims of votes being miscounted. Without the Electoral College, you essentially have a national nightmare that would turn over our elections to lawyers and judges without a firewall.

[sadolakced acid]

Even still, it dampens several things including over-influence and voter fraud.  One that I never mentioned is quite important, too.

It saved our ass, for lack of better terminology, in 2000.  When you look at the election results, the popular vote played out to give Gore a win by less than one half of one percent.  Even with the Electoral College, Gore relentlessly pushed for recounts in Florida.

Imagine no Electoral College.  If a national plurality were allowed to choose the president, and the election were as close as it was in 2000, Bush and Gore would have both realized that either of them could demand recounts and mount challenges against ballots in every precinct, in every county, in every state of the Union with the real hope of finding enough votes that the election could have been overturned.

Be real.  our courts would have been flooded with complaints of voter fraud, malpractice, and general chaotic claims of votes being miscounted.  Without the Electoral College, you essentially have a national nightmare that would turn over our elections to lawyers and judges without a firewall.

damn. i was hoping you wouldn't bring that up.

so keep the electoral college.
but; can't electoral votes be based only on the house of representatives?

that way, each person has roughly the same influence.

[*CrackedRearView*]

That would take some serious amending, none of which I would know anything about.

Possible, however.

[*mipadi*]

a) Does that mean they will? Of course not.  If you live in a backwoods state and are already complaining about seeing one campaign ad, think of the neglect you'll get when only LA, NY, CHI, DAL, ATL, HOU, BOS, and a few other big cities are all the candidates are gunning for.

In the end, though, candidates do spend all their time in certain states, with or without the electoral college. Look at 2004: both candidates spent a lot of time in states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, because the votes were very, very close. Even big states like California got relatively little attention compared to the battleground states.

[*CrackedRearView*]

In the end, though, candidates do spend all their time in certain states, with or without the electoral college. Look at 2004: both candidates spent a lot of time in states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, because the votes were very, very close. Even big states like California got relatively little attention compared to the battleground states.

However, I've been saying all along how the Electoral College serves to dampen such campaigning techniques.

I lived in Kansas in 2004, a dominantly red state, and there were several visits by both parties if not in Wichita, KS, in Kansas City, MO (which was five minutes from me).