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.

[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.

[*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?

[*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).