Electoral college, should it be eliminated? Options

[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).