Please don't make this a discussion on who won or lost the election in 2000. Gore lost Bush is president, let's look to the future.

The electorial college is a waste of time, it was set up by early government because they felt the masses were too stupid to make such an important decision like picking a president. (Remember the senate was elected by the House up until the late 1800's) IT isn't representitive of the vote. If I live in a state that goes to Gore, and I voted Bush, my vote is lost, it doesn't count, just throw it in the garbage. At least under a popular vote every vote is counted.

The idea that the candidates wouldn't campaign in every state if the electorial college is eliminated is a bunch of bollocks, only one candidate campaigned in every state in 2000 and that was Nader.

I suggest an alternative. Instant runoff voting, where people can vote their hearts instead of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Here is how it would work.

Say there are 4 candidates
1.Democrat
2.Republican
3.Libertarian
4.Green

You would vote your preference, if the first person doesn't get a majority the one with the lowest votes is pulled from the list and the whole thing is recounted. This process is continued until a candidate is receives the majority of votes 50% +1. I know a few people who wanted to vote differently in the 2000 elections but were concerned their vote would throw the election. You eliminate that fear and people can make a more honest decision without intimidation.

Learn more here http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html

The point of any election is to get the people to participate. Only around 50% of registered voters bothered to vote in the last presidential election. That means less then a 1/4 of the population picked our president. And this is not the first year, voter participation has been declining for decades.

Democracy only works with the participation by the majority not by the few.

I think the current set up is fine. its true that states with harldy any people would be overlooked and cadidates would spend all theri time in CA and NY. I live in CA which goes to the dems almost every time, but I still vote. thats just life. getting rid of the electoral college isnt going to make a bunch of people start voting. most people who dont vote dont know about it anyway, and the ones who claim to not vote because of the elecoral college would find some problem with the new system that would make them not vote. its a way for them to feel important and ut upon at the same time.

I personally would like to see a general election without the electorial college.

Originally posted by Travh20
getting rid of the electoral college isnt going to make a bunch of people start voting.

I agree, which is why I suggest instant run off voting.

Check it out.

You'll never see a popular vote system as long as republicans controll congress. Going to a popular vote would almost guarantee Hillary the presidency -- the one single thing republicans fear most in the entire world.

Dop

for once dop is right. hildabeast is frightening

The Electoral College is horrible.

My main reason why, is because if Kerry were to get 49% of Oregon, and Bush were to get 51%, Bush would get all of the points Oregon has. Even though, almost HALF voted for Kerry, Bush gets all of Oregon, even though it was divided almost equally. So really, this is just unfair and unjust.

I mean, if I get 10 votes
And you get 8

Who should win?

Ummm, me! ;)

I bet if kerry got 51% and Bush 48% you wouldnt be complaining. are we supposed to have one guy be in charge 51% of the time and the other guy the other 49% of the time? someones got to win. this hatred of competition is really getting out of control in this country.

Originally posted by Travh20
I bet if kerry got 51% and Bush 48% you wouldnt be complaining
Refute the argument, Trav, and quit with the Circumstantial Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html) fallacies.

its true, if kerry won with 51 % this dude wouldnt say a thing. circumstantial ad hominum :rolleyes: crazy kids

Originally posted by Travh20
I bet if kerry got 51% and Bush 48% you wouldnt be complaining. are we supposed to have one guy be in charge 51% of the time and the other guy the other 49% of the time? someones got to win. this hatred of competition is really getting out of control in this country.

Yes, someone has to win. But it would be more “fair”, if everyone got all the votes they earned. To rid almost half of the states votes, and give them to the other competitor is wrong. It’s almost cheating their way in winning the election. If Kerry got California by 51% and Bush got 49%, Kerry would get ALL of California’s points. WHICH would impact the election major-ly. But yet, Bush almost got half, making it unfair that Kerry get ALL of California’s points, when he was almost tied with Kerry.

Originally posted by Travh20
its true, if kerry won with 51 % this dude wouldnt say a thing. circumstantial ad hominum :rolleyes: crazy kids
That's completely irrelevant to the argument. REFUTE HIS ARGUMENT or concede you can't and go home.

Originally posted by Travh20
its true, if kerry won with 51 % this dude wouldnt say a thing. circumstantial ad hominum :rolleyes: crazy kids

If Kerry won by 51% I would still think Bush would deserve the 49% of votes. I respect everyone who votes, even if I disagree with them. You MAKE huge assumptions.

I'd just laugh if Kerry won by 51% and watch and see you guys go, "GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!"
:hitout:

I dont want to get rid of the electoral college. if bush lost by a few electoral votes, so be it. thats life. I certainly would piss an d moan about losing for the next 4 years like you. liberals need to grow up and accept life, not act like spoiled childern and cry until they get what they want.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
That's completely irrelevant to the argument. REFUTE HIS ARGUMENT or concede you can't and go home.

what exacty is his argument? that he believes the electoral college is wrong? if theres one thing you should know after all this time on this board is that you cant change these peoples minds about hardly anything. I gave my opinion, its no better or worse then his. get off your high horse borg, there was no ARGUMENT to refute.

Originally posted by Travh20
I dont want to get rid of the electoral college. if bush lost by a few electoral votes, so be it. thats life. I certainly would piss an d moan about losing for the next 4 years like you. liberals need to grow up and accept life, not act like spoiled childern and cry until they get what they want.

But we are spoiled? Making accusations again, Trav? You just don’t have anything to say against my argument, so you make it seem like I’m the bad one. Stop spinning things. The Electoral College just isn’t fair…,as I’ve shown.

The electoral college has to eventually be dissolved based on demographics alone or someday we will be facing the possibility of a candidate taking the white house by wining only CA, TX and let's say ... FL.

CA by itself will someday be 150 million people and represent 1/3rd of the total EC. Think that's far fetched? Do the math or look at demographic history -- whichever is easiest.
Dop

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
But we are spoiled? Making accusations again, Trav? You just don’t have anything to say against my argument, so you make it seem like I’m the bad one. Stop spinning things. The Electoral College just isn’t fair…,as I’ve shown.

Fair? fair to who? to your candidate? you made no argument except to say that if your candidate got less votes he shouldnt have to lose. thats how it works. I dont remember any of this electoral college talk before the 2000 election. its selfishness to want to change it just to give your guy a better chance at winning. you have no argument, only emotions that it isnt "fair" . screw that. Like I said, if your guy wins becasue of it you wont be bitching about it.

Trav, with the Electoral College in place, we are not electing the President; rather, the electors are. I think the people should choose the President. You say it would make the smaller states unimportant...well I got news for you. Under the Electoral College, they are too! Wyoming gets, what, two votes? California gets fifty-something.

Also, the Electoral College has the potential for abuse, though that has not happened yet. The electors are not required to vote for who their state votes for.

Originally posted by Travh20
Fair? fair to who? to your candidate? you made no argument except to say that if your candidate got less votes he shouldnt have to lose. thats how it works. I dont remember any of this electoral college talk before the 2000 election. its selfishness to want to change it just to give your guy a better chance at winning. you have no argument, only emotions that it isnt "fair" . screw that. Like I said, if your guy wins becasue of it you wont be bitching about it.

It's not fair for 49% of a states vote to go to waste, and then the candidate who gets 51% take the whole state, when it was almost equal.

This 2000 election just woke America up to how wrong this is. The Republicans are just too blind to see it.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The electoral college has to eventually be dissolved based on demographics alone or someday we will be facing the possibility of a candidate taking the white house by wining only CA, TX and let's say ... FL.

CA by itself will someday be 150 million people and represent 1/3rd of the total EC. Think that's far fetched? Do the math or look at demographic history -- whichever is easiest.
Dop

thats backwards dop, thats actually the reason its there. if there were no eletoral college the populous states would decide the election. CA is not the only state that is growing.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
It's not fair for 49% of a states vote to go to waste, and then the candidate who gets 51% take the whole state, when it was almost equal.

This 2000 election just woke America up to how wrong this is. The Republicans are just too blind to see it.

since when is life fair?

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
It's not fair for 49% of a states vote to go to waste, and then the candidate who gets 51% take the whole state, when it was almost equal.

No matter what system you use, a large percentage of the population's vote is going to "go to waste." Whoever votes for the loser. And I'm pretty sure Trav that had things been the other way around the Republicans would be going on and on about the "illegitimate presidency" of Al Gore and the judicial activism of the Supreme Court.

I for one would also like to see a straight vote. If for no other reason than to have a 58/42 vote split called a "landslide" because 95% of the electoral votes go to one party.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
No matter what system you use, a large percentage of the population's vote is going to "go to waste." Whoever votes for the loser. And I'm pretty sure Trav that had things been the other way around the Republicans would be going on and on about the "illegitimate presidency" of Al Gore and the judicial activism of the Supreme Court.

I for one would also like to see a straight vote. If for no other reason than to have a 58/42 vote split called a "landslide" because 95% of the electoral votes go to one party.

The only reason the Republicans don't want a "straight" vote is because they knew Gore won in 2000 (with the pop. vote), and they know Kerry would win in 2004. The only thing they have going for them is the Electoral College. They will hold onto it for dear life.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
The only reason the Republicans don't want a "straight" vote is because they knew Gore won in 2000 (with the pop. vote), and they know Kerry would win in 2004. The only thing they have going for them is the Electoral College. They will hold onto it for dear life.

likewise the only reason your guy didnt win was becasue of the electoral college which is why you want it gone. the only thing you have going is to change the constitution because your guy cant win the way presidents have won for hundreds of years.

Originally posted by Travh20
likewise the only reason your guy didnt win was becasue of the electoral college which is why you want it gone. the only thing you have going is to change the constitution because your guy cant win the way presidents have won for hundreds of years.

Except you have no reason to keep the Electoral College, and we have a reason to get rid of it.

Lol…don’t talk to me about changing the constitution. *points at Bush*

Originally posted by Travh20
since when is life fair?

What an intelligent reason to maintain an outdated system for electing someone to the most powerful job in the world. :rolleyes:

I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that you haven't the first damn clue how the electoral college works.

The Electoral College actually gives smaller states more influence on the election than they would have if it were abolished. Each state has the same number of electoral votes as they have members of Congress, which means they have a number of electors based on their population plus two extra votes to represent their two senators.

The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.

On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. (The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district).

While it's an interesting system it's outdated, and there is absolutely no reason to keep it around.

your the one wo wants to get rid of the electoral college, is that not part of the constitution? another hypocrisy from the hypocrits on the left, why am I not suprised? and why do I need a reason to want to keep the constitution the way it is? you have a reason, but its as elfish reason designed to help nobody but yourself.

Originally posted by Travh20
your the one wo wants to get rid of the electoral college, is that not part of the constitution? another hypocrisy from the hypocrits on the left, why am I not suprised? and why do I need a reason to want to keep the constitution the way it is? you have a reason, but its as elfish reason designed to help nobody but yourself.

And you’re the one who backs President Busch changing the constitution for no gay marriage.



:hitout:

Originally posted by Travh20
your the one wo wants to get rid of the electoral college, is that not part of the constitution? another hypocrisy from the hypocrits on the left, why am I not suprised? and why do I need a reason to want to keep the constitution the way it is? you have a reason, but its as elfish reason designed to help nobody but yourself.


no Trav, it helps everyone, becasue we get a president elected by popular vote. isn't that what the democracy thing is all about?
it's not hypocrisy, becasue the only reason adding on a contituional amendment about gay marraige is wrong is becasue it takes away right.s this would make the country function better, which is beneficial to everyone.

Originally posted by Travh20
your the one wo wants to get rid of the electoral college, is that not part of the constitution? another hypocrisy from the hypocrits on the left, why am I not suprised? and why do I need a reason to want to keep the constitution the way it is? you have a reason, but its as elfish reason designed to help nobody but yourself.

You have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about this subject Trav, which is why you insist on insults and name-calling. No doubt this is just another "liberal" issue to you. In this whole discussion you have yet to say anything about the Electoral College itself, you just make fun of other people's arguments. How would eliminating the Electoral College help only me?

If democracy is based on the "people", it should be up to the "people" to do the voting. I agree that the "people" should be choosing their government - by majority and by popular vote. It's really the only thing that makes perfect sense. Then we'd have no FLORIDA situations like in 2000.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
You have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about this subject Trav, which is why you insist on insults and name-calling. No doubt this is just another "liberal" issue to you. In this whole discussion you have yet to say anything about the Electoral College itself, you just make fun of other people's arguments. How would eliminating the Electoral College help only me?

waht are u attacking me for pagan? perhaps you should read the whole thread instead of just jumping in the middlee. I guess liberal 4 life is justified in talking shit but I am a big for doing the same thing right?

Saying that the Dems only want to get rid of it because they lost in 2000 or that the Reps only want to keep it because they won in 2000 is pretty stupid reasoning - as they say in Franklin Mint commercials past outcomes do not guarantee future results.

I just thought of a pretty good reason for keeping the electoral college, despite my vote to get rid of it. What if a candidate wins by 100 votes? It would be Florida x 10000! There'd be a recount in every damned city, town, and village in the country. The parties would have lawyers in every court in the land. High priced NY attorneys would be arguing in front of tribal courts in North Dakota trying to eke out a few more votes. Can you imagine the chaos?

Originally posted by Travh20
waht are u attacking me for pagan? perhaps you should read the whole thread instead of just jumping in the middlee. I guess liberal 4 life is justified in talking shit but I am a big for doing the same thing right?

Sadly, you are the KING of talking shit, and do it more often then me. I admit I do talk shit, but not as much as you. ;) Although if you keep saying idiotic statements, it may get ugly. :D

Sorry I am not going to read all of the posts here...I did most though...so if I repeat something I appologize before hand.

While the electoral college has its flaws it was designed for a reason. A dairy farmer in the midwest has different concerns than a stock broker in NYC. If we do away with the electoral college politicians will focus only on the left and right coasts and Chicago and forget everything in between. The people in the heartland of America will no longer have any voice.

Take the 2000 election. Gore won the popular vote but not the electoral college. While Bush won more states Gore won the bigger prizes in fewer numbers. By having a popular vote only the issues of many Americans will not be heard and the electoral college forces Presidents to be well rounded in what they want to do by having to appeal to a larger demographic of people.

Someone mentioned how California will continue to grow and will be such a big price in the years to come that it will dominate the election process. I agree with that and let me tell you it scares me. With all the problems the California voters have gotten themselves into over the years I certainly do not want that to be the norm in America.

One other thing I just remembered...the electoral college will really only work well in a two party system. What happens when a strong third or fourth party candidate comes along and noone gets the necessary electoral votes?

If someone could answer that I would appreciate it. I am curious to find out.

Rep

Don't know other than a complete guess.

Wouldn't the winning party need 1/3rd of the total of 538 EC's plus 1 (538 not evenly divisible by 3) or a simple majority -- whatever that comes out to?

Dop

A candidate must get an overwhelming majority , in other words over 50 percent to be elected president is the way it is written.
(electorial votes)

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
A candidate must get an overwhelming majority , in other words over 50 percent to be elected president is the way it is written.
(electorial votes)

So what happens when we get a strong third or fourth party candidate and noone gets 50% + 1?

Dop that seems to make sense...it would be interesting to see if that is rue though.

Originally posted by Travh20
waht are u attacking me for pagan? perhaps you should read the whole thread instead of just jumping in the middlee. I guess liberal 4 life is justified in talking shit but I am a big for doing the same thing right?

Trav, I have read the whole thread, which is why I made the point that you have said nothing about the Electoral College itself, only attacked other people for the arguments they made. I don't neccessarily agree with Liberal's views but at least he's discussing the College itself. You have said you think the Electoral College is ok, but you have given no reasons why. I think it's outdated and needs to go, and you called me a hypocrite, because that's the best thing you could think of to say, even if it's completely false. I never said the Constitution should never change, I do think it's wrong to amend it so as to discriminate against people (gay marriage amendment), but I do think the Electoral College is a mechanism that entrenches the power of the political partries in a way that's unneccessary. Do you have any reasons why you think it should be kept?

I do have a reason, becasue I dont think we should be taking things out of the constitution. I beleive the founding fathers were smarter then the politicians we have today. The same way people are afraid a new votign machine will incite corruption is the way I feel about changing the voting system on the grand scale. the constitution is under attack as of late, with campagn finanace reform, 2nd ammendment issues, now this. leave it alone.

Originally posted by The Republican
So what happens when we get a strong third or fourth party candidate and noone gets 50% + 1?

Dop that seems to make sense...it would be interesting to see if that is rue though.

Instant run off voting.

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html

Originally posted by Travh20
I do have a reason, becasue I dont think we should be taking things out of the constitution. I beleive the founding fathers were smarter then the politicians we have today. The same way people are afraid a new votign machine will incite corruption is the way I feel about changing the voting system on the grand scale. the constitution is under attack as of late, with campagn finanace reform, 2nd ammendment issues, now this. leave it alone.

Baloney!!!

The consitution has been created so it can be changed to better recognize the needs of the time.

If the consitution was the same, only white men with property would be allowed to vote. Is that something you agree with?

Times change, and a good use of the consitutition is to be flexable to the times.

We can't live in the past forever.

Originally posted by Pepper
Instant run off voting.

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html

That doesn't seem to be what would happen it just appears to be another possible solution. Maybe there is no solutiond and there would be a Constitutional crisis...but I would think we would have planned for this.

Originally posted by The Republican
That doesn't seem to be what would happen it just appears to be another possible solution. Maybe there is no solutiond and there would be a Constitutional crisis...but I would think we would have planned for this.

The 12th Amendment takes this possibility into account.

Amendment XII (italics mine)

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two- thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

I think in San Francisco they did it for the first time in the local elections. A third party candidate (green) was able to advance to the second round, it was a very close election in the end. With this system you would see an expanse of voices, more choices and less voting for the lesser of two evils.

As years go by and successes & failures are compared, I think you'll see more cities and municipalities adopt the practice. Eventually who knows? Progress takes time. Remember it took women over 70 years to get the right to vote back.

Seems to me, having already read what vile posted, that with
the House of Representatives electing the above mentioned President no independent stands a chance to be elected president. The House is made up of a Democratic and Republican majority.

think the big problem with the lectoral college was that it was written into the constitution when the states were far more seperate. Although the state have some independence, culturally America is far more united.