Since the election is coming up, I'd like to know what everyone thinks of the the electoral college.

I think the popular vote is the better way to go, and I swear I'm not just saying that because Gore would have won in 2000...I disliked the electoral college before 2000.

The main argument I hear in favor of the EC is that it stops the most populous states from choosing a Presidents that is going to make decisions for the smaller states that did not vote for him. Thats an irrelevant argument because when you are voting for ONE president, there are always going to be some states that didn't get the guy who that state's majority voted for. States are never going to get individual representation when it comes to electing ONE president. They get individual representation by electing senators and representatives to make decisions on their state's behalf.

The 2000 election is a good example, again I'm not complaining. People tried to say that since most of the map was colored red the EC worked. But that just tells me that Bush won in states where people are spread out. People are the ones who vote, not trees and rocks, so the amount of "area" is irrelevant...its the number of people that I believe is more important. Each persons vote should be EXACTLY the same as everyone else's.

The real problem I see is that if a candidate wins a state by getting 50.1% or by getting 99% he still gets the same amount of electoral votes. Does that seem fair?

I totally agree.

The electorial collge is outdated, and is not practical in todays elections.

I do not like the idea of giving states more authority in chosing the state based on how many represenatives they have (dont they already have more authority in the house....;) )

I think the presidential election should be popular vote for many reasons. Namely, like I said before, no state should have more authority, and secondly, it would mean that every vote would count.

Not only should the electoral college be abolished, first past the post should be abandoned in favour of Instant Runoff Voting.

End the Electorial College.

if the population centers pick the presidents the presidents will have to bow to them in their decisions, the rural fly over states willa lways play second fiuddle, and the population centers will have no problems dictating their agenda on the rural areas, no matter how irrelevant city politics are to the rural areas. The citys already get al the attention, with no electoral college the rural americans will completly cast aside. a few measly electoral votes is all the say they have in the proccess, with out them why would a candidate spend any time listening to the concerns of 600,000 residents of Wyoming while there are 8 million people in NYC alone?

The reason is if it came down to popular vote, they need EVERY VOTE.

8 million NYers arent going all vote for one candiate.....and they are not going to win by a slim margain and just get althose electoral votes.

They will have to earn each and everyvote....and what if the vote comes down to 600,000 or fewer....ah, those votes are now a bit more important.

so they would be a tie breaker, thats great :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
so they would be a tie breaker, thats great :rolleyes:

Yeah....Ok.

Um, like I said, EVERY vote would count. Rather it be the 5000 votes Candiate A picked up in Michigan or the 3000 Candiate B picks up in Rural Idaho.


It gives the election a whole lot more authenticity and integrity, if everyones vote counts as much as Californias Floridas Texas's and New York's

what candidate would spend time in a state whose total vote added up to a percentage point when they could focus on the big population centers with milions and millions of voters?

Travh,

We have already addressed this. Chances are the canidate will still spend more time in larger voter areas, but they can not afford to just leave everybody else out, because they are counting on the electoral votes of those bigger states.

They will have to win a consistant amount of votes in every state....just not carry a few of the bigger ones and win the over all election, like Mr. Bush did.

if the population centers pick the presidents the presidents will have to bow to them in their decisions, the rural fly over states willa lways play second fiuddle, and the population centers will have no problems dictating their agenda on the rural areas, no matter how irrelevant city politics are to the rural areas.

The reverse can be said against the electoral college. If the rural centers pick the president, the president will have to bow to them in their decisions, and the rural areas will dictate their agenda on the cities...its a moot point when it comes to the President. One side is going to get the short end of the deal since we are only electing one President to rule us all. That problem is handled by having idividual senators and reps to make decisions for the states.

with out them why would a candidate spend any time listening to the concerns of 600,000 residents of Wyoming while there are 8 million people in NYC alone?

To put it simply, because 8 million is a lot more than 600,000. However, they WOULD have to listen because its not just the 600,000 in Wyoming...its all the smaller states that, when combined, add up to a lot of votes.

what candidate would spend time in a state whose total vote added up to a percentage point when they could focus on the big population centers with milions and millions of voters?

Again, because all those states add up. Plus, competition would force both candidates to campaign in smaller states. If one candidate ignored those states then the other one would gain an advantage by campaigning in the population centers AND the less populated areas which would force the other candidate to do the same.

The way it is now many states get completely ignored by the candidates. Notice how they are spending most of their time in swing states. They aren't going to worry about a state where the polls show a large lead one way or the other because all they need to do is win a majority of the state and they get ALL the states electoral votes. If we used the overall popular vote, then they would still need to focus on the non-swing states because, even though they already know how the majority will vote, they can still gain individual votes that they might need to win the populare vote. With the electoral college, they couldn't care less if they win a state by 10% points or by 50%....if they think they got the state wrapped up, they will ignore it.

....just not carry a few of the bigger ones and win the over all election, like Mr. Bush did.

Actually, Gore carried most of the bigger states, Bush won the many smaller states.

that is true. How about a compromise? Splitting the electoral college. So, if you have 70% the vote, u get 70% of the points which that state makes up. Sounds pretty fair to me. That way the big places still count for more but the small ones are not left out.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
that is true. How about a compromise? Splitting the electoral college. So, if you have 70% the vote, u get 70% of the points which that state makes up. Sounds pretty fair to me. That way the big places still count for more but the small ones are not left out.

Apparently Colorado has a proposal to split their electoral votes proportionally based on the popular votes. And a couple of other states (can't remember which ones - small NE states) don't automatically award all votes to the winners. It's up to the states how it's done.

split the electoral vote? that is crazy. there are enough complaints with it as it is, but to have points for each candidate from each state? thats got lawsuits written all over it. How about this: we leave it the way it is, the way it was set up by the founding fathers. I ahte to get off topic, but a lot of people who bitch about ana mmendment agaisnt gay marriage, and how bush is trying to rape the constitution, have no problem doing it when it may benefit them. Just an observation.

There is a common misperception that we live in a democracy, when in fact we live in a democratic republic. The founders of this country went out of their way to found this country as a republic. There is also a popular idea that we should elect our president by the "one man, one vote" system. Whether such a system is better or worse than what we have now is largely a matter of opinion.

The reason we have the Electoral College is that this country is fundamentally not a nation, but rather a collection of independent states, and the founders created our federal election system to reflect that idea, and to preserve that idea. Simply put,
the founders envisioned a nation where the states elect the President, not the people.

As evidence of that fact take a look at the 12th Amendment which describes the procedure for counting the electoral votes and for choosing a President and Vice-President in case the Electoral votes are split between three or more candidates.

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.

In the event of a split Electoral vote, the House of Representatives takes the three candidates who received the most Electoral votes and then they cast their votes from among those three candidates. The important point in this vote is that each representative doesn't cast a vote, each state casts one vote. This means California gets one vote, as does Wyoming, despite the disparity in population.

If you want the people to choose the President, then the Electoral College should be abolished, but if you wish the states to choose the President then it should remain. Obviously though, to abolish it would require a Constitutional Amendment, and it does seem unlikely that such an amendment would be ratified.

thanks pagan, thats good information.

Maine and Nebraska actually do split their electoral votes. If I'm not mistaken, the winner of the state gets the two "senate" electoral votes. Then each house discrict's vote is calculated seperatly. The event that the electoral votes go to different candidates is very rare, however.

a lot of people who bitch about ana mmendment agaisnt gay marriage, and how bush is trying to rape the constitution, have no problem doing it when it may benefit them.

I don't know how this amendment (going to a popular vote) would benefit me, but when it comes to amendments in general the liberals are consistent in their argument that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document". We are in favor of making necessary changes, but that does not mean all changes are necessary...like the gay marriage amendment. Its the conservatives who are hypocrites in this respect. They argue that it is NOT a "living document" and should remain the way the founding fathers made it, but then they support certain amendments that benefit them. If you are against amending the Constitution then you can't be in favor of any amendments, otherwise you DO think its a "living document".

I would like to know what these people think of the first 26 amendments? How about those 2 that gave women and blacks the right to vote...were those unnecessary changes?

If you want the people to choose the President, then the Electoral College should be abolished, but if you wish the states to choose the President then it should remain.

It makes more sense to me to have the people choose, not the states.

Originally posted by dnamertz
It makes more sense to me to have the people choose, not the states.

Ah, it does me too.:D

Originally posted by dnamertz
I would like to know what these people think of the first 26 amendments? How about those 2 that gave women and blacks the right to vote...were those unnecessary changes?

I think the argument of the conservatives is more along the lines of saying that the Constitution shouldn't be changed except for a really good reason, not so much that it should never be changed. Although IMHO that still doesn't get them off the hook, because I don't think gay marriage rises to the level of requiring an amendment.

I do not favor the ammendment at all, and that is coming from a christian.

While I do not agree with homosexuality, I first of all think it should be left to that person and God. Secondly, I think if we move 100 years ahead and look back, and read in our history books that we thought of passing an amendment to ban a certain group marriage, our times would be dubbed with bigotry, like those of the judicial slave cases.

the founders envisioned a nation where the states elect the President, not the people.

Even if the intention of the electoral college was to let the states pick the president, it is faulty. If a state picks a candidate by 50% +1 vote their vote holds no more wieght than if they pick him by 99%. But if 99% of the population is voting for a candidate, that means that the state wanted that person elected much more than if they barely got the majority, so that state's vote should mean more in that case.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Even if the intention of the electoral college was to let the states pick the president, it is faulty. If a state picks a candidate by 50% +1 vote their vote holds no more wieght than if they pick him by 99%. But if 99% of the population is voting for a candidate, that means that the state wanted that person elected much more than if they barely got the majority, so that state's vote should mean more in that case.

Personally I'm in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, for the reason you just gave and because I think it's the next logical step in this country's progress towards a more democratic society.

The purpose of my post was to point out that this country was not founded as a democracy, at least not one in which the "people" voted for the leaders of government. Since the founding of this country we have been moving slowly towards a more democratic society.

When this country was founded, only white landowners had the right to vote. Blacks were given the right to vote in 1870, although it could be argued that they didn't achieve full voting equality until 1964, when the 24th Amendment was ratified, eliminating poll taxes. Women got the right to vote in 1920.

Another important move towards a more democratic society came in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment. This amendment provided for the election of Senators, which up until then had been appointed to the U.S. Senate by state legislatures. Oddly enough, Alan Keyes, the Republican senatorial candidate in Illinois, has joined Senator Zell Miller of Georgia and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment, which would, in my opinion, be a step backwards in our progress towards a more democratic society.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Alan Keyes, the Republican senatorial candidate in Illinois, has joined Senator Zell Miller of Georgia and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment, which would, in my opinion, be a step backwards in our progress towards a more democratic society.


I totally agree.

I bet the only reason Alan Keyes would like this to happen, is it might gve him a chance to win something now and then.