The Electoral College people are elected by us/people. So voting does count. Also the particular people in EC that you helped elect, sometimes not always vote on the candidate of presidency of your choice. So there.Originally posted by: wchou
with electoral college, our votes are pointless. Just let them decide who should be our next president because they are god? they are perfect? electoral represent majority of the people? clueless aren't we?
Again why bother voting? Waste of our time and effort to even bother. Nothing more then a pawned game.
It's pitiful at best..:thumbsdown:
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
This is a TERRIBLE idea and only shows your IGNORANCE of the purpose and function of the Electoral College. The EC works to ensure that the large, populated states with more people do not always dominate elections. Without the electoral college, 80% of the states would have, in effect, NO VOICE in electing the President of the United States.
SHAME on you for trying to cash in on people's ignorance of this GREAT and well thought out system adn trying to destroy it.
Jason
Originally posted by: oldman420
Washington, DC ? Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced that she will introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College and provide for direct popular election of the President and Vice President when the Senate convenes for the 109 th Congress in January.
?The Electoral College is an anachronism and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st Century,? Senator Feinstein said. ?During the founding years of the Republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states.
?We need to have a serious, comprehensive debate on reforming the Electoral College. I will press for hearings in the Judiciary Committee on which I sit and ultimately a vote on the Senate floor, as occurred 25 years ago on this subject. My goal is simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our President. Right now, that is not happening.?
Under the current system for electing the President of the United States:
Candidates focus only on a handful of contested states and ignore the concerns of tens of millions of Americans living in other states;
A candidate can lose in 39 states, but still win the Presidency;
A candidate can lose the popular vote by more than 10 million votes, but still win the Presidency;
A candidate can win 20 million votes in the general election, but win zero electoral votes, as happened to Ross Perot in 1992;
In most states, the candidate who wins a state?s election, wins all of that state?s electoral votes, no matter the winning margin, which can disenfranchise those who supported the losing candidate;
A candidate can win a state?s vote, but an elector can refuse to represent the will of a majority of the voters in that state by voting arbitrarily for the losing candidate (this has reportedly happened 9 times since 1820);
Smaller states have a disproportionate advantage over larger states because of the two ?constant? or ?senatorial? electors assigned to each state;
A tie in the Electoral College is decided by a single vote from each state?s delegation in the House of Representatives, which would unfairly grant California?s 36 million residents equal status with Wyoming?s 500,000 residents; and
In case of such a tie, House members are not bound to support the candidate who won their state?s election, which has the potential to further distort the will of the majority.
?Sooner or later we will have a situation where there is a great disparity between the electoral vote winner and the popular vote winner. If the President and Vice President are elected by a direct popular vote of the American people, then every American?s vote will count the same regardless of whether they live in California, Maine, Ohio or Florida,? Senator Feinstein said.
In the history of the country, there have been four instances of disputed elections where the President who was elected won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote ? John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and George W. Bush in 2000. According to some estimates there have been at least 22 instances where a similar scenario could have occurred in close elections.
?Our system is not undemocratic, but it is imperfect, and we have the power to do something about it,? Senator Feinstein said. ?It is no small feat to amend the Constitution as it has only been done only 27 times in the history of our great nation.?
I have never before supported a constitutional amendment but she does have a point
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Argh, I sure hope people understand how much better a popular vote would be. I think it would increase voter turnout because EVERY VOTE WOULD MATTER. I also think it is funny that people think it would help the Democrats. If nationwide polls had Bush ahead of Kerry, and everyone voted, BUSH WOULD STILL WIN. All a popular vote would do would make the minority party in each state vote more, but it goes both ways. Democrats in Wyoming, Texas, etc. would vote more, and so would Republicans in Massachusetts, New York. In the end the candidate who could muster up the most votes out of all 50 states would win, not the one that could get a slim majority in a couple swing states.
If there is ONE lesson and one lesson ONLY that you should learn from the GREEKS, it is that DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS A BAD THING.
Majority Rule is NOT consistent with the idea that all men are created equal and that EACH man has inalienable rights.
Jason
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Argh, I sure hope people understand how much better a popular vote would be. I think it would increase voter turnout because EVERY VOTE WOULD MATTER. I also think it is funny that people think it would help the Democrats. If nationwide polls had Bush ahead of Kerry, and everyone voted, BUSH WOULD STILL WIN. All a popular vote would do would make the minority party in each state vote more, but it goes both ways. Democrats in Wyoming, Texas, etc. would vote more, and so would Republicans in Massachusetts, New York. In the end the candidate who could muster up the most votes out of all 50 states would win, not the one that could get a slim majority in a couple swing states.
If there is ONE lesson and one lesson ONLY that you should learn from the GREEKS, it is that DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS A BAD THING.
Majority Rule is NOT consistent with the idea that all men are created equal and that EACH man has inalienable rights.
Jason
Great string of postings. Best I have heard it stated.
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
son and one lesson ONLY that you should learn from the GREEKS, it is that DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS A BAD THING.
Majority Rule is NOT consistent with the idea that all men are created equal and that EACH man has inalienable rights.
Jason
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the system as it is favors the republicans (most rural states vote red) and rural states outnumber the urban states.
the red "producing" states. hah.Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: oldman420
Yeah, this would work great. You know the red, producing states just want to give up any balance of power to the city breeders. The system wasn't designed to be democratic as our forefathers did see the danger in that. You can't just have immense power by controlling a bloc of voters under the electorial college and that really upsets our Democratic leaders. They thought they had the route to power all figured out until this last election.
Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the system as it is favors the republicans (most rural states vote red) and rural states outnumber the urban states.
Not exactly, as urban states often have way more electoral votes than rural ones.
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the system as it is favors the republicans (most rural states vote red) and rural states outnumber the urban states.
Not exactly, as urban states often have way more electoral votes than rural ones.
the red rural states have more "votes" per capita. If it were changes, these red leaning states would have fewer votes per capita, and blue leaning states have more votes per capita. On top of that, you need 34 states to pass an amendment. Good luck with that.
for example, north and south dakota, wyoming etc, would only get 1 vote each if electoral votes were distributed purely by population, as opposed to 3 each in the current system.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Destroy the system that determines the house of reps + presidency?
Why not just abolish the entire legislative branch?
I trust our founding fathers on this one over some dimwit senator from California.
Yea right. OMG 5 post in one reply. What a spammer!Originally posted by: dragonmasteralex
How the EC works
Try speaking from some knowledge rather than the blind, IGNORANT common opinion of your fellow retards.
Jason
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
Originally posted by: Genx87
Destroy the system that determines the house of reps + presidency?
Why not just abolish the entire legislative branch?
I trust our founding fathers on this one over some dimwit senator from California.
:thumbsup: