Had the EC been previously abolished, the Dems feel that Gore would be in the WH. Therefore the complete situation in 04 may have been avoided.
Originally posted by: bsobel
It's no secret why Republicans defend the idea, THEY are the ones who would lose. But is this idea based on logic and reason? Why SHOULD we care so much about North Dakota, after all? And as for my original question, is it fair to give your vote more value than mine because of where you live?
Why, Bush won the popular vote, so if we did away with the EC he still would have won? (not flame bait, just trying to figure out why you think the repubs have more to lose than the democrats).
Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
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
OK, no. The presidential election has absolutely jack s**t to do with states, it is what we call a National election. In other words its where the nation chooses the president, the electoral college in effect makes it the states choosing the president. Without it, a man in Alabama and a man in California have absolutely equal votes, whereas now that is simply not true, especially if the Alabamian is a Democrat in which case their vote has zero to nil chance of mattering.
The real reason we have an electoral college is for purely logistical reasons, it is a lot easier to count 400-500 state representatives than it is to tally all of the votes from each state together, especially with the transportation and communication available during the writing of the constitution.
So, write your senators, try to get this abolished.
Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
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.
Of course, that happens to be what our system is based on, a mix of direct and representative democracy. And as I pointed out earlier the reason we have an EC has nothing to do with big vs small states, it was all logistical. Besides I think there is a mixup here with direct democracy equaling majority rule, as while that would be true in a full scale direct democracy system that is not what anyone would want or try to have here. Its pure and simple, the senate represents the people of the states, the house the people of districts, and the president the people of the nation. So... just as a district chooses its House rep without an EC, and a state chooses its Senators without an EC, so should the president be chosen without an EC. I mean seriously if your state tried to impose a system where the governor was elected by a few voters from each county you would look at it and say "Whats the point?". There is none, and likewise the point of the national EC (to ease communication for the election) has passed and it has no more purpose.
Originally posted by: Scorpius
I want anarchy....just kidding...
theis dian elady has a point ...for someone that has been watching the last five elctions close...I actually was surpised that bush won again...despite of loosing the polupar vote...
it should be one wote for one person regardless of state and party...
this makes sense...sooner or later the country will be devided...then how do you work things out??? ........."civil war II"...who knows....
anyhow
merry xmas and that yot...
Originally posted by: TheBDB
I have a question for the EC supporters...you say without it the big states would dominate the election. So if there was no EC would Bush have spent all his time in the cities trying to get votes from people who don't support him? No, he would spend time in the rural areas where he could rally his base. You people don't seem to realize without the EC all votes would be the same regardless of population density. Someone like Bush could easily win a popular vote by doing OK in the urban areas but winning big in the rural areas aka. like how he did this year. Why would both candidates not campaign in EVERY state hoping to get every supporter they could?
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Now I keep hearing that the system is designed to prevent the big states from having a proportional amount of influence compared to the small states, but you guys seem to take it on faith that this is a good idea. I'm asking WHY is this a good idea. With a population less than San Francisco alone, why do we care so much about North Dakota? Shouldn't the value of a state be based on how many people live there?