Do you like the Electoral College system?

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
a) redistricting put into the hands of an independent commision (IO style)

.. no one is independent.

i am "independent"
you can trust me

don't worry, i will be "fair"

 

[CrazyDe1]

Why would candidates only target the large states if every vote counted? Keep in mind that the large states are always kind of split.

It seems like if every vote counted they'd be MORE likely to target smaller states.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Why would candidates only target the large states if every vote counted? Keep in mind that the large states are always kind of split.

It seems like if every vote counted they'd be MORE likely to target smaller states.

If we were on a direct democratic election system, New York City would have as much influence as several states combined.

We'll never do away with the electoral college. Doing away with it would hurt more states than it would benefit and a constitutional amendment requires a supermajority (2/3) of states approving said amendment.

We shouldn't do away with it - the larger states already have enough pull in the way out country is run; they certainly don't need any more.

 

[abracadabra1]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
The Electoral College needs to go. One person, one vote.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Why would candidates only target the large states if every vote counted? Keep in mind that the large states are always kind of split.

It seems like if every vote counted they'd be MORE likely to target smaller states.

there's not enough votes in the smaller states to make a difference, they become irrelevant

would you rather win 70% of California or 70% of Idaho?

if you win 70% of California, does it matter how you do in Idaho?

 

[nageov3t]

there's like a dozen threads about this in P&N!

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
a) redistricting put into the hands of an independent commision (IO style)

.. no one is independent.

i am "independent"
you can trust me

don't worry, i will be "fair"

You guys may think your positions are reasonable, but the fact is that such independent commisions work very well elsewhere. Canada's parliament was extended from 301 to 308 seats this summer, and there was barely a mention about it. Contrast that with the mess in texas.

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Why would candidates only target the large states if every vote counted? Keep in mind that the large states are always kind of split.

It seems like if every vote counted they'd be MORE likely to target smaller states.

If we were on a direct democratic election system, New York City would have as much influence as several states combined.

We'll never do away with the electoral college. Doing away with it would hurt more states than it would benefit and a constitutional amendment requires a supermajority (2/3) of states approving said amendment.

We shouldn't do away with it - the larger states already have enough pull in the way out country is run; they certainly don't need any more.

As they should...there's a lot more people in NY than other states. Why shouldn't they get more of a say?

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Why would candidates only target the large states if every vote counted? Keep in mind that the large states are always kind of split.

It seems like if every vote counted they'd be MORE likely to target smaller states.

there's not enough votes in the smaller states to make a difference, they become irrelevant

would you rather win 70% of California or 70% of Idaho?

if you win 70% of California, does it matter how you do in Idaho?

But with everyone focusing on these states it'd be hard to win more than 60% thus the difference makers would be small states...

 

[SinfulWeeper]

No... but I woulda loved it if one of the two electorials in Florida voted for Gore. Perfectly within their power and legal. But I have not seen the exception yet where an electorial voter voted for someone else in their state where the majority of the state voted for someone else.

 

[DAGTA]

The Constitution of the United States deems that "all men are created equal". So why not have all men (and women) have equal weight in the decisions of the elections? Do away with the electoral college. It's holding us back. There's something wrong when a candidate wins the majority popular vote but still loses the election.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: yllus
Do you "one person, one vote" people have any idea what kind of imbalance would be affected by the largest urban areas on the rest of the country?

Thank you. Someone understands.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
No... but I woulda loved it if one of the two electorials in Florida voted for Gore. Perfectly within their power and legal. But I have not seen the exception yet where an electorial voter voted for someone else in their state where the majority of the state voted for someone else.

I think for the last one hundred years, each election has had at least one occurance of an electoral college voter getting bitter and either discarding their vote or voting for the other guy.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Why would candidates only target the large states if every vote counted? Keep in mind that the large states are always kind of split.

It seems like if every vote counted they'd be MORE likely to target smaller states.

If we were on a direct democratic election system, New York City would have as much influence as several states combined.

We'll never do away with the electoral college. Doing away with it would hurt more states than it would benefit and a constitutional amendment requires a supermajority (2/3) of states approving said amendment.

We shouldn't do away with it - the larger states already have enough pull in the way out country is run; they certainly don't need any more.

As they should...there's a lot more people in NY than other states. Why shouldn't they get more of a say?

Because without the comprimise provided by the electoral college, we would still be the Confederated States of America and have no pratical federal government. I like highways, do you?

 

[George P Burdell]

MIKE

 

[Ryan]

No and No.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
yes, it is an essential part of our republic

when the liberals remove it, all will be lost. it will be mob rule , the tyranny of the majority that Jefferson warned us of will become a reality and the United States will cease to exist

 

[Insane3D]

There are positives and negatives to the electoral college. As others have said, the election could basically be decided by a few of the highest population centers. If it was scrapped, we would need some way to balance it so the rest of the country would have a fair shake too. How that would be done is anyones guess.

Originally posted by: FoBoT
yes, it is an essential part of our republic

when the liberals remove it, all will be lost. it will be mob rule , the tyranny of the majority that Jefferson warned us of will become a reality and the United States will cease to exist

:roll:

It's all about the "liberals" with you isn't it? Have liberals never done anything good and conservatives always been perfection itself? Why must people try to lump people into two groups and make one all bad and the other all good?

*sigh*

OMG!!! OH NO! AIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! NOOOOOO!O!OO!O!!!! TEH LIBERALS ARE GOING TO DESTROY US ALL!!! OH TEH NOEEESSS!!!!

:roll:

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
a) redistricting put into the hands of an independent commision (IO style)

and where would one find this mythical creature? no one is independent.

Now you need an independent commission to determine who should be on the independent commission.

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
b) electoral votes split (CO style).

totally destroy the purpose of the electoral college, might as well go to direct vote

by dividing (for example) Colorado's vote, you effectively make the concerns of Colorado irrelevant to the election as at most campaigning there is only going to net you 1-2 extra electoral votes instead of the whole shebang

Colorado's electoral college vote isn't split, although there is a referendum on it in this election. I think Vermont's is.

As for independence ... how about you start by picking people who haven't been active in politics, and then you just give them maps & census data to work with. No party registry data, no poll data, etc. And the districts have to be contiguous and concave-out --- none of this gerrymandering BS ... stretching a district miles long and feet wide to get a pocket of one neighborhood into it :roll:

 

[Feldenak]

Yes.
No.

The electoral college was designed as a compromise between the more populous states and the less populous ones. Without the balancing effect of the electoral college you would begin to see a true tyranny by the majority. The dense population centers would hold entirely too much sway of an election. You could win the Presidency by only targeting a couple of states and pretty much ignore the low population ones. No political system is truely perfect but this is closest you'll get. You have direct representation through your local congressman and your senators (who used to be elected by state legislatures, I agree witha popular vote for these guys)...it's all part of the checks and balances built into our government.

 

[ggavinmoss]

I tend not to like it, but am unsure of a real solution. I think I favor keeping the electoral college in the sense that states are allocated electoral votes that approximate population, but give protections to smaller states (such as a vote in Wyoming being worth fewer people than in California). I think it protects against the election being decided by a few population centers.

I think though that the allocation of electoral votes should be split -- maybe not proportionally, but either on a sliding scale or when the two candidates "split" a state within some sort of tolerance.

Also, I think the bigger problem in electoral politics is exit polls. I think the media should stay mum on the issue of who is "winning" while there are precincts still open -- as stupid as it is, people are discouraged from voting if they think their candidate has already won or lost.

-geoff

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: ggavinmoss

Also, I think the bigger problem in electoral politics is exit polls. I think the media should stay mum on the issue of who is "winning" while there are precincts still open -- as stupid as it is, people are discouraged from voting if they think their candidate has already won or lost.

-geoff

I agree completely with that statement. I hate the media frenzy of the exit polls.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Yes.
No.

The electoral college was designed as a compromise between the more populous states and the less populous ones. Without the balancing effect of the electoral college you would begin to see a true tyranny by the majority. The dense population centers would hold entirely too much sway of an election. You could win the Presidency by only targeting a couple of states and pretty much ignore the low population ones. No political system is truely perfect but this is closest you'll get. You have direct representation through your local congressman and your senators (who used to be elected by state legislatures, I agree witha popular vote for these guys)...it's all part of the checks and balances built into our government.

Glad I read yours .. I was going to type about the same.


Yes, it's a good system because NY and California would pretty much control the country otherwise.

For example, look at NY state. NYC controls the whole state. Politicians don't care about upstate because NYC is all that is needed to win a statewide election.

 

[Hammer]

yes, i like the electoral college system. as someone pointed out, candidates are forced to campaign across all states rather than focus on just the 20 or so most populated cities.

 

[ggavinmoss]

Originally posted by: Hammer
yes, i like the electoral college system. as someone pointed out, candidates are forced to campaign across all states rather than focus on just the 20 or so most populated cities.

So you'd rather have them campaign across just 5-6 "swing" states that pundit feel are necessary to win (since all other states are lost causes)?

I'm not sure if that is worse, but it sure isn't better.

-geoff