That's a far cry from the imbalance of a direct democracy. All other states aren't lost causes, they're simply secure. It's not impossible for them to change hands. In 2000 Gore lost his home state which (discounting conspiracies re: Florida aside) cost him the election.Originally posted by: 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
Originally posted by: Armitage
I'd like to at least see the electoral votes awarded proportionally instead of winner take all.
Originally posted by: 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
If mass communication has changed things that much, why do they STILL visit battleground states and target their ads there?Originally posted by: dullard
Electoral college made a lot of sense when we started out. Think about it:
[*]No mass communication (TV, radio, internet).
[*]No good travel for politicians to get to you.
[*]There was no physical method to properly educate all of the voters.
Thus you vote locally for someone who best fits your needs, let that person then make a well informed decision (later after the election, not before!) on who to vote for.
Things have changed.
[*]TV, radio, and the internet means that everyone can be well informed if they choose to be.
[*]Planes make it possible for canidates to visit every state and to give opportunities for everyone to see the canidates in person if they choose.
[*]Heck even the idea of voting for someone who represents you and have that person make the choice of president is virtually gone - they are sworn to vote for one before hand (the electorates don't have free will to do their job as it was orginally intended).
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
There is NO good reason not to count everyones vote.
People say that rural areas will be less represented.... the presidency is not about geographic representation - that is what the senate is for. The presidency should be about the majority. If more people want a certain candidate in office, that person should be president. Who cares where these people live, the president represents the WHOLE COUNTRY. People say rural areas will be underrepresented... right now they are OVER represented by the electoral college system. People say more populous will get more power... well no SHlT they have more people of course they should have more power. You say urban areas will have too much influence... they should have more influence because there are more people there affected by the government.
Because when the minority voters of the non-swing states DONT MATTER, there is no reason to go there. Why would bush waste a lot of time campaigning in Texas? Who cares if 60% or 90% of that state wants him, those votes are shamefully DISREGARDED. This is why they only spend their time in battleground states. Why broadcast your campaign when you only need to influence a smaller group? If EVERY vote mattered, as it should, they WOULD use mass media to influence everyone, including those in states that currently dont matter.Originally posted by: Phoenix86
If mass communication has changed things that much, why do they STILL visit battleground states and target their ads there?Originally posted by: dullard
Electoral college made a lot of sense when we started out. Think about it:
[*]No mass communication (TV, radio, internet).
[*]No good travel for politicians to get to you.
[*]There was no physical method to properly educate all of the voters.
Thus you vote locally for someone who best fits your needs, let that person then make a well informed decision (later after the election, not before!) on who to vote for.
Things have changed.
[*]TV, radio, and the internet means that everyone can be well informed if they choose to be.
[*]Planes make it possible for canidates to visit every state and to give opportunities for everyone to see the canidates in person if they choose.
[*]Heck even the idea of voting for someone who represents you and have that person make the choice of president is virtually gone - they are sworn to vote for one before hand (the electorates don't have free will to do their job as it was orginally intended).
I'll tell you why, ad costs. Just because we have mass media, doesn't mean they can afford to use it. They STILL target more ads in local areas, and less nationwide. Local ads cost a lot less, than say prime time ABC.
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
There is NO good reason not to count everyones vote.
People say that rural areas will be less represented.... the presidency is not about geographic representation - that is what the senate is for. The presidency should be about the majority. If more people want a certain candidate in office, that person should be president. Who cares where these people live, the president represents the WHOLE COUNTRY. People say rural areas will be underrepresented... right now they are OVER represented by the electoral college system. People say more populous will get more power... well no SHlT they have more people of course they should have more power. You say urban areas will have too much influence... they should have more influence because there are more people there affected by the government.
What you are advocating is tyranny by the majority.
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
There is NO good reason not to count everyones vote.
People say that rural areas will be less represented.... the presidency is not about geographic representation - that is what the senate is for. The presidency should be about the majority. If more people want a certain candidate in office, that person should be president. Who cares where these people live, the president represents the WHOLE COUNTRY. People say rural areas will be underrepresented... right now they are OVER represented by the electoral college system. People say more populous will get more power... well no SHlT they have more people of course they should have more power. You say urban areas will have too much influence... they should have more influence because there are more people there affected by the government.
What you are advocating is tyranny by the majority.
Not only does your statement INHERENTLY CONTRADICT itself, it also suggests you prefer tyranny by a minority. I encourage you to move to China.
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
There is NO good reason not to count everyones vote.
People say that rural areas will be less represented.... the presidency is not about geographic representation - that is what the senate is for. The presidency should be about the majority. If more people want a certain candidate in office, that person should be president. Who cares where these people live, the president represents the WHOLE COUNTRY. People say rural areas will be underrepresented... right now they are OVER represented by the electoral college system. People say more populous will get more power... well no SHlT they have more people of course they should have more power. You say urban areas will have too much influence... they should have more influence because there are more people there affected by the government.
What you are advocating is tyranny by the majority.
Not only does your statement INHERENTLY CONTRADICT itself, it also suggests you prefer tyranny by a minority. I encourage you to move to China.
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?
nvmOriginally posted by: DT4K
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?
You do realize that we live in the United STATES of America right?
Not just one big country.
Some of you should have payed a little more attention in history class.
Originally posted by: 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
Originally posted by: slunk
I do not agree with the current electoral voting system. I believe it dissuades many people from voting. I listen to people all the time in Texas saying their vote won't make a difference, because it is an overwhelmingly Republican state. I don't know if the electoral system should be totally thrown out, though. I think the US should adopt a system like Maine and Nebraska, where each state divides their electoral votes by Congressional districts.
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
There is NO good reason not to count everyones vote.
People say that rural areas will be less represented.... the presidency is not about geographic representation - that is what the senate is for. The presidency should be about the majority. If more people want a certain candidate in office, that person should be president. Who cares where these people live, the president represents the WHOLE COUNTRY. People say rural areas will be underrepresented... right now they are OVER represented by the electoral college system. People say more populous will get more power... well no SHlT they have more people of course they should have more power. You say urban areas will have too much influence... they should have more influence because there are more people there affected by the government.
What you are advocating is tyranny by the majority.
Not only does your statement INHERENTLY CONTRADICT itself, it also suggests you prefer tyranny by a minority. I encourage you to move to China.
No matter how you slice it, someone will always feel "left out" the idea would be to minimize that. 1 person 1 vote means anything outside the top 15 or so cities would be irrelevant. That would be worse than the current system, 95% of all cities would be irrelevant. Did you see my post above the one you quoted? The top 3 cities in Texas are 1/2 of NYC alone.Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
Because when the minority voters of the non-swing states DONT MATTER, there is no reason to go there. Why would bush waste a lot of time campaigning in Texas? Who cares if 60% or 90% of that state wants him, those votes are shamefully DISREGARDED. This is why they only spend their time in battleground states. Why broadcast your campaign when you only need to influence a smaller group? If EVERY vote mattered, as it should, they WOULD use mass media to influence everyone, including those in states that currently dont matter.Originally posted by: Phoenix86
If mass communication has changed things that much, why do they STILL visit battleground states and target their ads there?Originally posted by: dullard
Electoral college made a lot of sense when we started out. Think about it:
[*]No mass communication (TV, radio, internet).
[*]No good travel for politicians to get to you.
[*]There was no physical method to properly educate all of the voters.
Thus you vote locally for someone who best fits your needs, let that person then make a well informed decision (later after the election, not before!) on who to vote for.
Things have changed.
[*]TV, radio, and the internet means that everyone can be well informed if they choose to be.
[*]Planes make it possible for canidates to visit every state and to give opportunities for everyone to see the canidates in person if they choose.
[*]Heck even the idea of voting for someone who represents you and have that person make the choice of president is virtually gone - they are sworn to vote for one before hand (the electorates don't have free will to do their job as it was orginally intended).
I'll tell you why, ad costs. Just because we have mass media, doesn't mean they can afford to use it. They STILL target more ads in local areas, and less nationwide. Local ads cost a lot less, than say prime time ABC.
How does that change things? I'm in Texas, an already decided state... I'm not seeing any political ads except those I chose to look at, in fact I see less. Just because the system is in place doesn't mean it's being used, and likely for good reason ($$).Originally posted by: Brutuskend
At the time it was thought up it made sense.
In this day and age of computers and fast communication, it's obsolete and there's really no need for it.
Originally posted by: Amused
I think it's a great system and we should keep it.
Originally posted by: 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
Originally posted by: tynopik
if it was direct vote, no one in washington would care about anything outside of the big cities in NY, Florida, Texas and California
Originally posted by: BrianA
Originally posted by: tynopik
if it was direct vote, no one in washington would care about anything outside of the big cities in NY, Florida, Texas and California
So it would be just like it is now.
Hint: Those 4 states have, by far, the most electoral votes.