Do you like the Electoral College system?

[Feldenak]

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.

Do you even pay attention to national political campaigns or read the thread before you posted? DT4K (the post just above yours) listed 15 states that are considered "swing" or "battleground" states. That commonly means the candidates spend more time in those states to try and change the population's attention. That list of states varies somewhat from year to year depending on the region the candidates are from.

 

[slunk]

Originally posted by: Hammer
by your rational, the political climate of states never changes and therefore people should just not vote because it doesn't make a difference. :roll:

p.s.
texas was heavily democratic until the last decade or so.

No! I have no idea where you got that from. I am completely aware that Texas was heavily democratic over a decade ago. I believe everyone should vote. My problem is with the rational you proposed belonging to me. I will vote in every election until the day I die. Giving an individual electoral vote to each Congessional district may give more people an incentive to vote. As I said, many people do not vote because of the current situation in Texas, California, NY, etc., because those states are already decided. Everyone should want to vote, because their vote does and should count.

 

[BrianA]

Originally posted by: Hammer
um, no it wouldn't. with the exception of florida, all those states are pretty locked up. if it was a direct vote, both campaigns would be in those states 90% of the time.

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Do you even pay attention to national political campaigns or read the thread before you posted? DT4K (the post just above yours) listed 15 states that are considered "swing" or "battleground" states. That commonly means the candidates spend more time in those states to try and change the population's attention. That list of states varies somewhat from year to year depending on the region the candidates are from.

So your assertation is that Kerry and Bush don't care about the big electoral college vote states simply because they're all "locked up" already? Try looking at a list of the states and how many times each candidate has visited that state this campaign season. You'll find that NY, Florida, Texas and California are all near the top of the list. Why if they don't care about these states?

That's right. Because winning those four states goes a long way towards winning the election.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Hammer
yes, i would. political climates change. the swing states vary from election to election. the top 20 cities in account for roughly 60% of the vote. those will be the only places politicians would campaign or care about.

so you want a direct popular election right? many times in history, there hasn't been a popular majority. you probably think Bush shouldn't be President because he got 47.9% of the vote. Well, Clinton got just 43% of the popular vote in 1992. its only thanks to the electoral college that we had a clear winner (he won 370-168).

What a nonsense argument. He had 43% which was MORE than his opponent by far. Maybe you forgot that perot had 15-20% (somewhere in that range). Clinton won the popular vote. Even without the electoral system, he would have won. As far as I can tell, the electoral system only makes a difference in close elections.

[added for clarity]I doubt anyone is advocating that a candidate must have a MAJORITY of popular votes. More likely they are advocating a system where the candidate must have a plurality...

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: BrianA

Originally posted by: Hammer
um, no it wouldn't. with the exception of florida, all those states are pretty locked up. if it was a direct vote, both campaigns would be in those states 90% of the time.

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Do you even pay attention to national political campaigns or read the thread before you posted? DT4K (the post just above yours) listed 15 states that are considered "swing" or "battleground" states. That commonly means the candidates spend more time in those states to try and change the population's attention. That list of states varies somewhat from year to year depending on the region the candidates are from.

So your assertation is that Kerry and Bush don't care about the big electoral college vote states simply because they're all "locked up" already? Try looking at a list of the states and how many times each candidate has visited that state this campaign season. You'll find that NY, Florida, Texas and California are all near the top of the list. Why if they don't care about these states?

That's right. Because winning those four states goes a long way towards winning the election.

Florida is a swing state so yes, that one will be visited a lot. In the future, I suggest your refrain from pulling figures out of your ass though. These are the actual figures:

As of 10/8:

Bush

Ohio (14 visits)
Pennsylvania (14 visits)
Florida (11 visits)
Michigan (10 visits)
8 Visits: Iowa, W.Va., Wis.

Kerry
Florida (20 visits)
Ohio (20 visits)
Pennsylvania (19 visits)
Wisconsin (13 visits)
Massachusetts (12 visits)

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Hammer
yes, i would. political climates change. the swing states vary from election to election. the top 20 cities in account for roughly 60% of the vote. those will be the only places politicians would campaign or care about.

so you want a direct popular election right? many times in history, there hasn't been a popular majority. you probably think Bush shouldn't be President because he got 47.9% of the vote. Well, Clinton got just 43% of the popular vote in 1992. its only thanks to the electoral college that we had a clear winner (he won 370-168).

What a nonsense argument. He had 43% which was MORE than his opponent by far. Maybe you forgot that perot had 15-20% (somewhere in that range). Clinton won the popular vote. Even without the electoral system, he would have won. As far as I can tell, the electoral system only makes a difference in close elections.

[added for clarity]I doubt anyone is advocating that a candidate must have a MAJORITY of popular votes. More likely they are advocating a system where the candidate must have a plurality...

The point of the electoral college system is NOT to "make a difference in close elections". The point of the electoral college system is to preserve the rights and representation of individual states that do not have the large population center. We do not live in one large country. We live in a union of individual states. Those individual states are guaranteed by the constitution to have the right to govern themselves as they see fit (to some extent anyway). Replacing the electoral college system with a straight popular vote would take away the representation for those more rural states. It would allow the few states with the highest population to dictate federal government policy.

Since so many don't seem to understand the concept of tyranny of the majority, I'll give you the dummies version:
It is what can happen when a simple majority is allowed to make decisions with no checks and balances at all.

For instance, if all the white people voted to legalize slavery.
You could argue that 70% of the people voted in favor of it so it is the "will of the people" and should be enacted.
Our constitution including the Bill of Rights and later amendments was designed to protect individuals from being trampled on by the tyrrany of the majority. The electoral college system was designed to protect states from being trampled on by the tyrrany of the majority.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Hammer
yes, i would. political climates change. the swing states vary from election to election. the top 20 cities in account for roughly 60% of the vote. those will be the only places politicians would campaign or care about.

so you want a direct popular election right? many times in history, there hasn't been a popular majority. you probably think Bush shouldn't be President because he got 47.9% of the vote. Well, Clinton got just 43% of the popular vote in 1992. its only thanks to the electoral college that we had a clear winner (he won 370-168).

What a nonsense argument. He had 43% which was MORE than his opponent by far. Maybe you forgot that perot had 15-20% (somewhere in that range). Clinton won the popular vote. Even without the electoral system, he would have won. As far as I can tell, the electoral system only makes a difference in close elections.

[added for clarity]I doubt anyone is advocating that a candidate must have a MAJORITY of popular votes. More likely they are advocating a system where the candidate must have a plurality...

yes, but you're advocating a direct vote because you don't feel the will of the country is accurately represented. right? this is just an example: it is your contention that someone who conceivably has 43% of the popularvote is a more accurate representative of the country's will then someone who carried 40 out of 50 states?

 

[DT4K]

Hammer,

Did you have any info on campaign visits to non-battleground states?

I was also going to point out that NY, Texas, and California were in fact, NOT at the top of the list at all.

The only info I could find on where they have visited was a list of the battleground states and how many times they had visited those states. But I also know that Bush has made appearances in Arizona and Texas. I don't know where else he has visited.

 

[dullard]

Replacing the electoral college system with a straight popular vote would take away the representation for those more rural states. It would allow the few states with the highest population to dictate federal government policy.

I don't think giving me double vote really fixes the problem. What you are suggesting is giving me maybe 10x the vote. Then I'd agree with you that it can really have some impact. But with just double the vote, I'm still ignored and the big/moderate sized states dictate the policy. Small states are useless with the current electoral college.

For instance, if all the white people voted to legalize slavery.
You could argue that 70% of the people voted in favor of it so it is the "will of the people" and should be enacted.
Our constitution including the Bill of Rights and later amendments was designed to protect individuals from being trampled on by the tyrrany of the majority. The electoral college system was designed to protect states from being trampled on by the tyrrany of the majority.

This has nothing to do with the argument. Tyranny by the majority involves the majority voting to take away fundamental rights from the minority. For example, voting for slavery would take away the ideals of "all men created equal" and of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". That would be tryanny. Giving equal votes to equal people does not take any rights away from the minority. The minority can still vote. The minority can still have all of their bill of rights, etc. So that isn't tyranny at all.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: DT4K
Hammer,

Did you have any info on campaign visits to non-battleground states?

I was also going to point out that NY, Texas, and California were in fact, NOT at the top of the list at all.

The only info I could find on where they have visited was a list of the battleground states and how many times they had visited those states. But I also know that Bush has made appearances in Arizona and Texas. I don't know where else he has visited.

this is the link i found.

Link

it doesn't show the bottom ranked states.

 

[tynopik]

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.

giving more power to rural areas in no way implies tyranny of the minority

even if they are 'over-represented', their total power compared to california and texas is miniscule, certainly not enough for any 'tyranny' over them. All it does is force california and texas to consider the needs of the smaller states.

the idea is to give low population areas enough power to avoid being trampled, that is all

did you know that direct referendums are illegal in Germany? Do you know why? It's the means the majority (the Nazis) used to trample the rights of the minority (the Jews).

it's why the electoral college is not only a good idea, it is critical

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

probably already said but in this day and age we have the technology to process the popular vote fast enough that it should be relied upon.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

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.

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 ($$).

What's cheaper, 1 spot for a national audience, or 30 spots in key markets?

What's more effective?

What do political ads have to do with the electoral college?

There is no reason why the popular vote can't determine who wins a given election.

The last election pretty much proved that the electoral college system in flawed IMO.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
probably already said but in this day and age we have the technology to process the popular vote fast enough that it should be relied upon.

that has nothing to do with why we have the electoral college. read your history. the framers of the constitution considered a direct popular vote, but the idea was ultimately rejected. It was rejected for the same reasons many people here have been stating.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote.
Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution
doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without
sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people
would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At
worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to
govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be
decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the
smaller ones.

Link

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

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.

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 ($$).

What's cheaper, 1 spot for a national audience, or 30 spots in key markets?

What's more effective?

What do political ads have to do with the electoral college?

There is no reason why the popular vote can't determine who wins a given election.

The last election pretty much proved that the electoral college system in flawed IMO.

Hey, you first. How does the computer/technology age change things? You just threw that out there w/o an reason why...

There are several reason listed in this thread why popular vote is bad (Germany Nazi-Jews ex., top cities rule the rest of the county another, the list of these cities won't change much, etc.)

Every system has flaws, popular vote has more than electoral college. Just because the last election was flawed (won't argue that, lets just assume) doesn't mean the system needs to be ditched. It just shows the system isn't perfect, well, nothing is.

 

[dullard]

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote.
Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution
doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without
sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people
would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At
worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to
govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be
decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the
smaller ones.

That may be quite true in the past when there weren't well defined political parties and there were just a few states. But even now, no one state can have all of the say - there are just too many states. Texas and Florida cancel out California for example. Texas cancels New York. North Carolina cancels New Jersey. No one state can vote for themselves and win. With just two political parties with a chance, that is even less important.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

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.

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 ($$).

What's cheaper, 1 spot for a national audience, or 30 spots in key markets?

What's more effective?

What do political ads have to do with the electoral college?

There is no reason why the popular vote can't determine who wins a given election.

The last election pretty much proved that the electoral college system in flawed IMO.

Hey, you first. How does the computer/technology age change things? You just threw that out there w/o an reason why...

There are several reason listed in this thread why popular vote is bad (Germany Nazi-Jews ex., top cities rule the rest of the county another, the list of these cities won't change much, etc.)

Every system has flaws, popular vote has more than electoral college. Just because the last election was flawed (won't argue that, lets just assume) doesn't mean the system needs to be ditched. It just shows the system isn't perfect, well, nothing is.

Because in the past it would have taken so long to COUNT the votes, that by the time it was finished it would be time for the NEXT election. Computers can accomplish this task in hours?

I for one want my vote to count! And doing away with the electoral college would make sure it DID. I don't trust it, (the electoral college) and I never have. It leaves the whole political system open to corruption. (like that is something new...) There HAVE been times when states voted AGAINST the popular vote in the college. Is THAT right? NO. One vote should count as ONE vote!

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

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.

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 ($$).

What's cheaper, 1 spot for a national audience, or 30 spots in key markets?

What's more effective?

What do political ads have to do with the electoral college?

There is no reason why the popular vote can't determine who wins a given election.

The last election pretty much proved that the electoral college system in flawed IMO.

Hey, you first. How does the computer/technology age change things? You just threw that out there w/o an reason why...

There are several reason listed in this thread why popular vote is bad (Germany Nazi-Jews ex., top cities rule the rest of the county another, the list of these cities won't change much, etc.)

Every system has flaws, popular vote has more than electoral college. Just because the last election was flawed (won't argue that, lets just assume) doesn't mean the system needs to be ditched. It just shows the system isn't perfect, well, nothing is.

Because in the past it would have taken so long to COUNT the votes, that by the time it was finished it would be time for the NEXT election. Computers can accomplish this task in hours?

I for one want my vote to count! And doing away with the electoral college would make sure it DID. I don't trust it, (the electoral college) and I never have. It leaves the whole political system open to corruption. (like that is something new...)

The time required to count the vote wasn't a real factor. The electoral college guarantees the individual rights of states. It is one of the many checks and balances built into the U.S. government. A popular vote would be disastrous to the more rural states. The large population centers would dictate the direction of the presidency. As it stands now, at least the candidates have to, at minimum, pay lip service to those smaller states to get a majority of the electoral votes. It prevents a possible tyrannical stranglehold on the Presidency by the states with large populations.

 

[Brutuskend]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't the larger states have more votes than the smaller ones?

What's the difference?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
The large population centers would dictate the direction of the presidency. As it stands now, at least the candidates have to, at minimum, pay lip service to those smaller states to get a majority of the electoral votes. It prevents a possible tyrannical stranglehold on the Presidency by the states with large populations.

Like I said above, this has nothing to do with tyranny. There are already checks and balances to prevent loss of rights of the minority. So it has nothing to do with tyranny.

To counter California, a politician would need: MT, AK, HI, WY, ND, SD, NE, VT, NH, RI, DE, DC, ME, NV and ID. Wait no, s/he would still be one electoral college vote short. So our current electoral college does not prevent one state from dictating the viewpoints. If that were a true goal, the small states would need an even larger percentatage of the vote.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't the larger states have more votes than the smaller ones?

What's the difference?

Rhode Island: 3 electoral college votes, 1 million people. Thus each person has the equivalent of 3 / 1,000,000 = 3*10^-6 EC vote.

California: 55 EC votes, 35.5 million people. Thus each person has the equivalent of 55 / 35,500,000 = 1.55*10^-6 EC vote.

People in Rhode Island get roughly twice as much vote as people in CA. There is a difference. I perfer:
[*]Equal ratio of EC vote to population
[*]Or if that isn't agreeable then to bump up the ratio from 2:1 to something much more impactful (such as 10:1).

Note: the biggest ratio is currently in Washington DC (3.5:1) but that is an exception as it isn't a state, I just chose RI as an example of one of the many 3 EC vote states.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Amused
I think it's a great system and we should keep it.

I agree...eliminating the Electoral College was a critical error.

Ausm

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

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.

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 ($$).

What's cheaper, 1 spot for a national audience, or 30 spots in key markets?

What's more effective?

What do political ads have to do with the electoral college?

There is no reason why the popular vote can't determine who wins a given election.

The last election pretty much proved that the electoral college system in flawed IMO.

Hey, you first. How does the computer/technology age change things? You just threw that out there w/o an reason why...

There are several reason listed in this thread why popular vote is bad (Germany Nazi-Jews ex., top cities rule the rest of the county another, the list of these cities won't change much, etc.)

Every system has flaws, popular vote has more than electoral college. Just because the last election was flawed (won't argue that, lets just assume) doesn't mean the system needs to be ditched. It just shows the system isn't perfect, well, nothing is.

Because in the past it would have taken so long to COUNT the votes, that by the time it was finished it would be time for the NEXT election. Computers can accomplish this task in hours?

I for one want my vote to count! And doing away with the electoral college would make sure it DID. I don't trust it, (the electoral college) and I never have. It leaves the whole political system open to corruption. (like that is something new...) There HAVE been times when states voted AGAINST the popular vote in the college. Is THAT right? NO. One vote should count as ONE vote!

Sorry, that doesn't make sense at all. Last election did just fine, and the votes were counted (barring any argument about florida, lets avoid that for now). Changing to 1person/1vote would not help count the votes any faster. Nor is speed of counting relelvant on fairness.

There has never been an election that took so long to count the next election was ready, so there is no impetus for change.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

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.

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 ($$).

What's cheaper, 1 spot for a national audience, or 30 spots in key markets?

What's more effective?

What do political ads have to do with the electoral college?

There is no reason why the popular vote can't determine who wins a given election.

The last election pretty much proved that the electoral college system in flawed IMO.

Hey, you first. How does the computer/technology age change things? You just threw that out there w/o an reason why...

There are several reason listed in this thread why popular vote is bad (Germany Nazi-Jews ex., top cities rule the rest of the county another, the list of these cities won't change much, etc.)

Every system has flaws, popular vote has more than electoral college. Just because the last election was flawed (won't argue that, lets just assume) doesn't mean the system needs to be ditched. It just shows the system isn't perfect, well, nothing is.

Because in the past it would have taken so long to COUNT the votes, that by the time it was finished it would be time for the NEXT election. Computers can accomplish this task in hours?

I for one want my vote to count! And doing away with the electoral college would make sure it DID. I don't trust it, (the electoral college) and I never have. It leaves the whole political system open to corruption. (like that is something new...) There HAVE been times when states voted AGAINST the popular vote in the college. Is THAT right? NO. One vote should count as ONE vote!

if you read the thread, you would know that is NOT the reason why we have an electoral college.

you might not trust the electoral college system, but most people that understand how it works do trust it. the electoral college system actually helps PREVENT corruption. with each vote counting individually, dishonest politicians would have a huge incentive to engage in fraud for their party. also, if there was a recount necessary, like the last election, you would see a scramble to recount the entire country rather than just 1 state. it would be chaos.

finally as to your last point, faithless electors have happened a few times, but none affected the outcome. modern electors are the most loyal fanatical members of their parties and there is virually NO chance of one turning.

One occurred in 1820, when an elector pledged to James Monroe voted for John Quincy Adams instead. His rationale was that his vote would have made the election of Monroe unanimous and that no President other than George Washington was deserving of unanimous support. The other three instances ? one in 1956, one in 1960 and one in 1968 ? were equally peculiar to the individual elector. None affected an election?s outcome.

you really don't have a clue what you are talking about. seriously.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Hammer
yes, i would. political climates change. the swing states vary from election to election. the top 20 cities in account for roughly 60% of the vote. those will be the only places politicians would campaign or care about.

so you want a direct popular election right? many times in history, there hasn't been a popular majority. you probably think Bush shouldn't be President because he got 47.9% of the vote. Well, Clinton got just 43% of the popular vote in 1992. its only thanks to the electoral college that we had a clear winner (he won 370-168).

What a nonsense argument. He had 43% which was MORE than his opponent by far. Maybe you forgot that perot had 15-20% (somewhere in that range). Clinton won the popular vote. Even without the electoral system, he would have won. As far as I can tell, the electoral system only makes a difference in close elections.

[added for clarity]I doubt anyone is advocating that a candidate must have a MAJORITY of popular votes. More likely they are advocating a system where the candidate must have a plurality...

yes, but you're advocating a direct vote because you don't feel the will of the country is accurately represented. right? this is just an example: it is your contention that someone who conceivably has 43% of the popularvote is a more accurate representative of the country's will then someone who carried 40 out of 50 states?

I'm not advocating jack. I do not have much of an opinion on this matter one way or the other, except that I don't think it's that big of a deal in elections that are not close.

My whole purpose in posting was to note how stupid your point about bill clinton was. You seemed to want to use it as an example of when the electoral system provided a different result than the popular vote. Or maybe it was just some meaningless statistic that had no bearing on the debate. Either way, it was pointless. I love it when people put words in my mouth and assume I am disagreeing with their overall opinion just because i call them on some BS point.