The Electoral College must go!

[her209]

I'll tell you this. I didn't vote this election because I knew California was already going to Kerry. If it were based on a popular vote, I would vote.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Each state chooses how they wish to be represented. It is the political parties that set up the winner take all in the state.

Let each state choose how they wish to be represented. If the state allowed proportional representation, then they would be coming close to mirroring the popular vote within the state.

It boils down to states rights on how they wish to participate in the political system of the United States

Each state has its own requirements.

Wasn't it Colorado that just voted against proportional electoral votes?

That they did. The people in the state exercised their right on how they wished to be represented.
Maine has some variant of the normal system.

IF people in their state feel that they are not able to be represented as needed, they can attempt to change it.

If the big population states were to start such a interest in adjusting the status quo, the national parties would be all over the state, tossing money and scare tactics to get the changes dropped.

Small states are not as important with respect to proportional change.

Let CA even think about allocating 1/3 of their votes to the Repubs and watch how fast the DNC will be in there to create FUD.

 

[glugglug]

OF COURSE they chose not to have the state represent proportional to popularity because WITHOUT ALL THE OTHER STATES DOING IT they would be diluting their own votes. DUH!
The representation or popular vote system itself CANNOT be a state issue because it would screw up the amount each persons vote counts vs. individual votes from other states even more. It has to be something changed at the NATIONAL level.

 

[JoeFaheyx]

Wow, Iv'e never had this many replies to a post started by myself in my life, on anandtech! hahaha, Thanks

 

[klah]

This is a pointless argument since it would require 38 state legislatures to approve.

But since we are talking about it, some of the current benefits that I have not seen discussed:

1. Prevention of 'Majority Fraud'
- There is currently no incentive to stuff ballot boxes in states that heavily favor one candidate.
You do not see people sitting around small towns in Texas filling out hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots to help Bush.
The only places where voter fraud affects the outcome is in swing states where all interested parties can afford to place poll watchers to prevent the majority of this. The only 2 countries in the world that have a direct popular election for President are Finland and France which use a National ID card to prevent Majority Fraud. The EC also localizes voter fraud i.e. states that do not require any ID only affect their own totals when they let foreigners vote.


2. States elect the President, not the citizens.
-There are over 5 million people with American citizenship who can not currently vote for President because they do not have residency in a U.S. state(or DC).
If the states no longer matter do these millions of people get to vote for President?

 

[spacejamz]

what needs to go is having different news channels posting their own count of projected electoral votes on election night...

that was too d@mn annoying see different counts on each channel...

 

[conjur]

The Electoral College has worked fine for over 200 years and it will keep on working fine. Nothing needs to be changed.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: JoeFahey
I am not saying this in protest that Bush shouldn't have been elected for his second term. I am saying this because it takes away the purpose of voting. As an example, Al Gore had over half a million more votes than President Bush, this is what should make him president. I know that the reason is so candidates won't be campaigning in big cities, but if thats what they must do, than let them! It's not like the rest of the country is completely isolated. Democracy is a government run by the peoples' ideas, and majority. If the majority of people's ideas/beliefs fall under one candidate for president, than that person should be elected. Popular vote should decide the president....If nothing else, we will be able to get some more sleep on election night!

I'd bet that if you start taking away state's rights by getting rid of the electoral college, there will be a serious move towards secession.

It may sound like a good idea now, but how much food *can* you grow in California, Florida, and New York?

california makes the most food of any state.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JoeFahey
As an example, Al Gore had over half a million more votes than President Bush, this is what should make him president.

without the electoral college in place that might not have been the result of the popular vote.

funny that one time the electoral college does what it was intended to do, people start to bitch about it. they're fine with it as long as it is just a messenger, but if it doesn't conform to their brainwashed notions then down with it!

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: JoeFahey
I am not saying this in protest that Bush shouldn't have been elected for his second term. I am saying this because it takes away the purpose of voting. As an example, Al Gore had over half a million more votes than President Bush, this is what should make him president. I know that the reason is so candidates won't be campaigning in big cities, but if thats what they must do, than let them! It's not like the rest of the country is completely isolated. Democracy is a government run by the peoples' ideas, and majority. If the majority of people's ideas/beliefs fall under one candidate for president, than that person should be elected. Popular vote should decide the president....If nothing else, we will be able to get some more sleep on election night!

I'd bet that if you start taking away state's rights by getting rid of the electoral college, there will be a serious move towards secession.

It may sound like a good idea now, but how much food *can* you grow in California, Florida, and New York?

california makes the most food of any state.

...yet it doesn't do any good if they don't have any water.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: rdubbz420

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: JoeFahey

We don't live in a democracy.

Hahaha

Well, we don't - we live in a republic. I'm not sure why there is so much confusion on this issue.

yup, Constitution-based federal republic.

Isn't amazing that people don't realize that we are closer to the EU than they think. We're more a band of 50 small countries that work together to solve things and share resources than one country.

We're not like those stupid Europeans.

 

[ajf3]

Actually, the election isn't really even official until the delegates cast their votes - the people voting doesn't really mean anything. If enough of the Bush delegates decided to change their vote to Kerry for whatever reason & he got above 270, he'd be the president. All legal too.

Same way as your congresscritter/senator can defy the will of his people to do what he thinks is proper.

The whole idea is that it's not mob-rule. Theres a layer of people who 'know better' above the electorate that acts as a firewall.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ajf3
Actually, the election isn't really even official until the delegates cast their votes - the people voting doesn't really mean anything. If enough of the Bush delegates decided to change their vote to Kerry for whatever reason & he got above 270, he'd be the president. All legal too.

Yep.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ajf3
Actually, the election isn't really even official until the delegates cast their votes - the people voting doesn't really mean anything. If enough of the Bush delegates decided to change their vote to Kerry for whatever reason & he got above 270, he'd be the president. All legal too.

Same way as your congresscritter/senator can defy the will of his people to do what he thinks is proper.

The whole idea is that it's not mob-rule. Theres a layer of people who 'know better' above the electorate that acts as a firewall.

now if only the electors were something more than a rubber stamp...

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

now if only the electors were something more than a rubber stamp...

then your vote would really count for nothing!

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: Valvoline6
I like the Electoral College and it's purpose. I am not in favor of changing it.

:thumbsup:

 

[0marTheZealot]

I think many electors are obliged by law to cast votes in favor of the candidate their state elected. Some states however have no laws as such.

Abolishment of the EC would be a good move overall. Right now, we have pandering to 10 or so swing states and the bases of the GOP/DEMs get almost no attention. Why bother compaigning in a state that you have already statistically won? We'd simply be re-arranging the deck chairs if we got rid of the EC.

 

[rdgr8]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It's purpose is to prevent the high density states and urban areas from running roughshod over the little guy.

And it does it very well.

...that is exactly the reason why the framers of our constitution adopted it in the first place. Whether you like it or not...it won't change.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Why bother compaigning in a state that you have already statistically won?

Why worry about the states you know are going to vote for your opponent being in the union, anyway?