Recommended Posts
pop 0
QuoteIf that's what you really want then you need to get rid of the Senate as well.
I am only talking about having the opportunity to directly vote for the leaders, rather than running a chance of having the candidates influencing the EC voters, and creating the opportunity for EC voters to vote based on personal gain rather than peoples' say.
7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer
QuoteWhen you have a situation where you clearly have a larger number of the population voting one way, meaning the public has spoken, but the EC votes cause a different outcome from what the people want, then we a faulty system...
Getting rid of the electoral college would be quite tricky. If we went to a system where the nationwide popular vote determined the presidency, we would also have to have a uniform, nationwide, system for determining just who is eligible to vote, how votes are counted, how election rules are enforced, etc. If you are going to add vote totals in, say, Florida and California, etc., you have to be sure that a vote in Florida means exactly the same thing as a vote in California. The rules for voting have to be exactly the same nationwide.
This would mean that the federal government would have to get directly involved in running elections in a way they are not involved right now. Do we really want to do that?
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
BIGUN 1,440
That's a big can of worms to open.
http://www.maitreg.com/politics/articles/electoralcollege.asp
http://www.maitreg.com/politics/articles/electoralcollege.asp
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.
pop 0
QuoteQuoteWhen you have a situation where you clearly have a larger number of the population voting one way, meaning the public has spoken, but the EC votes cause a different outcome from what the people want, then we a faulty system...
Getting rid of the electoral college would be quite tricky. If we went to a system where the nationwide popular vote determined the presidency, we would also have to have a uniform, nationwide, system for determining just who is eligible to vote, how votes are counted, how election rules are enforced, etc. If you are going to add vote totals in, say, Florida and California, etc., you have to be sure that a vote in Florida means exactly the same thing as a vote in California. The rules for voting have to be exactly the same nationwide.
This would mean that the federal government would have to get directly involved in running elections in a way they are not involved right now. Do we really want to do that?
We are voting for a national leader. This shuold definitely be in the hands of the feds. You just stated "we would also have to have a uniform, nationwide, system for determining just who is eligible to vote, how votes are counted, how election rules are enforced, etc. If you are going to add vote totals in, say, Florida and California, etc., you have to be sure that a vote in Florida means exactly the same thing as a vote in California. The rules for voting have to be exactly the same nationwide."
This is exactly how it shuold be. We are all equal here, and each personas vote should equal to 1.
7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer
pop 0
I have lived in 2 states in the USA. They are Texas and California. I also had a chance to vote in both. However, no matter who I personally voted for we all know what the outcome is for those 2 states. Kinda sucks to feel like my vote doesnt count.
7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer
pop 0
QuoteThat's a big can of worms to open.
http://www.maitreg.com/politics/articles/electoralcollege.asp
That aricle lost me right about here "So who would want to abolish the Electoral College if it tears the country apart? The same people who want to do away with ALL states' rights." Are you kidding me? Do away with state rights? That wouldnt make any sense. However, when voting for the president we are voting for a national leader, not a state leader.
7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer
rushmc 23
This states it well
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
I can not post the total article so please use the link
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
I can not post the total article so please use the link
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
I think the electoral college has outlived its utility and would like to see it abolished in favor of a popular vote.
Blues,
Dave
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
QuoteI'd like to see real democracy in this country where we get to vote for the person in office, rather than voting for the person who might vote the way you want them to.
I can certainly see the point of a popular vote for president. There definitely IS a valid point to a "majority of popular vote" argument. But that argument has ITS own drawbacks, which the founders addressed.
At present, the EC works out to show the need for a national candidate. A look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege2000-Large.png shows the logic behind an electoral vote based system. The population centers have a HUGE impact on the election. But the rest of the country receives consideration.
We are a nation of different people, places and areas. The best balance is found by an electoral college.
INdeed, our system is set up to ensure that the dangers of "majority rule" are kept in check. And honestly, I like the system. Not because it got my guy in (it did not).
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
At present, the EC works out to show the need for a national candidate. A look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege2000-Large.png shows the logic behind an electoral vote based system. The population centers have a HUGE impact on the election. But the rest of the country receives consideration.
We are a nation of different people, places and areas. The best balance is found by an electoral college.
Comparing that map to the national vote, it's clear that Bush won more acres and Gore won more people. "Places and areas" shouldn't get votes, only people should, and each person's vote should be worth exactly as much as any other person's.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
jakee 1,571
QuoteA look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/...ollege2000-Large.png shows the logic behind an electoral vote based system.
Only if you think "Geographical area won" is important to an election result
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteA look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/...ollege2000-Large.png shows the logic behind an electoral vote based system.
Only if you think "Geographical area won" is important to an election result
You can change it. All you have to do is get a bunch of the smaller states to vote to change the constitution. Think that will happen?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote"Places and areas" shouldn't get votes, only people should, and each person's vote should be worth exactly as much as any other person's.
The electoral college does just that. It, in essence, gives the people in flyover country a say in it. Look at the 2000 election. Bush BARELY eked out an electoral win despite carrying 3/5 of the states, because the more populous states get a bigger share of the electoral pie.
For example, Gore took California - 54 votes. Bush taking AZ (8), NV (4), ID (4), MT (3), WY (3), UT (5), CO (8), NDAK (3), SDAK (3), NB (5), and KS (6) STILL did not match California's 54 votes. Take half the damn country, and California alone can balance it.
Thus, we see how People are a HUGE amount of it. But there is some balance with regard to the number of people whose votes are spread out. Check out Wyoming. WHo the hell cares about Wyoming, right? When was the last time a politician on a national scale ever thought anything about it. Ah, but those three electoral votes could come in CRUCIAL in an election under the electoral college versus general election.
Wyoming is the LEAST populous state in the country. How little is that population? Fresno, California has a population twice that of Wyoming.
In a popular election, do you think a candidate would give a rat's ass about it? No way. If given the choice of swinging Fresno or Wyoming, they'd take Fresno.
But an electoral college FORCES that candidate to appeal to Wyoming.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteWhen was the last time a politician on a national scale ever thought anything about it...
The last time, I think, was in 2000 when Cheney claimed to be a Wyoming resident. Cheney was actually from Texas but had he admitted it he would have lost the Texas electoral votes, since the Texas electors could not constitutionally vote for both a Pres (Bush) and a VP (Cheney) from Texas.
Had Cheney not claimed to be from Wyoming, Lieberman would have become VP in 2000.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
QuoteQuote"Places and areas" shouldn't get votes, only people should, and each person's vote should be worth exactly as much as any other person's.
The electoral college does just that. It, in essence, gives the people in flyover country a say in it. Look at the 2000 election. Bush BARELY eked out an electoral win despite carrying 3/5 of the states, because the more populous states get a bigger share of the electoral pie.
For example, Gore took California - 54 votes. Bush taking AZ (8), NV (4), ID (4), MT (3), WY (3), UT (5), CO (8), NDAK (3), SDAK (3), NB (5), and KS (6) STILL did not match California's 54 votes. Take half the damn country, and California alone can balance it.
Thus, we see how People are a HUGE amount of it. But there is some balance with regard to the number of people whose votes are spread out. Check out Wyoming. WHo the hell cares about Wyoming, right? When was the last time a politician on a national scale ever thought anything about it. Ah, but those three electoral votes could come in CRUCIAL in an election under the electoral college versus general election.
Wyoming is the LEAST populous state in the country. How little is that population? Fresno, California has a population twice that of Wyoming.
In a popular election, do you think a candidate would give a rat's ass about it? No way. If given the choice of swinging Fresno or Wyoming, they'd take Fresno.
But an electoral college FORCES that candidate to appeal to Wyoming.
I don't think Fresno OR Wyoming should have a vote in our Presidential election. I think each person in Fresno and in Wyoming should have a vote of exactly equal weight. Additionally, each person within any particular state should have their voice be heard, rather than the majority/plurality of each state getting 100% of their state's vote. Most elections should be dealt with on a state by state basis, and each state should select its own senators and representatives, but when the individuals who comprise our nation are voting in someone to represent all of us, I don't think any of those individual votes should be silenced, dampened, or amplified.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
jakee 1,571
QuoteFor example, Gore took California - 54 votes. Bush taking AZ (8), NV (4), ID (4), MT (3), WY (3), UT (5), CO (8), NDAK (3), SDAK (3), NB (5), and KS (6) STILL did not match California's 54 votes. Take half the damn country, and California alone can balance it.
Damn right, since California still outweighs those states by over 13 MILLION people. Why do you support disenfranchising Californians of a full 3rd of their vote relative to residents of those states?
See you say half the country, but that's just geographical. Why is area important? Why does a guy who owns a farm deserve more of a vote than a guy who lives in an apartment?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
rushmc 23
Why does a guy who owns a farm deserve more of a vote than a guy who lives in an apartment?
If the issues are focused simply because of population then this will not be a united states anymore. The founding fathers were briliant when the EC was created. Read more on it. It is facinating the options they considered
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jakee 1,571
QuoteIf the issues are focused simply because of population then this will not be a united states anymore.
Why? And what does that even mean?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteIf the issues are focused simply because of population then this will not be a united states anymore.
Why? And what does that even mean?
If all the country is not considered and only populas areas are looked at. Canidates will only work to get policies that support large population centers so they can get elected or re-elected. The fly over states would be ingored. How long do you think those states should have to put up with that?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteQuoteIf the issues are focused simply because of population then this will not be a united states anymore.
Why? And what does that even mean?
A state is supposed to have considerable autonomy to go its own way and make its own laws under the Constitution, although admittedly the federal government has in practice been gaining in power for a long time. Wyoming is, indeed, supposed to have as great a right to set its own laws--for internal Wyoming matters--as California does. With proportional-only representation in the EC or Senate it is much harder for states like Wyoming to enforce their rights.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
QuoteQuoteQuoteIf the issues are focused simply because of population then this will not be a united states anymore.
Why? And what does that even mean?
If all the country is not considered and only populas areas are looked at. Canidates will only work to get policies that support large population centers so they can get elected or re-elected. The fly over states would be ingored. How long do you think those states should have to put up with that?
Look at how you keep mentioning places rather than people. Places shouldn't be electing our President, people should.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
billvon 3,090
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I don't think Fresno OR Wyoming should have a vote in our Presidential election.
That's what it comes down to. If we are the united _people_ of america, then a vote per person makes more sense. If we are the united _states_ of america, then the electoral college makes more sense.
That's what it comes down to. If we are the united _people_ of america, then a vote per person makes more sense. If we are the united _states_ of america, then the electoral college makes more sense.
rushmc 23
Quote>I don't think Fresno OR Wyoming should have a vote in our Presidential election.
That's what it comes down to. If we are the united _people_ of america, then a vote per person makes more sense. If we are the united _states_ of america, then the electoral college makes more sense.
Very well stated Bill!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites