Electoral College

[Darrell]

With the Colorado State queston about spliting thier votes, How do you fell about going to a most votes win format. Do you think that in non-swing states that there would be higher voter turnouts if the everone thought that ther vote counted.

I saw similar poll to day that ran 60% in favor of it, (I think in was on MSNBC)

Darrell

[Fish boy]

here is a hypothetical:

the evening of November 01, 20XX, a large snow storm rolls through the northeast blanketing the northeastern states and making transportation anywhere very difficult. The northeast is a democratic stronghold.

with voters having difficulty making it to the polls, Republicans most likely will win since the sunnier states with the exception of calif favor bush (fla still toss up). W/o the snow storm, dems would have had their representation in a most votes wins election.

With electoral college, no matter how few voters make it to the polls in the northeast, they will still have equal and proportionate representation.

Additionally, it helps ensure that states like calif, texas, fla, NY, do not decide the future of the presidency for the rest of the country since they have the most voters. Not that these states could agree on anything, but you get the point.

Not a pefect system, but I think there should be some thought given to what will be given up if we do away with it.

[RedDog]

Seems like a pretty reckless idea to me. Afterall, we are a nation of states, as in the United STATES of America. Our founders intent was that the STATES would select the President. Seems the founders got most things right - why would anyone think they didn't get the electorial college right?

[gcarter]

With electoral college, no matter how few voters make it to the polls in the northeast, they will still have equal and proportionate representation.


Not a pefect system, but I think there should be some thought given to what will be given up if we do away with it.

I agree Jody, the Electoral College is the fairest voting system in the world, and the ONLY one that guarantees a candidate will visit EVERY state he(or she) possibly can. It would be the single worst possible thing we could do to our election laws.
:smash:

[Cuda]

I think one of the reasons the founding fathers implemented the electoral college was because it would have been nearly impossible for everyone to make it to vote back then, and no technology to count the votes, although our counting technology is still in question.

[RedDog]

James Madison, chief architect of our nation’s electoral college, wanted to protect each citizen against the most insidious tyranny that arises in democracies: the massed power of fellow citizens banded together in a dominant bloc. As Madison explained in The Federalist Papers (Number X), "a well-constructed Union" must, above all else, "break and control the violence of faction," especially "the superior force of an . . . overbearing majority." In any democracy, a majority’s power threatens minorities. It threatens their rights, their property, and sometimes their lives.

[RedDog]

Looking at the poll results, there sure is a majority in favor of abolishment - yet not one post explaining why that would be such a good idea?

[Fish boy]

I would like to think that it is a knee jerk reaction and after some thought, some may reconsider thier vote to abolish. I have had conversations with several people regarding the electoral college, and most do not totally understand the how and why, but when presented in the "they stole the election terms" of greater total votes and not win the election, it sounds like correction is immediately necessary. Once we talk about it a little, the foresight of the founding fathers makes a little more sense- at least to the folks that I have discussed it with. THen again, I am sure there are several people who want to abolish it that have very good, well-founded reasons.

[David O]

I am learning much, so now will someone please explain the hows and whys the number of electoral votes per state are assigned.

[DONZI]

I am learning much, so now will someone please explain the hows and whys the number of electoral votes per state are assigned.
David, Here's a link that explains it.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.html

[Darrell]

I agree Jody, the Electoral College is the fairest voting system in the world, and the ONLY one that guarantees a candidate will visit EVERY state he(or she) possibly can. It would be the single worst possible thing we could do to our election laws.
:smash:


No candidate came to Oklahoma, only the VP and that was to raise money and endorse the Rep. Senate candidate. Don't say it's because we only have 7 votes, look a N.M. at the number of times they have been there. I haven't even seen a comercial on a Okla. TV station (that's relly not a bad thing) I think the candidates would have visit more states if we changed it. Also, what it more states start dividing thier votes, wouldn't that make it more unfair the the winner of that state, since he (she) would only get part of the votes. While other states still go winner take-all.

Also I trully believe if you wanted more voter turn-out, the popular vote would achieve that. Do really think that some who lives in Wy. (they went 68% Bush in 2000) really feels that his vote matters if he wants to vote for Kerry.

I wonder if people who are against the change would think different if Bush won the popular vote and lost the electoral college vote?


Darrell

[RvR]

Eliminating the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, however proportional distribution of the delegates is allowed. Still that is left up to the discretion of the individual states so it is not clear that it could be forced upon them without an amendment. Using a proportional distribution of Electoral College votes would keep the strong points of the system while eliminating its failings.

It would force candidates to truly campaign country wide rather than just focusing on “battle ground states.”

It would mean that everyone’s vote would count but small states would still retain relatively more votes per population.

The snowstorm in the NE or hurricane in Florida would not be an issue, anymore than it is now, since the number of electoral votes wouldn’t depend on turnout.

Perhaps most importantly it would begin to open the system to more influence by third parties. It would be likely that in some states third parties, Libertarians, Greens, etc. would begin to have some influence in determining election outcomes. Something that is long over due in our constipated two party system.

[gcarter]

I remember sitting up all night in '68 and in '60, both Nixon races.
In '60 Nixon had a legitimate reason to ask for a re-count in a number of states. He lost the popular vote by a very few votes, close on the Electoral college too but I don't remember how much. But what ever else you might have thought of Nixon, he never pulled a GORE! :shocking:

[Darrell]

I remember sitting up all night in '68 and in '62, both Nixon races.
In '62 Nixon had a legitimate reason to ask for a re-count in a number of states. He lost the popular vote by a very few votes, close on the Electoral college too but I don't remember how much. But what ever else you might have thought of Nixon, he never pulled a GORE! :shocking:


Did JFK know about that 62 election?

Just kidding you
Darrell

[gcarter]

Darn it, you caught me!
If you refresh, you'll see I've already corrected it to '60. :biggrin:

[gcarter]

Actually I was trying to give the president a six year term like the senators! :biggrin:

[MOP]

You mention getting rid of it in crowd and its all Hands Up with one argument or another. Reading the posts has been some of the best input I have read. Thanks for the food for thought. I like many have thought differently leaning more toward doing away with it. It makes sense to keep it, maybe just preform a little massaging instead.

Phil

[mattyboy]

I just can't seem to understand how a state can be divided in popular vote and then cast all it's electoral votes one way???

if a state is 1/4 rep 3/4 dem then the electoral vote should be 1/4 rep 3/4 dem not all dem??

[Fish boy]

I just can't seem to understand how a state can be divided in popular vote and then cast all it's electoral votes one way???

if a state is 1/4 rep 3/4 dem then the electoral vote should be 1/4 rep 3/4 dem not all dem??

Matty, I am not sure I can find fault with your suggestion. 2 states already vote this way. I am winging this and too tired to look it up so someone correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive Nebraska and Maine divide thier votes.

It would maintain much of the necessary original intent of the electoral college, and give greater actual representation. It might also ensure that candidates work harder in states with smaller electoral votes, rather than spend the lionshare of their campaign dollars in the biggies.

[Tidbart]

I found a pretty good article yesterday on the pros and cons of changing the electoral system. Keep in mind that any change to the system, as stated earlier, would require a constitutional amendment. This is a highly unlikely scenario, changing the constitution that is.

http://www.electionreform.org/ERMain/priorities/ec/reform.htm

Thank God, no more Kerry. :yippie:

Bob

[Gary S.]

No one has mentioned that we live in a Republic,,, not a true democracy or "mob rule" country, what we have was put in place for good reason. Take the snow storms and hurricane idea and think of just California and New York states deciding our elections, that could happen if the two of them had mass voter turn out and the rest did not. We live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, land and home of the free and brave, we are not perfect,but we are the best!!!!!!!! If you don't like it,,,,,for the moderate liberal,,,,,,,,,,go to Canada or Europe and pay half of your pay check for the goverment taking care of you,,,,,, and for the ultra liberal,,,, Cuba or China is allways looking for model citizens. Your Marxist ideas have failed every where else,,,, USSR,Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary,East Germany, for example,,,,, so go try them out where they barely survive and when you pray to God to get you out of that hell,,,, you get thrown in prison. Leave the USA alone.

[Tidbart]

"No one has mentioned that we live in a Republic,,, not a true democracy or "mob rule" country, what we have was put in place for good reason. Take the snow storms and hurricane idea and think of just California and New York states deciding our elections, that could happen if the two of them had mass voter turn out and the rest did not. We live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, land and home of the free and brave, we are not perfect,but we are the best!!!!!!!! If you don't like it,,,,,for the moderate liberal,,,,,,,,,,go to Canada or Europe and pay half of your pay check for the goverment taking care of you,,,,,, and for the ultra liberal,,,, Cuba or China is allways looking for model citizens. Your Marxist ideas have failed every where else,,,, USSR,Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary,East Germany, for example,,,,, so go try them out where they barely survive and when you pray to God to get you out of that hell,,,, you get thrown in prison. Leave the USA alone."



Easy there, big fella. Discussing the finer points of our electoral system, does not a liberal nor a communist make.

B