The Electoral College favors Kerry this time

[Calcountry]

Will all of you Dems be as pissed if Bush gets the popular vote and Kerry wins the EC.???

Right now, that is more plausible than Bush winning EC without Pop.

Why? Because Kerry is not going to win California, NY, NJ by as big a margin as Gore, and Bush is gonna win HUGE in the South.

Kerry will only squeek Ohio, Florida, and Penn, if he wins.

I can accept that, but can you Dems????

Kerry has went into this election with a EC strategy, just as Bush. I am quite certain, that they only want the Pop as Icing on a Presidential cake. Rules are rules.

[MadProphetMargin]

Will all of you Dems be as pissed if Bush gets the popular vote and Kerry wins the EC.???



Why? That's how the system works.

[Metrolike]

Saying that I would be pissed would be pretty hypocritical of me. However I would not judge Republicans for being pissed as it is a legit reason. The system is bad, what can I say. If Kerry wins pop vote and Bush the EC I will be pissed, again.

[Calcountry]

Why? That's how the system works.
Agreed, if you don't like it than change it.

oops, can't, that is in the constitution, and there isn't enough support for it.

[MadProphetMargin]

Agreed, if you don't like it than change it.

oops, can't, that is in the constitution, and there isn't enough support for it.

I am, in principle, against altering the constitution. Every time you do it, you get everyone and their damn grandmother trying to get their thumb in.

Amendments shouldn't be easy, and they aren't. Think about it...if amendments were easy, you'd have every granola crunching Berkeley twit trying to repeal the second, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell trying to remove the exclusionary clause, and EVERYONE trying to abolish the rest of amendment I, not to mention IX and X.


Leave well enough alone. It ain't perfect, but it's staggered along for 200+ years now.

[Metrolike]

I agree about changing the constitution, but the whole idea of EC was a bit questionable. I think it's a bit BS when a pres wins on pop vote, but still loses the election...

[Bowser]

Here's my idea...Each state gets ONE electoral vote that is decided by the outcome of the popular vote of that state. It would put Delaware and Wyoming on even footing with Texas and California. Your vote would seemingly mean more, and people would be more likely to vote, IMO.


Flame away.

[Calcountry]

Here's my idea...Each state gets ONE electoral vote that is decided by the outcome of the popular vote of that state. It would put Delaware and Wyoming on even footing with Texas and California. Your vote would seemingly mean more, and people would be more likely to vote, IMO.


Flame away.
That might work if Pork Barrel politics didn't exist.

[MadProphetMargin]

Here's my idea...Each state gets ONE electoral vote that is decided by the outcome of the popular vote of that state. It would put Delaware and Wyoming on even footing with Texas and California. Your vote would seemingly mean more, and people would be more likely to vote, IMO.


Flame away.


That would be even LESS "democratic" than the system we have now.

What makes you think that more people would vote? The problem isn't the system, it's the people.

[Bowser]

That would be even LESS "democratic" than the system we have now.

What makes you think that more people would vote? The problem isn't the system, it's the people.

Maybe candidates and local govt might make the time to try to connect with the populace a bit more if they were truly worried that any one person's vote REALLY COULD make a difference.

I'm not all that educated on the electoral and popular voting process, and therefore probablly talking out of my ass, it just seems more simple this way.

[MadProphetMargin]

Maybe candidates and local govt might make the time to try to connect with the populace a bit more if they were truly worried that any one person's vote REALLY COULD make a difference.

I'm not all that educated on the electoral and popular voting process, and therefore probablly talking out of my ass, it just seems more simple this way.

1. Nope. They'll just pump more money into campaign ads.

2. Simple does not necessarily mean better. Under your system, the votes of the half dozen people that live in Montana would equal the votes of the millions in Illinois or New York.

[alnorth]

Here's my idea...Each state gets ONE electoral vote that is decided by the outcome of the popular vote of that state. It would put Delaware and Wyoming on even footing with Texas and California. Your vote would seemingly mean more, and people would be more likely to vote, IMO.

Say hello to Republicans for the rest of your life! I wouldnt mind that, but think down the road... Whats that? California wants to break up into 10 new states? Hmmm... No thanks, I'll pass on this idea.

The electoral college is there to give smaller states a little more power while still acknowledging the might of the larger states. It has worked very well in that regard, I dont want a system where the candidates only go to New York, Dallas, and LA to ramp up the totals, ignoring flyover country. I dont give a flip if a candidate wont visit Kansas because its Bush country, our extra two EV's help balance rural needs with the huge population centers.

Furthermore, close elections would be an enormous NIGHTMARE in a popular-vote election. You think recounting Florida sucked? Imagine the entire nation. One great thing about the electoral college, is when an election is contested, gigantic chunks of the country are eliminated from the recount and litigation headache. Who cares if you have a little vote fraud in New York if Bush loses by 12 points in that state. Adjusting for irregularities might make a tenth of a point difference, you still lose. In a contested election, the electoral college narrows the focus down to a tiny section of land.

If you are Spain or Great Britain, a national recount is no big deal, you can throw a stone across the country and have the recounts done four times over by lunch time. If you havent noticed, our country, the United States of America, is freaking ginormous, both in size and population. We have what... tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe more precincts? IF a national election is contested and you think you were disenfranchised in Cornville, Nebraska, call up the DNC, they will send an army of lawyers your way in the hopes of fishing up a couple more votes to add to the recount total. We had dozens of court cases in Florida. In a national contested election, we will have not dozens, but hundreds of lawsuits.

It could work in a little European country, but a popular vote election simply isnt feasible in the USA. Say what you want about the electoral college, but you have to admit that it makes resolving disputes exponentially easier to deal with.

That said, seeing the loser with more popular votes is a little embarassing. I wouldnt mind reducing the chances it could occur, BUT any proposal should (in my opinion) respect the small state power inherent in our current system (otherwise youll never get the votes needed to pass it) and any new proposal ABSOLUTELY MUST address the recount problem. A national popular vote is unworkable in a close election. We still have problems if the focus is narrowed down to Florida, but its easier to deal with.

[Bowser]

Yeah, it would not be balanced, for sure. Like I said, I'm very much a layman with this stuff.

I'm sure this has been asked around these parts, but how many times in history has such an occurance as the electoral vote overriding the popular taken place?

[Chieficus]

Here's my idea...Each state gets ONE electoral vote that is decided by the outcome of the popular vote of that state. It would put Delaware and Wyoming on even footing with Texas and California. Your vote would seemingly mean more, and people would be more likely to vote, IMO.


Flame away.

I've actually have thought that keeping the EC but changing it to where the canidates get the individual electoral districts they won would be nice.

It would help in places like Illinois and California where the rule populace is at large with the cities. Illinois is an especially good example because the state tends to lean conservative minus Chicago but its Chicago that swings all the electoral votes...

But again, you would end up with the problem of what happens when you have those close votes in individual districts?

[Mr. Kotter]

I am, in principle, against altering the constitution. Every time you do it, you get everyone and their damn grandmother trying to get their thumb in.

Amendments shouldn't be easy, and they aren't. Think about it...if amendments were easy, you'd have every granola crunching Berkeley twit trying to repeal the second, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell trying to remove the exclusionary clause, and EVERYONE trying to abolish the rest of amendment I, not to mention IX and X.


Leave well enough alone. It ain't perfect, but it's staggered along for 200+ years now.

MPM....are you IN school. I swear, you seem to be gettin' a bit smarter than you were last summer, no insult intended. I mean, seriously, I find myself nodding in agreement when I read some of your posts anyway.

Nice change from the "WTF is with this idiot?" reactions I used to have when I read one of your posts.... :thumb:

:)

[Hydrae]

I am, in principle, against altering the constitution. Every time you do it, you get everyone and their damn grandmother trying to get their thumb in.

Amendments shouldn't be easy, and they aren't. Think about it...if amendments were easy, you'd have every granola crunching Berkeley twit trying to repeal the second, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell trying to remove the exclusionary clause, and EVERYONE trying to abolish the rest of amendment I, not to mention IX and X.


Leave well enough alone. It ain't perfect, but it's staggered along for 200+ years now.


Repeal the 16th amendment and I will be completely happy with the Constitution.

[Bowser]

Repeal the 16th amendment and I will be completely happy with the Constitution.

:clap: :thumb:

[Mr. Kotter]

:clap: :thumb:

Personally, I'd like to see the 19th repealed too. :p

ROFL

[Baby Lee]

Here's my idea...Each state gets ONE electoral vote that is decided by the outcome of the popular vote of that state. It would put Delaware and Wyoming on even footing with Texas and California. Your vote would seemingly mean more, and people would be more likely to vote, IMO.


Flame away.
And you'd have people buying tracts of land in Delaware and Wyoming that they'd subdivide into square inch plots, each bought by a NY or CA resident, who'd then cite that plot as their new residence.

:p

[Bowser]

And you'd have people buying tracts of land in Delaware and Wyoming that they'd subdivide into square inch plots, each bought by a NY or CA resident, who'd then cite that plot as their new residence.

:p

Damned lawyers always ruining my fun! Begone!!



:D

[Stinger]

Once again we are not ... I repeat not a democracy. Majority does not rule.

We are a Representive Republic.

[MadProphetMargin]

Repeal the 16th amendment and I will be completely happy with the Constitution.

Write your congressman.

Ain't America grand?

[MadProphetMargin]

Once again we are not ... I repeat not a democracy. Majority does not rule.

We are a Representive Republic.

Um, a republic IS a form of democracy...one in which the rule of the mob is limited by law (the constitution). Calling America a democracy isn't inaccurate, it's just vague.

[MadProphetMargin]

MPM....are you IN school. I swear, you seem to be gettin' a bit smarter than you were last summer, no insult intended. I mean, seriously, I find myself nodding in agreement when I read some of your posts anyway.

Nice change from the "WTF is with this idiot?" reactions I used to have when I read one of your posts.... :thumb:

:)


Naw, I'm just not in the horrible frickin' job I had back then.

Not as much stress, so I'm not pissed off before I post.

[Mr. Kotter]

Naw, I'm just not in the horrible frickin' job I had back then.

Not as much stress, so I'm not pissed off before I post.

Congrats. That's cool. Whatcha doin' these days? :hmmm:

[WoodDraw]

The Electoral College a shitty, outdated system that encourages voters to stay home and discourages canidates from actually campaigning. Instead of having a real election, we have two canidates who spend a year traveling to a small set of "swing states" that actually decide the election.

[MadProphetMargin]

Congrats. That's cool. Whatcha doin' these days? :hmmm:

Repairing forklifts, hysters, and tractors/farm equipment.

More fun stuff, less welding, no psycho boss. Hell, no co-workers, most of the time. I can get my misanthropy on, with no interruptions.

[MadProphetMargin]

The Electoral College a shitty, outdated system that encourages voters to stay home and discourages canidates from actually campaigning. Instead of having a real election, we have two canidates who spend a year traveling to a small set of "swing states" that actually decide the election.


That's not the fault of the electoral college, IMO, as much as it is the fault of television. The "sound bite" culture is the root cause of many of our problems.

[Mr. Kotter]

Repairing forklifts, hysters, and tractors/farm equipment.

More fun stuff, less welding, no psycho boss. Hell, no co-workers, most of the time. I can get my misanthropy on, with no interruptions.

Hell, that's real work. :thumb:

Spend too much time there, and you'll become a blue-dog Democrat like me.... :hmmm:

:p

[MadProphetMargin]

Hell, that's real work. :thumb:

Spend too much time there, and you'll become a blue-dog Democrat like me.... :hmmm:

:p

Naw. I've been twisting wrenches since I left the Army in '96. I come from a long line of labor liberals...hell, granddad was a Wobbly, back in the day. He has an arrest record as long as my arm, all from before WWII.

Besides, I'm still chuckling about Zell Miller:

PISTOLS AT DAWN, JERK!
\
:mad:

ROFL

[WoodDraw]

That's not the fault of the electoral college, IMO, as much as it is the fault of television. The "sound bite" culture is the root cause of many of our problems.

Let's assume that I live in Kansas, don't really involve myself in politics that much, and I'm only interested in the Presidential election. I plan on voting for John Kerry. Give me one reason to go and vote.

The same can be said for Republicans in New York, Democrats in Texas, and so on.

I do agree with you to a certain extent though. Many things that are good for our country have become unpopular and therefor politicaly unacceptable. No canidate can really vote the way they feel without the risk of having that vote incredibly distorted. The media just encourages that with their shitty coverage and sensationalism.

[MadProphetMargin]

Let's assume that I live in Kansas, don't really involve myself in politics that much, and I'm only interested in the Presidential election. I plan on voting for John Kerry. Give me one reason to go and vote.



Um, because it is one of the very few duties that comes with all the benefits of a republic?

[Taco John]

I wish the electoral college votes could be split up in each state... That and add a mechanism for a three party system.

[Mr. Kotter]

Naw. I've been twisting wrenches since I left the Army in '96. I come from a long line of labor liberals...hell, granddad was a Wobbly, back in the day. He has an arrest record as long as my arm, all from before WWII.

Besides, I'm still chuckling about Zell Miller:

PISTOLS AT DAWN, JERK!
\
:mad:

ROFL

Grandpa, a Wobbly? Really.....? Wow. Do you know whether he actually joined Communist Party, as well? Seriously. Many of those most active, did.....

That WOULD explain a lot. :hmmm:

J/K :p

[Adam]

I hate the electoral college either way. Every vote in the nation should count equally.

[Ultra Peanut]

I hate the electoral college either way. Every vote in the nation should count equally.This is a nation of states. Giving all of the power to two metropolitan areas in two states is not the way to determine the entire nation's presidency.

[Adam]

This is a nation of states. Giving all of the power to two metropolitan areas in two states is not the way to determine the entire nation's presidency.

This is a nation of people. Whether they live in the city or in the country their vote should count the exact same.

[Cochise]

Maybe if we split the states' electoral votes up by congressional district that would be a better idea? :shrug:

[Taco John]

Maybe if we split the states' electoral votes up by congressional district that would be a better idea? :shrug:



I would be in favor of that...

[WoodDraw]

That would be better but I still don't get why we need the electoral college. It just further complicates things and only becomes relavent when there is actually a "split vote". The current system encourages canidates to ignore states, voters to ignore the election, and the whole system to ignore 3rd party canidates. As a country who likes to hold itself up as the shining example of democracy, don't you think we should have a better system?

[memyselfI]

Will all of you Dems be as pissed if Bush gets the popular vote and Kerry wins the EC.???

Right now, that is more plausible than Bush winning EC without Pop.

Why? Because Kerry is not going to win California, NY, NJ by as big a margin as Gore, and Bush is gonna win HUGE in the South.

Kerry will only squeek Ohio, Florida, and Penn, if he wins.

I can accept that, but can you Dems????

Kerry has went into this election with a EC strategy, just as Bush. I am quite certain, that they only want the Pop as Icing on a Presidential cake. Rules are rules.

Sure when you accept that the CONS are destroying democracy when they go to court to challenge the results...

assuming the scenario you described happens. I remember the RW going nuts over the idea of going to court. I imagine if they are going to remain true to their principles they will see how they would be doing the same and resist. ROFL

[patteeu]

I am, in principle, against altering the constitution. Every time you do it, you get everyone and their damn grandmother trying to get their thumb in.

Amendments shouldn't be easy, and they aren't. Think about it...if amendments were easy, you'd have every granola crunching Berkeley twit trying to repeal the second, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell trying to remove the exclusionary clause, and EVERYONE trying to abolish the rest of amendment I, not to mention IX and X.


Leave well enough alone. It ain't perfect, but it's staggered along for 200+ years now.

It would be nice if it were just as difficult for judges to change the meaning of the constitution.

[patteeu]

I like the electoral college as it is. But if we have to change something, I say give each vote a weight that is proportional to the acreage of land owned by the voter. Bite me, renters, dorm rats and public housing tenants.