PDA

View Full Version : Electoral College


Amnorix
11-03-2004, 06:30 AM
Pulling out this canard again -- why do we have the EC, exactly?

Does Wyoming have more political pull than it would if we had direct voting? Georgia? Mississippi? Montana? Rhode Island? Alaska? Idaho?

No, no, no, no, no and no.

The ONLY thing the electoral college process does is focus the money and effort into a handful of battleground states, rather than spreading it a bit more across the country. I really don't understand why anyone thinks this system is "all that". :hmmm::harumph:

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 06:34 AM
Pulling out this canard again
Are you suggesting something is purposefully misleading about the issue?

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 06:41 AM
My dad already paid the caterer

Hoover
11-03-2004, 06:43 AM
We have to have the EC, otherwise the big cities have too much say. If any change was made, we would vote for President by congressional district.

mlyonsd
11-03-2004, 06:52 AM
The EC is simple. You like it if your guy wins and don't if he doesn't.

OldTownChief
11-03-2004, 07:07 AM
What the hell, lets just go by the popular vote this year.

ptlyon
11-03-2004, 07:22 AM
I think it's funny - MSNBC is reporting Bush with 269 and Kerry 238 and CNN is reporting Bush with 254 and Kerry 252.

Glad this is so straight forward.

KingPriest2
11-03-2004, 07:24 AM
We have to have the EC, otherwise the big cities have too much say. If any change was made, we would vote for President by congressional district.


I totally agree. If we went with a popular vote then parts of the country will not get looked at. The canidates would mostly go to the more populas states and campaign. Montana, Idaho, SD, ND Kansas etc the canidates will not go to more then likely And we can't have that.

Amnorix
11-03-2004, 07:39 AM
Are you suggesting something is purposefully misleading about the issue?

No. Bad phraseology due to the earliness of the morning. Should have been "beating this dead horse again" or somesuch. My bad.

Amnorix
11-03-2004, 07:39 AM
The EC is simple. You like it if your guy wins and don't if he doesn't.

No, actually, I don't like it regardless of who wins, because it's nonsensical.

Amnorix
11-03-2004, 07:42 AM
We have to have the EC, otherwise the big cities have too much say.

I honestly have no idea how this is true. Big cities in big states gets lots of EVs, but if they're in a state that is "safe", then they get ignored (read: New York City and Los Angeles), and millions of votes for the Republicans (in those cities) become completely worthless.

Meanwhile, of course, big cities in some states (Milwaukee, Cleveland, Columbus) get all the love because they're in a "battleground state".

IMHO, all the EV does is shift the focus of marketing dollars and campaign plane routes. It does not accomplish anything else worth talking about. Instead of paying attention to the whole country, all the effort is narrowly focused to a small handful of states that happen to have (1) a fair number of EVs, and (2) closely divided populaces. HOW in the world does that make any kind of sense at all.

Amnorix
11-03-2004, 07:44 AM
I totally agree. If we went with a popular vote then parts of the country will not get looked at. The canidates would mostly go to the more populas states and campaign. Montana, Idaho, SD, ND Kansas etc the canidates will not go to more then likely And we can't have that.

Please let me know exactly how many times either Bush or Kerry went to any of the states you listed above? They're ALL safe Republican states, so they get no (or VERY little) attention paid in terms of advertising dollars or campaign visits.

KingPriest2
11-03-2004, 07:46 AM
Please let me know exactly how many times either Bush or Kerry went to any of the states you listed above? They're ALL safe Republican states, so they get no (or VERY little) attention paid in terms of advertising dollars or campaign visits.


I will try to get that for you.


I do know that Iowa and California were republican states until recently.

I also will go back and look at the old election results as well.

Mr. Kotter
11-03-2004, 07:48 AM
No, actually, I don't like it regardless of who wins, because it's nonsensical.

We don't live in a direct democracy; we live in a representative democracy....a "republic."

The electoral college was introduced as a safeguard against the passions of the electorate, and that justification is no longer valid in the minds of most. However, a "direct popular" vote in a nation with 290 million people is impractical and probably unwise. In a national election that is close, say 500,000 votes or so, the endless recounts of ALL counties in ALL states, nationwide, and the legal wrangling over "standards" in each state would truly paralyze the electoral process.

National standards and procedures for voting, with built in safeguards and "backup" are possible, but would require a Constitutional amendment. Depending on the amendment, many Americans could support it. However, the district plan as suggested earlier in the thread is a much more likely and palatable alternative.

The bottom-line though is the small states, and that's a majority....don't WANT it changed. It's one of the few "advantages" they have....even if it rarely comes into play.

Deberg_1990
11-03-2004, 10:56 AM
We don't live in a direct democracy; we live in a representative democracy....a "republic."

The electoral college was introduced as a safeguard against the passions of the electorate, and that justification is no longer valid in the minds of most. However, a "direct popular" vote in a nation with 290 million people is impractical and probably unwise. In a national election that is close, say 500,000 votes or so, the endless recounts of ALL counties in ALL states, nationwide, and the legal wrangling over "standards" in each state would truly paralyze the electoral process.

National standards and procedures for voting, with built in safeguards and "backup" are possible, but would require a Constitutional amendment. Depending on the amendment, many Americans could support it. However, the district plan as suggested earlier in the thread is a much more likely and palatable alternative.

The bottom-line though is the small states, and that's a majority....don't WANT it changed. It's one of the few "advantages" they have....even if it rarely comes into play.


Get rid of the "Winner takes all" aspect of it and i would be fine with it. As it stands now...if you are in the minority in your state, your vote doesnt matter.

KingPriest2
11-03-2004, 03:13 PM
Amno here are some links to maps showing the popular vote anc EC vote

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/

They range from 1860-2000

Here is some more info that begins with the first vote.

http://www.multied.com/elections/#history

http://www.270towin.com/


This sight be be a little bit easier

http://www.search.eb.com/elections/etable3.html

KingPriest2
11-03-2004, 03:14 PM
Why Was the Electoral College Created?





by Marc Schulman

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.


(See All of the Federalist 68)


Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.


The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a receipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.


While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing.

PastorMikH
11-03-2004, 03:29 PM
The ONLY thing the electoral college process does is focus the money and effort into a handful of battleground states, rather than spreading it a bit more across the country. I really don't understand why anyone thinks this system is "all that". :hmmm::harumph:




Actually, doing away with the EC system would put more focus and $ on the large population centers and forget about the majority of the country.

KC Jones
11-03-2004, 03:36 PM
I've always suspected the idea of the electoral college also had something to do with the slavery compromise that gave slave owners got a 3/5ths vote for every slave they owned.

tk13
11-03-2004, 03:39 PM
Actually, doing away with the EC system would put more focus and $ on the large population centers and forget about the majority of the country.
Don't they really forget about the majority of the country already though? I've never once seen a presidential political ad on a local station here in Indiana... I'd guess other non-battleground states are the same way. You may very well be right, but could you also possibly make the case that candidates would be more likely to advertise in states where they may have a "minority" of supporters, so to speak? Because in that instance maybe picking up some votes here and there across the country could make a difference as opposed to now where you'd have to sway I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of 250,000 voters to win Indiana and for your efforts to have any measure of success... I really don't know if that whole scenario would play out, just throwing an idea out there...

It didn't really matter this year, I still think 2000 was bizarre, I just can't buy into the idea that someone actually gets more votes than his opponent and loses. That sounds like some kind of college football BCS bizarro logic...

beavis
11-03-2004, 03:39 PM
However, a "direct popular" vote in a nation with 290 million people is impractical and probably unwise. In a national election that is close, say 500,000 votes or so, the endless recounts of ALL counties in ALL states, nationwide, and the legal wrangling over "standards" in each state would truly paralyze the electoral process.
Of all the arguements I have against removing it, this is the most relevant. Could you even imagine that mess?

beavis
11-03-2004, 03:44 PM
I've always suspected the idea of the electoral college also had something to do with the slavery compromise that gave slave owners got a 3/5ths vote for every slave they owned.
It wasn't 3/5 of a vote, it was 3/5 of a person for determining population.

Saggysack
11-03-2004, 05:03 PM
I totally agree. If we went with a popular vote then parts of the country will not get looked at. The canidates would mostly go to the more populas states and campaign. Montana, Idaho, SD, ND Kansas etc the canidates will not go to more then likely And we can't have that.


The last President to visit Kansas IIRC was Reagan in 1980.

The Dems don't put any kind of campaign here because we have been taken over by religious zealots. No possible way the Dems can even think of winning Kansas for atleast another 25yrs. Hell, I don't think Kansas has elected a Dem senator in 70+yrs. The last presidential candidate to carry the state was LBJ in 1968. The Republicans don't put much effort into campaigning here either. Bush has never visited or campaigned in Kansas. They already know they state is solidly republican so they just brush them aside for other states. The electoral college isn't helping Kansas with political campaign visits, or for that matter even a visit, that much is for sure. However saying that I just don't see any other better way than the electoral college right now.

2bikemike
11-03-2004, 05:12 PM
I think the electoral college is the best thing we have right now. I am not sure what we could do to tweak it. Even though my state is solidly blue I do not think my vote is wasted. My voice was heard on many other ballot measures and other races as well as adding to the 3.5 mil in the popular vote.

As far as seeing the candidate in person or in Ads I for one do not need that to figure out who I want to vote for. 90% of the ads are BS and I don't use them to make up my mind. I don't need a celebrity to tell me how I should vote. Too much white noise surrounding all that attention.

So I for one welcomed not seeing any presidential ads. Now how can I get rid of all the other BS election ads?