PDA

View Full Version : The Electoral College


whoman69
03-17-2008, 10:19 PM
During the past two elections there has been talk of doing away with the electoral college. IMO to do so would be a mistake. Had Al Gore won in 2000 simply because he won huge victories in the two largest states flies against every reason for the checks and balances put in place. Some will argue that the electoral college creates a tyranny of the larger states. Actually they are underrepresented in comparison to their smaller counterparts.

There was also the vote in Colorado to split up the votes strictly by proportion of the popular votes. Most national elections are won on a state by state basis with less than the 60 percent mandate it would take under such a system to create a separation. Just look at the current mess the Democratic Party is in with their representation method of allotting delegates.

The system I would propose is actually being used now in the states of Nebraska and Maine. In each of those states the individual house districts select their own electors while the overall winner of the state picks up its two senatorial electoral votes. I expect that if such a situation were implemented then the parties would pick up votes in traditionally red or blue states which would balance out over the country. It would create the view of a more representational winner.

alnorth
03-17-2008, 10:49 PM
The system I would propose is actually being used now in the states of Nebraska and Maine. In each of those states the individual house districts select their own electors while the overall winner of the state picks up its two senatorial electoral votes. I expect that if such a situation were implemented then the parties would pick up votes in traditionally red or blue states which would balance out over the country. It would create the view of a more representational winner.

Since that system would introduce a pretty decent bias towards the GOP if implemented nationwide, I whole-heartedly endorse this method as well. :thumb:

(Explanation: GOP wins the many small unpopulated states in the middle, so grabs the lion's share of these "senate" EV's to balance out the few CD's they lose in those states, while still taking a chunk out of CA and NY.)

Guru
03-17-2008, 10:57 PM
The electoral college is fine until we have a tight race. it is generally always right with only a couple exceptions in the last 200 years. (however long we have had the EC anyway)

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-17-2008, 11:02 PM
The populace is educated (albeit still stupid) to the point where the EC is outmoded.

mikey23545
03-17-2008, 11:05 PM
The phrase "the last two elections" is the key...

Whenever Liberals get their asses handed to them, there will always be a hue and cry to change the system till it favors them.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-17-2008, 11:11 PM
The phrase "the last two elections" is the key...

Whenever Liberals get their asses handed to them, there will always be a hue and cry to change the system till it favors them.

So winning a state by a SC decision that lead to a 4 EV discrepancy is handing someone's ass to them?

ClevelandBronco
03-17-2008, 11:27 PM
Yeah. It's pretty safe to say that when your guy was the vice president of an administration that lucked into presiding over a period of explosive growth (due in no or very little part to his policies), and our guy was a virtually unknown alcoholic (and who knows what else in earlier years) son of a president that was widely rejected by the voters of his own party just eight years before, then yeah. I'd call that handing you your ass.

And quit whining, you child. It was V.P. Gore who took it to the SC and he lost his case. The NY Times reviewed the voting and agreed.

ClevelandBronco
03-17-2008, 11:31 PM
The electoral college? Keep it the way it is. It seldom contradicts the popular vote anyway.

Lord, I ask that you keep us from becoming a full-blown democracy.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-17-2008, 11:36 PM
Yeah. It's pretty safe to say that when your guy was the vice president of an administration that lucked into presiding over a period of explosive growth (due in no or very little part to his policies), and our guy was a virtually unknown alcoholic (and who knows what else in earlier years) son of a president that was widely rejected by the voters of his own party just eight years before, then yeah. I'd call that handing you your ass.

And quit whining, you child. It was V.P. Gore who took it to the SC and he lost his case. The NY Times reviewed the voting and agreed.

ROFL ROFL

Yeah, we should clearly advocate trickle down economics, as it has worked so well for us in this administration as well as previous ones.

And for the record, before you call me a child, you should realize that losing by less than 1% of the total EVs is not getting your ass kicked.

For being unapologetically stupid, you are one arrogant cocksucker.

ClevelandBronco
03-17-2008, 11:43 PM
Yeah, we should clearly advocate trickle down economics, as it has worked so well for us in this administration as well as previous ones.

And for the record, before you call me a child, you should realize that losing by less than 1% of the total EVs is not getting your ass kicked.

For being unapologetically stupid, you are one arrogant cocksucker.

Trickle down? Naw, it's called supply side.

Sorry, "my friend" (there's my nod to Sen. McCain), you're a teacher. You're one step above a student.

When I compare myself to you I have no choice. I will be arrogant.

Your guy had everything going for him and we didn't want him. His own state didn't want him.

It's all good, though. He has a gold statuette.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-17-2008, 11:50 PM
Trickle down? Naw, it's called supply side.

Sorry, "my friend" (there's my nod to Sen. McCain), you're a teacher. You're one step above a student.

When I compare myself to you I have no choice. I will be arrogant.

Your guy had everything going for him and we didn't want him. His own state didn't want him.

It's all good, though. He has a gold statuette.

Trickle down=supply side, and it's a dinner napkin philosophy, literally, and yet you want to be arrogant.

What are you besides a professional nothing? Do you deride teachers because they realize that you're full of shit and can't back anything up? Or is it simply because your inferiority complex is exacerbated when you run across any number of the droves of people who know more than you, and when someone displays it everyday in a classroom setting it makes you think even less about your already worthless self?

Enjoy life in the cube farm, f*ck nut. I'm going to use those six pounds of neurons and synapses, you have fun with your skull full of septic backup.

HolmeZz
03-17-2008, 11:58 PM
There are pluses and minuses to the Electoral College system. Always disagreed with the idea that it was good because it made every state important. A lot of states still get passed over because it's either assumed they'll go one way or because they aren't as important to winning. To me, if you use the popular vote, it'll probably make the campaigns go all over to get every vote they can find.

I just never liked the idea that my vote counted for less than someone who lived in a bigger state.

ClevelandBronco
03-18-2008, 12:04 AM
Trickle down=supply side, and it's a dinner napkin philosophy, literally, and yet you want to be arrogant.

What are you besides a professional nothing? Do you deride teachers because they realize that you're full of shit and can't back anything up?

I deride teachers because more than often than not they are nothing more than disinterested participants in a government make-work program. They want to call their chosen work a "profession," but they're really just union-protected laborers for life. I have no respect for the way most teachers perform their jobs, the way they are paid, nor do I want to protect the way they retire at taxpayer expense under defined-benefit plans.

Teachers aren't worth the current expense. They are more plentiful than the jobs available.

ClevelandBronco
03-18-2008, 12:22 AM
Do you deride teachers because they realize that you're full of shit and can't back anything up? Or is it simply because your inferiority complex is exacerbated when you run across any number of the droves of people who know more than you...

Hey, Hamas, you know what it takes to teach seventh grade? Being graduated from seventh grade.

What do you teach, you Michelle Obama-esque differencemaker, you?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-18-2008, 01:34 AM
Hey, Hamas, you know what it takes to teach seventh grade? Being graduated from seventh grade.

What do you teach, you Michelle Obama-esque differencemaker, you?

The first part of that is so stupid it shouldn't even be dignified with a response.

In regards to the second, college.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-18-2008, 01:40 AM
There are pluses and minuses to the Electoral College system. Always disagreed with the idea that it was good because it made every state important. A lot of states still get passed over because it's either assumed they'll go one way or because they aren't as important to winning. To me, if you use the popular vote, it'll probably make the campaigns go all over to get every vote they can find.

I just never liked the idea that my vote counted for less than someone who lived in a bigger state.

Errr...the EC disproportionately favors smaller states over big ones.

Say you live in Wyoming, for three electoral votes there are 522,830, or roughly 175K people per EV.

If you live in California, where the population is about 36.5 million, you have 55 EVs, which averages out to over 660K per EV.

Your vote counts for less if the state isn't a swing state because of the winner-take-all nature and that is basically the SOP for 42 out of the 50 states each election.

HolmeZz
03-18-2008, 02:48 AM
Errr...the EC disproportionately favors smaller states over big ones.

Ultimately, no. Most states are not in play and the fact that a 1 vote majority counts as much as a 1,000,000 vote majority should defy the logic of the average person. And because of such, future elections will continue to hinge on what state has the most people in it and not which candidate had the most people vote for them.

As I said, using the popular vote would make the candidates have to campaign and pay attention to states/areas they probably can't win just to try and get as many votes from there as possible.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-18-2008, 03:00 AM
Ultimately, no. Most states are not in play and the fact that a 1 vote majority counts as much as a 1,000,000 vote majority should defy the logic of the average person. And because of such, future elections will continue to hinge on what state has the most people in it and not which candidate had the most people vote for them.

As I said, using the popular vote would make the candidates have to campaign and pay attention to states/areas they probably can't win just to try and get as many votes from there as possible.

Your point is logically inconsistent.

It has far more to do with the competitiveness of the state than the # of electoral votes it has. If your theory was correct, that it has to do with which state has the most raw people, they would spend the most time in Cali, NY, Texas, and Florida.

How much time do you think Bush spent in California and New York in 2000 and 2004? What about Kerry and Gore in Texas?


Yeah if New Hampshire and Virginia are both in play the candidates will gravitate towards Virginia, but that doesn't mean that the person's vote in NH counts less, it actually counts for more due to our system of representation via the EC. Now, if you vote for Nader it counts for nothing because he obviously won't carry, and if you voted for Kerry in Wyoming it meant nothing. But at the same time, those 180,000 Republicans who voted for Bush in Wyoming still had their votes count for more (as a proportion) than did the 'pubs who voted for Bush in Texas, or even a smaller state like Alabama.

You normally have about 6-8 states that are in play, but even in the ones that aren't, the smaller states are represented more as a proportion of people to EVs than the bigger ones. It's irrefutable.

Candidates will limit their campaigning to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, and maybe Virginia this cycle.

Ultimately, I agree that the popular vote should be the metric by which you judge a winner.

ClevelandBronco
03-18-2008, 03:08 AM
The first part of that is so stupid it shouldn't even be dignified with a response.

In regards to the second, college.

Personally, if I were you I'd be so offended that I wouldn't respond either. IMO, you shouldn't have even acknowledged my contempt for the teaching "profession" by mentioning the insult.

But if you believe that you really needed to be college educated to teach, then you've been had, my friend. You're not in a profession; You practice a trade, and one that is overpaid for its performance.

Please forgive my lack of respect, but too many of your colleagues have tainted your field of endeavor.

Perhaps you are a fine teacher. I'm generalizing about the kind of people who enter the trade. You're very likely an exception. You usually are able to craft a good argument, though I seldom agree with you.

I'll tell you what: If you'll admit to me that there are awful teachers that are protected from being fired by the NEA or other such alliances, then I'll admit that there are all kinds of good-meaning and intelligent people who are waiting to take their spots, even though they have no official teaching credentials, nor education degrees.

And if the unions that protect those parasites will just back the **** off and let them be shit canned, I'd hold your "profession" in more esteem.

I'd even remove the quotation marks when I speak of your "profession.".

ClevelandBronco
03-18-2008, 03:10 AM
Errr...the EC disproportionately favors smaller states over big ones.

Say you live in Wyoming, for three electoral votes there are 522,830, or roughly 175K people per EV.

If you live in California, where the population is about 36.5 million, you have 55 EVs, which averages out to over 660K per EV.

Your vote counts for less if the state isn't a swing state because of the winner-take-all nature and that is basically the SOP for 42 out of the 50 states each election.

Check out the history of the EC. That was the entire point.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-18-2008, 03:27 AM
Check out the history of the EC. That was the entire point.

I realize that, but I'm not a big fan of remnants of oligarchy.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-18-2008, 03:39 AM
Personally, if I were you I'd be so offended that I wouldn't respond either. IMO, you shouldn't have even acknowledged my contempt for the teaching "profession" by mentioning the insult.

But if you believe that you really needed to be college educated to teach, then you've been had, my friend. You're not in a profession; You practice a trade, and one that is overpaid for its performance.

Please forgive my lack of respect, but too many of your colleagues have tainted your field of endeavor.

Perhaps you are a fine teacher. I'm generalizing about the kind of people who enter the trade. You're very likely an exception. You usually are able to craft a good argument, though I seldom agree with you.

I'll tell you what: If you'll admit to me that there are awful teachers that are protected from being fired by the NEA or other such alliances, then I'll admit that there are all kinds of good-meaning and intelligent people who are waiting to take their spots, even though they have no official teaching credentials, nor education degrees.

And if the unions that protect those parasites will just back the **** off and let them be shit canned, I'd hold your "profession" in more esteem.

I'd even remove the quotation marks when I speak of your "profession.".

I'm not naive enough to believe that there aren't bad teachers. I've worked with them, I've had them, on some days, I've been one of them. I don't do the job for the money, and let me tell you, it's not much.

And yes, there is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy and hoops to jump through in order to teach K-12. Even if I wanted to do it, I couldn't, because I don't have the proper methodological courses, which although enlightening, are not really all that helpful in my limited experience. Funny how I can teach post-secondary but not high school. Such is life.

Personally I agree that unions of all stripes, whether they be teacher's unions or the UAW overexert their power and it undermines their credibility. Hell police unions have singled out cops who have killed innocent people as meritorious simply because they came under media scrutiny for their discretions. However, and this is somewhat tangential, I do believe that unions serve a purpose...lest we forget the 19th century or the current state of affairs in much of Asia vis-a-vis manufacturing.

Yeah, I could have gotten a degree in Finance, gotten a 2.8 by using teacher files from a fraternity, and worked for Ernst & Young and made close to 100K a year, but I'm not motivated by financial gain. It's why I could never work a commission-based job in college.

Ultimately, I feel that I was best constructed through the genetic hodgepodge that was my DNA to educate people, and the best way to do that is through teaching.

I'm sure in many ways it would be nice to afford an Audi A4, but I personally derive more satisfaction from helping someone get over the hump, help them pass a class they've failed twice or even three times before, than I ever would a 6 figure salary.

But that's how I roll.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 07:12 AM
I'm not a big fan of the EC system, and it's not a result of who won the election in 2000.

It effectively disenfranchises a significant number of voters across the country. Voting Republican in Massachusetts is meaningless. Might as well not bother. Your chances of having your vote count at all is precisely 0.00000%. Same for a Democrat in, say, Idaho.

Every election it's the same thing -- what does a majority of voters in the SAME cluster of states say? Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and a few other swing states are all that matter. You can predict today, with 95+% accuracy, who will win about 40 states in the election of 2020 in terms of Republican or Democrat.

I see very few benefits to this system.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 07:15 AM
Personally, if I were you I'd be so offended that I wouldn't respond either. IMO, you shouldn't have even acknowledged my contempt for the teaching "profession" by mentioning the insult.

But if you believe that you really needed to be college educated to teach, then you've been had, my friend. You're not in a profession; You practice a trade, and one that is overpaid for its performance.

Please forgive my lack of respect, but too many of your colleagues have tainted your field of endeavor.

Perhaps you are a fine teacher. I'm generalizing about the kind of people who enter the trade. You're very likely an exception. You usually are able to craft a good argument, though I seldom agree with you.

I'll tell you what: If you'll admit to me that there are awful teachers that are protected from being fired by the NEA or other such alliances, then I'll admit that there are all kinds of good-meaning and intelligent people who are waiting to take their spots, even though they have no official teaching credentials, nor education degrees.

And if the unions that protect those parasites will just back the **** off and let them be shit canned, I'd hold your "profession" in more esteem.

I'd even remove the quotation marks when I speak of your "profession.".

Without getting into details, if I could pick one profession to be de-unionized, it would be teaching. It is a horrible detriment to the development of our youth, which in turn means that we are paying an awful price when they enter our workforce. OUr ability to compete globally is at risk as a result.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 07:17 AM
Check out the history of the EC. That was the entire point.

The founders could not have predicted electoral politics as it has developed, and they mostly abhorred political parties.

The founders hoped that small states would be relevant, so they developed this system. Instead, only states that are in play are relevant. So this system shifts the focus from States A-F to states G-M. So what. There's no net benefit whatsoever. And Rhode Island would be no less irrelevant under a new system than it is now.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 07:21 AM
And yes, there is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy and hoops to jump through in order to teach K-12. Even if I wanted to do it, I couldn't, because I don't have the proper methodological courses, which although enlightening, are not really all that helpful in my limited experience. Funny how I can teach post-secondary but not high school. Such is life.

It's neither funny, nor "life", it is a pathetic structural weakness in our school systems and it has horrible costs for future generations.

Our kids don't suck at math because they're stupider than kids in other countries. They suck at math because anybody who is really great at math who might want to be a teacher has NO incentive to become a teacher.

Paying math teachers the same as social studies or english teachers is STOOPID.

Personally I agree that unions of all stripes, whether they be teacher's unions or the UAW overexert their power and it undermines their credibility. Hell police unions have singled out cops who have killed innocent people as meritorious simply because they came under media scrutiny for their discretions. However, and this is somewhat tangential, I do believe that unions serve a purpose...lest we forget the 19th century or the current state of affairs in much of Asia vis-a-vis manufacturing.

At least with non-government jobs, there are limitations on the power of hte union. The company is also at the table, and concerns about the viability of the company are in play. Unions give concessions when the alternative is bankruptcy.

pikesome
03-18-2008, 07:51 AM
I know this isn't a "gang up on teachers" thread but... Teachers suck. Most don't really teach and no matter what the problem is it's not their fault. I don't know how many times I've had a teacher tell me The President is the reason XYZ doesn't work, can't be done, hasn't happened. Never mind it didn't happen before No Child too.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 08:00 AM
One thing to consider when talking about eliminating the EC or even about awarding electors proportionally or on the basis of district results is that in 3 of the last 4 and in 4 of the last 10 elections, the winner has failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote. Do we want the House of Representatives deciding who our next President will be on a fairly regular basis?

pikesome
03-18-2008, 08:05 AM
One thing to consider when talking about eliminating the EC or even about awarding electors proportionally or on the basis of district results is that in 3 of the last 4 and in 4 of the last 10 elections, the winner has failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote. Do we want the House of Representatives deciding who our next President will be on a fairly regular basis?

Considering the jerk-offs we keep seating there? **** no!

penguinz
03-18-2008, 08:41 AM
I deride teachers because more than often than not they are nothing more than disinterested participants in a government make-work program. They want to call their chosen work a "profession," but they're really just union-protected laborers for life. I have no respect for the way most teachers perform their jobs, the way they are paid, nor do I want to protect the way they retire at taxpayer expense under defined-benefit plans.

Teachers aren't worth the current expense. They are more plentiful than the jobs available.
You are very ignorant aren't you?

banyon
03-18-2008, 08:52 AM
I deride teachers because more than often than not they are nothing more than disinterested participants in a government make-work program. They want to call their chosen work a "profession," but they're really just union-protected laborers for life. I have no respect for the way most teachers perform their jobs, the way they are paid, nor do I want to protect the way they retire at taxpayer expense under defined-benefit plans.

Teachers aren't worth the current expense. They are more plentiful than the jobs available.

Well you get what you pay for. And currently we pay them jack s***.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 09:05 AM
One thing to consider when talking about eliminating the EC or even about awarding electors proportionally or on the basis of district results is that in 3 of the last 4 and in 4 of the last 10 elections, the winner has failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote. Do we want the House of Representatives deciding who our next President will be on a fairly regular basis?

A very good point.

bkkcoh
03-18-2008, 09:21 AM
One thing to consider when talking about eliminating the EC or even about awarding electors proportionally or on the basis of district results is that in 3 of the last 4 and in 4 of the last 10 elections, the winner has failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote. Do we want the House of Representatives deciding who our next President will be on a fairly regular basis?

Hell no, regardless of which party is in charge. :banghead:

Sully
03-18-2008, 09:27 AM
And yes, there is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy and hoops to jump through in order to teach K-12. Even if I wanted to do it, I couldn't, because I don't have the proper methodological courses, which although enlightening, are not really all that helpful in my limited experience. Funny how I can teach post-secondary but not high school. Such is life.

I agree with this, to a point.
I am running out the string of my last few Ed classes, and I've reached the point where it's become busywork, repetetive, and completely useless.
However, the core of the teaching classes I've taken have been immensely helpful. I didn't realize it, at the time, but there has been some great stuff there.

Half the shit I learned in those Ed classes, I was sitting there rolling my eyes thinking, "Yeah, tell me this crap, and you aren't even in a classroom." But this year I've been in the class a lot more, and when I see teachers using the stuff I was rolling my eyes about, and see it working... it's pretty cool. I'm sure there are a percentage of people who could do this without these classes. But I bet that percentage isn't as big as most people think, especially with the dynamics in the classroom now even as compared with when I graduated in the mid 90s.

tiptap
03-18-2008, 12:27 PM
Want to get paid as an entertainer. Get a teaching license. In today's classroom you have to get the attention in order to get your ideas across. (of course that goes for hyperbole in preaching as well) So when a teacher is less than effective it is usually because we haven't had the correct training in how people learn. And of course it makes a great deal of difference to have classrooms below 24 students. That is about the total amount of people any one person can actively engage with at one setting. Whenever numbers go over that you are never going to succeed.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-18-2008, 04:18 PM
Want to get paid as an entertainer. Get a teaching license. In today's classroom you have to get the attention in order to get your ideas across. (of course that goes for hyperbole in preaching as well) So when a teacher is less than effective it is usually because we haven't had the correct training in how people learn. And of course it makes a great deal of difference to have classrooms below 24 students. That is about the total amount of people any one person can actively engage with at one setting. Whenever numbers go over that you are never going to succeed.

That's true. I've used everything from "Fight Club" to "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker" to "South Park" to help liven up the classroom setting.

ClevelandBronco
03-18-2008, 05:58 PM
Well you get what you pay for. And currently we pay them jack s***.

In some systems, yes. In others, no. At the school my daughter attends the average teacher salary is just over 58K. There's a waiting list for teachers who want to work there. If that salary was "jack s***" the waiting list wouldn't exist.

Teachers at that school are overpaid.

EDIT: I should mention that they have a defined benefit retirement plan (try to find one of those in the private sector these days). After 20 years of service they receive 75% of the average of their best three earning years for life.

ClevelandBronco
03-18-2008, 06:00 PM
One thing to consider when talking about eliminating the EC or even about awarding electors proportionally or on the basis of district results is that in 3 of the last 4 and in 4 of the last 10 elections, the winner has failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote. Do we want the House of Representatives deciding who our next President will be on a fairly regular basis?

Hell no.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2008, 07:45 PM
In some systems, yes. In others, no. At the school my daughter attends the average teacher salary is just over 58K. There's a waiting list for teachers who want to work there. If that salary was "jack s***" the waiting list wouldn't exist.
That's right. It's the best payin' part-time job with summers off per a friend of mine who teaches in Boston and makes $75k.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2008, 07:45 PM
That's true. I've used everything from "Fight Club" to "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker" to "South Park" to help liven up the classroom setting.

I used kissing once.

whoman69
03-23-2008, 06:10 PM
Since that system would introduce a pretty decent bias towards the GOP if implemented nationwide, I whole-heartedly endorse this method as well. :thumb:

(Explanation: GOP wins the many small unpopulated states in the middle, so grabs the lion's share of these "senate" EV's to balance out the few CD's they lose in those states, while still taking a chunk out of CA and NY.)

Not actually the case, though it does make Bush's victories stand out more. In 2004 Bush would have won 312 electoral votes and 286 in 2000. The senatorial electoral votes in the current winner takes all system would not change. I don't think that an 8 year trend is really a sufficient yardstick to make a clear GOP advantage in this system, especially since the Republican's largest stronghold has their numbers skewed by the Delay gerrymandering.

There is another consideration to think about though. In states where the winner is pretty much a lock in a winner takes all system, would the democrats have campaigned harder in say Dallas and Houston to gain votes there under this system? Voter turnout overall is lower in these non contested states as the winner is a lock. Republicans would pick up votes in California and New York, but the Democrats would pull from the solid Republican south in urban areas.

Having the popular vote be the determining factor would put even more power to the larger states. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote based on huge differences in the two largest states of New York and California. Outside of these two states Bush won by a convincing margin, hence the electoral college corrected that. Another historical election in which the electoral college corrected for vast majorities in a few states was in 1888. Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by 90,000 votes out of around 11 million votes for the two major candidates. However in 6 states in the south Cleveland won overwhelming support beating Benjamin Harrison by more than 425,000 votes because of the tarriff issue. In the other 32 states combined Harrison won by nearly 335,000 votes. Should an overwhelming majority in a small number of states turn the election? In a popular vote they would. The electoral system is more representative of the country as a whole.

Rain Man
03-23-2008, 06:24 PM
I'm thinking that it's time to do away with states. It seems like they just add a middleman, and the last time they did anything in an organized fashion, 600,000 people died.

Rain Man
03-23-2008, 06:28 PM
Having the popular vote be the determining factor would put even more power to the larger states. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote based on huge differences in the two largest states of New York and California. Outside of these two states Bush won by a convincing margin, hence the electoral college corrected that. Another historical election in which the electoral college corrected for vast majorities in a few states was in 1888. Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by 90,000 votes out of around 11 million votes for the two major candidates. However in 6 states in the south Cleveland won overwhelming support beating Benjamin Harrison by more than 425,000 votes because of the tarriff issue. In the other 32 states combined Harrison won by nearly 335,000 votes. Should an overwhelming majority in a small number of states turn the election? In a popular vote they would. The electoral system is more representative of the country as a whole.

Why should people in less populous states have more power in electing the president? It's not as if state boundaries are carved into the earth. They're just political boundaries. In every other election in the country (I think) at every level, one person gets one vote and the majority rules. Why should the presidency be different?

whoman69
03-23-2008, 06:43 PM
Why should people in less populous states have more power in electing the president? It's not as if state boundaries are carved into the earth. They're just political boundaries. In every other election in the country (I think) at every level, one person gets one vote and the majority rules. Why should the presidency be different?

IMO the President should represent the country as a whole, not an overwhelming majority in a small portion of the country. The Constitution was put in place to give a balanced voice to smaller and larger population states. The electoral college has done its job for the most part to give a mandate to the winning candidate. Close popular vote elections like 1960 became an electoral mandate as Kennedy had a more representative following across the country. Let's remember that the electoral college has given the election to the loser of the popular vote only four times 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. In only 1824 only a small portion of the states had the people vote for elections. Many states chose their electors based entirely on votes from their legislature. In 1876 voting discrencies in the south put the veracity of that victory into question. I have already discussed how in 1888 and 2000 a small number of states put together an overwhelming majority to skew the national picture.
I feel that the proposal I'm putting forth makes the electoral college even more representive of the people's will than the current winner takes all system.

whoman69
03-23-2008, 06:47 PM
Other countries do not espouse the one vote per person attitude either. Most democracies take their political road map from England. Do you know how many people vote directly for the Prime Minister? Zero. Prime Minister candidates are selected by party leaders. The Prime Minister is the candidate whose party wins a majority of seats in Parliament or who can put together a coalition to achieve a majority.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2008, 06:50 PM
Why should people in less populous states have more power in electing the president? It's not as if state boundaries are carved into the earth. They're just political boundaries. In every other election in the country (I think) at every level, one person gets one vote and the majority rules. Why should the presidency be different?

The less populous states don't have more power then the more populous states in electing a president. The electoral college maintains an equity by giving the populous states a greater number of electors.

We are called the United States of America—not the united people of America, because we are a union of states, and not just individuals. States elect Presidents directly while individuals only indirectly elect Presidents. The Presidential branch originally was also intended to be weak with more powers to the Congress. So the House is for the people while the President represents the nation as a whole. So he has a foreign policy and war role more than a legislative role. Too much is made of this branch and too little of the legislatures.

Electoral College fosters the cohesiveness of the entire nation, by discouraging candidates from concentrating on a few dispersed but highly concentrated urban areas. Why should those urban areas have more power to elect a president is the better question to ask.

Rain Man
03-23-2008, 06:54 PM
IMO the President should represent the country as a whole, not an overwhelming majority in a small portion of the country. The Constitution was put in place to give a balanced voice to smaller and larger population states. The electoral college has done its job for the most part to give a mandate to the winning candidate. Close popular vote elections like 1960 became an electoral mandate as Kennedy had a more representative following across the country. Let's remember that the electoral college has given the election to the loser of the popular vote only four times 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. In only 1824 only a small portion of the states had the people vote for elections. Many states chose their electors based entirely on votes from their legislature. In 1876 voting discrencies in the south put the veracity of that victory into question. I have already discussed how in 1888 and 2000 a small number of states put together an overwhelming majority to skew the national picture.
I feel that the proposal I'm putting forth makes the electoral college even more representive of the people's will than the current winner takes all system.

Define "small portion". And why would it make a difference if they all lived in close proximity versus being spread out? Or that they made California one state instead of six?

This whole Electoral College thing strikes me as a built-in bias toward owners of large rural plantations.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2008, 06:59 PM
Define "small portion". And why would it make a difference if they all lived in close proximity versus being spread out? Or that they made California one state instead of six?

This whole Electoral College thing strikes me as a built-in bias toward owners of large rural plantations.

:D That's funny. But really political boundaries or not, different regions have different needs and they need some representation at the national level.

whoman69
03-23-2008, 07:16 PM
Define "small portion". And why would it make a difference if they all lived in close proximity versus being spread out? Or that they made California one state instead of six?

This whole Electoral College thing strikes me as a built-in bias toward owners of large rural plantations.

In 2000 2 states, 1888 6 states. The President is supposed to represent the whole country. The founding fathers recognized there needs to be a balance between smaller population and larger population states.

Let's run with your idea. Take away the states. You've now done away with the US Senate. I live in Iowa. It would no longer have a state government put in place to aid its citizens. Do you think the federal government would give any money to Iowa? After all the area only has 3 million people. The power of the house would swing back to the larger population areas as the district lines are redrawn. Areas like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alaska and Delaware would not have any representation as the house now has to be done purely by the number of people in a given area. Every house district would have to represent approximately 685,000 people, more than the populations of some states. My Iowa would lose two representatives to its region, those being reallocated to larger population areas.

Rain Man
03-23-2008, 07:19 PM
The less populous states don't have more power then the more populous states in electing a president. The electoral college maintains an equity by giving the populous states a greater number of electors.

We are called the United States of AmericaŚnot the united people of America, because we are a union of states, and not just individuals. States elect Presidents directly while individuals only indirectly elect Presidents. The Presidential branch originally was also intended to be weak with more powers to the Congress. So the House is for the people while the President represents the nation as a whole. So he has a foreign policy and war role more than a legislative role. Too much is made of this branch and too little of the legislatures.

Electoral College fosters the cohesiveness of the entire nation, by discouraging candidates from concentrating on a few dispersed but highly concentrated urban areas. Why should those urban areas have more power to elect a president is the better question to ask.


I think the Electoral College is inherently unfair. Divide the number of electoral votes in California by their population, and then do the same for Alaska. Alaska has a much higher electoral votes per population figure.

I wonder too if the whole "state" thing is out of date. I think the founding fathers were pretty sensitive about the whole taxation without representation deal and overreacted to it. The states already existed and they ran with it. We should just have counties and the feds and be done with it.

Rain Man
03-23-2008, 07:24 PM
In 2000 2 states, 1888 6 states. The President is supposed to represent the whole country. The founding fathers recognized there needs to be a balance between smaller population and larger population states.

Let's run with your idea. Take away the states. You've now done away with the US Senate. I live in Iowa. It would no longer have a state government put in place to aid its citizens. Do you think the federal government would give any money to Iowa? After all the area only has 3 million people. The power of the house would swing back to the larger population areas as the district lines are redrawn. Areas like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alaska and Delaware would not have any representation as the house now has to be done purely by the number of people in a given area. Every house district would have to represent approximately 685,000 people, more than the populations of some states. My Iowa would lose two representatives to its region, those being reallocated to larger population areas.

Then they should redraw the states' boundaries every census. Here's what the 50 states would look like now. (I did this a few years ago for fun.)

I don't know that the smaller former states would get ignored. I think they would just get the proportional representation that they deserve.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2008, 07:28 PM
I think the Electoral College is inherently unfair. Divide the number of electoral votes in California by their population, and then do the same for Alaska. Alaska has a much higher electoral votes per population figure.

I wonder too if the whole "state" thing is out of date. I think the founding fathers were pretty sensitive about the whole taxation without representation deal and overreacted to it. The states already existed and they ran with it. We should just have counties and the feds and be done with it.

I think it's fair. Of course fair is a subjective term. I think anything might wind up worse and I think the odds are far more in favor it would be. I don't think there are any real statesmen around these days that are that forward-thinking or as wise than the first one's we had. Too many opportunists.

Of course, the states already existed. Our nation's founding under this Constitution could only occur if the state's allowed what they wrote in secret in Philly one summer to be debated and considered for ratification. It was a runaway convention because all the states were bound to the Articles of Confederation which were signed for perpetuity and could only be amended unanimously. That was the contract. So we'd never even have what we have today without the state's allowing their people to participate in changing things.

You have a lot to be thankful for to those states.

Logical
03-23-2008, 08:40 PM
Personally, I have no axe to grind with the EC, but if we want a proportional EC where every EC vote represent something like 500,000 people I would be fine with that.

whoman69
03-23-2008, 10:33 PM
Personally, I have no axe to grind with the EC, but if we want a proportional EC where every EC vote represent something like 500,000 people I would be fine with that.

With 300,000,000 people that number is more than 685,000. I'm not sure how they're split in regard to the larger states as even some larger states are more represented than others. Florida is the least represented state in the country if judged by the number of people per representative. It would open a can of worms in this discussion to point out the large numbers of illegal immigrants in the largest population centers of our country.

What happens to states that don't have that many people? I think part of the balance between large/small population states is effected by the current system of delegating congressman.

whoman69
03-23-2008, 10:42 PM
Then they should redraw the states' boundaries every census. Here's what the 50 states would look like now. (I did this a few years ago for fun.)

I don't know that the smaller former states would get ignored. I think they would just get the proportional representation that they deserve.

Residents of a state become part of that states' identity. You can't change a person's identity every 10 years. Additionally the new states would have to adjust their governments and budgets every 10 years.

If you have disbanded the states entirely, then you have gotten rid of their local state representation. Their state tax dollars support those institutions. Take away that state control and all money is distributed by the federal government. Take away the smaller states balances and those regions would no longer have the power to have moneys allocated to their people.

BtW, I would be interested to know how you came up with that map.

Like it or not, the smaller states have their own agendas and needs that need to be addressed. If you swing the balance towards the larger states then those issues become even more ignored. We would have all the money going only to the large urban areas.

Logical
03-23-2008, 10:47 PM
With 300,000,000 people that number is more than 685,000. I'm not sure how they're split in regard to the larger states as even some larger states are more represented than others. Florida is the least represented state in the country if judged by the number of people per representative. It would open a can of worms in this discussion to point out the large numbers of illegal immigrants in the largest population centers of our country.

What happens to states that don't have that many people? I think part of the balance between large/small population states is effected by the current system of delegating congressman.

I am pretty good at math, so I was pretty sure that was not correct. So I used a calculator and it comes out to 600 EC members if you do not include any for a number to equal Senators. How are you coming up with your number?

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 08:10 AM
I'm thinking that it's time to do away with states. It seems like they just add a middleman, and the last time they did anything in an organized fashion, 600,000 people died.



ROFLROFLROFL

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 08:12 AM
Other countries do not espouse the one vote per person attitude either. Most democracies take their political road map from England. Do you know how many people vote directly for the Prime Minister? Zero. Prime Minister candidates are selected by party leaders. The Prime Minister is the candidate whose party wins a majority of seats in Parliament or who can put together a coalition to achieve a majority.


Yes, but the Parlimentary democracy system is quite different in a number of respects.

First, the people voting KNOW who will be selected as PM when they vote for the party fo their choice. At least this is the case 90 or so percent of the time.

Second, you can have mid-term changes quite easily in a parliamentary system. Changing Presidents is near-impossible, barring death.

Third, the parliament is all-powerful. There is NO concept of separation of powers amongst governmental branches. Everyone serves at the behest of parliament.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 08:14 AM
:D That's funny. But really political boundaries or not, different regions have different needs and they need some representation at the national level.


You all realize that the Northeast doesn't have more voters than the entire rest of the country, right?

And that you'd get a 60/40 split in the Northeast at best/worst anyway, so the rest of the country is still going to be heavily involved.

Rain Man
03-24-2008, 03:37 PM
Residents of a state become part of that states' identity. You can't change a person's identity every 10 years. Additionally the new states would have to adjust their governments and budgets every 10 years.

I admit that it would wreak havoc with driver's licenses and license plates, but at the same time it would be cool. You could all vote on a name for your new state. I think it would really build camaraderie.

If you have disbanded the states entirely, then you have gotten rid of their local state representation. Their state tax dollars support those institutions. Take away that state control and all money is distributed by the federal government. Take away the smaller states balances and those regions would no longer have the power to have moneys allocated to their people.

They'd still have congressmen. States just collect a different pot and give back a different pot than the Feds. Otherwise, it's all the same process.

BtW, I would be interested to know how you came up with that map.

I just added up the population of each county and then started combining them into 50 regions with roughly equal populations. Took forever.

Like it or not, the smaller states have their own agendas and needs that need to be addressed. If you swing the balance towards the larger states then those issues become even more ignored. We would have all the money going only to the large urban areas.

But doesn't Los Angeles have its own agendas and needs? Why should it not have the same power that Rhode Island does, with a quarter of the population? These states are like those old British boundaries in colonial Africa. They're just lines on a map. There's nothing magical about them, other than maybe Hawaii.