PDA

View Full Version : Elections Why is there an Electoral College


synthesis2
11-07-2012, 07:24 AM
It started in the 1700's when people didn't have access to information and understanding as to what is going on with the canidates but with everything we have today to make a good informed decision, it simply dosent make any sense.

Examples: If you live in Texas and are a democrat your vote dosen't count

If you live in California and are a republican your vote dosen't count

I have never heard a good argument as to why a popular vote dosen't work in today's society.

If the majority of the people want one person but the electorial college says the other is the winner why is that right?

Look I really don't care who wins in the end with divided house/senate very little is going to happen, we all know that.

My rant is why we can't finally go to a vote that makes sense.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 07:27 AM
No it works. Jeezzaz the left vented their rage in 2000 against the Constitution too. Why so many haters for our Founding document?

synthesis2
11-07-2012, 07:44 AM
We had slavery back then, that isn't the right thing, we have a popular vote for local officials, there is no reason we should not have one for the president

tiptap
11-07-2012, 07:46 AM
By your reasoning every vote for a losing candidate is wasted.

synthesis2
11-07-2012, 07:51 AM
yes but at least if you are in texas and are a democrat and you vote you know that your vote is going to count toward the end result, where as it stands right now you get absolutly zero credit, vis versa in cailfornia

tiptap
11-07-2012, 07:55 AM
We see similar affects in Congressional redistricting by state governments.

Deberg_1990
11-07-2012, 07:55 AM
I dont understand why there isnt more of a push to abolish it? Especially since 2000 and the POTUS elections being so close.


I agree, its pointless. Theres this myth out there that a direct election would force the candidates to concentrate on only big cities, but how is that any different than what we have now where they only campaign in like 7 or 8 swing states? IN fact, id argue that the EC makes alot of voters stay home and not care, if they know their vote doesnt matter.

Ill take an election process with a TRUE "Every Vote Counts" any day of the week.

The Electoral College is a Joke.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 08:00 AM
As said before, small population states will never go along because they lose their lopsided presence in the elections compared to population.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 08:03 AM
No it is not pointless. It's a check and balance so states get representation. The president represents the nation as a whole. Abolishing the EC just throws elections to the cities. That's not representing the nation as a whole. The people's house is for that kind of popular representation.

This attitude stems from a lack of understanding of why our govt was formulated, not as a democracy, but a republic with the weakest branch being the presidential branch —intentionally. It has also led to more weight being placed on presidential elections as if one man holds all this power. Well, that there, is also due to too much powers taken by presidents. They don't, or are not supposed to even craft legislation. That power was usurped starting with Wilson a progressive. It's just not our form of govt.

I'd like to keep it that way. I don't trust the mis-education from our schools, reinforced by the media, to educate people properly on this matter.
Our Founders were much wiser than any modern minds on this topic.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 08:03 AM
As said before, small population states will never go along because they lose their lopsided presence in the elections compared to population.

No it's not lopsided....it creates a balance. You would like the cities to have lopsided representation instead.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 08:04 AM
We had slavery back then, that isn't the right thing, we have a popular vote for local officials, there is no reason we should not have one for the president

The slavery issue is irrelevant. Your putting natural rights and a human right into the same category of thing which is an error of logic. They are not even remotely similar.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 08:12 AM
No it's not lopsided....it creates a balance. You would like the cities to have lopsided representation instead.

BEP, the start of this thread was about voter representation, direct democracy, win by the amount of votes garnished. If populations are in cities than it is lopsided, based upon population, to give representation to Wyoming or Rhode Island above their population numbers.

And as I said it won't happen because of that lost of power relative to population for those states. I am personally ambivalent about the Electorial College.

Amnorix
11-07-2012, 08:15 AM
No it is not pointless. It's a check and balance so states get representation. The president represents the nation as a whole. Abolishing the EC just throws elections to the cities. That's not representing the nation as a whole. The people's house is for that kind of popular representation.

This attitude stems from a lack of understanding of why our govt was formulated, not as a democracy, but a republic with the weakest branch being the presidential branch —intentionally. It has also led to more weight being placed on presidential elections as if one man holds all this power. Well, that there, is also due to too much powers taken by presidents. They don't, or are not supposed to even craft legislation. That power was usurped starting with Wilson a progressive. It's just not our form of govt.

I'd like to keep it that way. I don't trust the mis-education from our schools, reinforced by the media, to educate people properly on this matter.
Our Founders were much wiser than any modern minds on this topic.



The rest isn't too bad, but the bolded sentence is bullshit. Not that more nad more power hasn't been aggregating to the executive over the last 100 years or whatever, but to say that it was intentionally made the weakest branch is a joke, especially when compared to the judiciary.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 08:16 AM
Well, Amn, according to originalist construction you are WRONG!

tiptap
11-07-2012, 08:18 AM
Formation of a Cabinet was legislated? Yet there you go Washington

rabblerouser
11-07-2012, 08:19 AM
Good point.

I live in MO, a 'red' state.

I hate Obama...but really didn't want to vite for Romney.

Knowing that MO would be 70% red, and therefore casting our electoral votes for Romney, I voted for Gary Johnson.

Then, Romney won MO, took the popular vote...but lost the election.

I'm stunned.

I'm not going to work today, not going to school, either.

Fuck this shit.

L.A. Chieffan
11-07-2012, 08:19 AM
Why even bitch about this? Obama won the popular vote too.

banyon
11-07-2012, 08:23 AM
Well, Amn, according to originalist construction you are WRONG!

Ah yes, the originalist construction where you and Scalia shake the magic 8 ball and if it say what you want, then that's what it must've been.

They were written to be co-equal branches a la Montesquieu's writings. But amnorix is right in that the actual duties delegated to each do not imply that the execuutive is the weakest. Your tantrum notwithstanding.

Hell, you don't even believe in judicial review and marbury v. Madison, so what important tasks are you claiming make it stronger?

BigCatDaddy
11-07-2012, 08:23 AM
Why even bitch about this? Obama won the popular vote too.

Being procative?

rabblerouser
11-07-2012, 08:25 AM
Why even bitch about this? Obama won the popular vote too.


I think the Teamsters and the Unions bought the states Obama needed to win. It sure looks that way.

He's been a terrible President for 4 years, and half of the American public are so stupid and brainwashed that they went ahead and elected him again.

That's why to even bitch about it.

We're fucked.

banyon
11-07-2012, 08:28 AM
I think the Teamsters and the Unions bought the states Obama needed to win. It sure looks that way.

He's been a terrible President for 4 years, and half of the American public are so stupid and brainwashed that they went ahead and elected him again.

That's why to even bitch about it.

We're ****ed.

Teamsters are pretty stout in Colorado and Florida, huh?

tiptap
11-07-2012, 08:29 AM
It is too bad billionaires money doesn't go as far anymore.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 08:31 AM
It is too bad billionaires money doesn't go as far anymore.

It just goes to show you that freaking over Citizen's United was wasted energy.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 08:33 AM
Formation of a Cabinet was legislated? Yet there you go Washington

That's called a strawman argument. I am referring to this:

"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." - Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788 by James Madison who was there at the convention and wrote the document.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 08:39 AM
It isn't a stawman argument. It was an attempt to get you to be more specific in your claim. However it is the most democratic selection of representation that got the purse control. I believe that is Madison's argument. And this is in relation to the Congress and the Senate process is it not.

L.A. Chieffan
11-07-2012, 08:41 AM
I think the Teamsters and the Unions bought the states Obama needed to win. It sure looks that way.

He's been a terrible President for 4 years, and half of the American public are so stupid and brainwashed that they went ahead and elected him again.

That's why to even bitch about it.

We're fucked.

Alright, you win. Abolish the electoral college and go strictly with the popular vote like the op wants. Yeah! Romney wins now!

rabblerouser
11-07-2012, 08:41 AM
Teamsters are pretty stout in Colorado and Florida, huh?

they're where they need to be now :

http://fdocteamsters.org/

http://www.local385.org/

http://www.unions.org/unions/colorado/6/international-brotherhood-of-teamsters/42

everywhere they need to be.

rabblerouser
11-07-2012, 08:42 AM
Alright, you win. Abolish the electoral college and go strictly with the popular vote lie the op wants. Yeah! Romney wins now!

I voted for Gary Johnson.

I don't believe the liberal media.

At ALL.

You are a fool.

I will take no solace in telling anyone 'I told you so.'

banyon
11-07-2012, 08:43 AM
they're where they need to be now :

http://fdocteamsters.org/

http://www.local385.org/

http://www.unions.org/unions/colorado/6/international-brotherhood-of-teamsters/42

everywhere they need to be.

Ah, I see. Existence=strong influence on election.

Ok.

rabblerouser
11-07-2012, 08:58 AM
Ah, I see. Existence=strong influence on election.

Ok.

It feels better than thinking that the American Public is gullible enough to be duped into actually re-electing that farce of a President.

banyon
11-07-2012, 08:59 AM
It feels better than thinking that the American Public is gullible enough to be duped into actually re-electing that farce of a President.

Do you not know what the top rated TV shows are?

Idiocracy has beeen on its way for some time.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 09:30 AM
No it is not pointless. It's a check and balance so states get representation. The president represents the nation as a whole. Abolishing the EC just throws elections to the cities. That's not representing the nation as a whole. The people's house is for that kind of popular representation.

This attitude stems from a lack of understanding of why our govt was formulated, not as a democracy, but a republic with the weakest branch being the presidential branch —intentionally. It has also led to more weight being placed on presidential elections as if one man holds all this power. Well, that there, is also due to too much powers taken by presidents. They don't, or are not supposed to even craft legislation. That power was usurped starting with Wilson a progressive. It's just not our form of govt.



That is BS.

The Consitution is impressive, but the notion that it is some perfect document is garbage. The mere fact that it was written at a time when some people weren't considered people is evidence of that.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 09:38 AM
Rather than eliminate the Electoral College I'd do away with the "winner take all" system of assigning electoral votes.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 09:40 AM
That is BS.
In your opinion.

The Consitution is impressive, but the notion that it is some perfect document is garbage. The mere fact that it was written at a time when some people weren't considered people is evidence of that.

"Perfect document" is a strawman argument. Not the argument made. Please read.

The fact that some were not considered people does not negate the entire document either. In FACT, it would have never been ratified and we'd still be under the Articles.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 09:41 AM
That is BS.

The Consitution is impressive, but the notion that it is some perfect document is garbage. The mere fact that it was written at a time when some people weren't considered people is evidence of that.

It's not perfect but look at the terminology involved. When people finally dislodged their heads from their asses and applied the rules equally it worked.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 09:47 AM
I'd like to leave the Constitution alone. I prefer being a representational Constitutional Republic over making things more "democratic."

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 09:50 AM
It's not perfect but look at the terminology involved. When people finally dislodged their heads from their asses and applied the rules equally it worked.

I think the terminology is key for reading it to reflect the intentions of our Framers. That means defining terms in the vernacular of the time.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 09:58 AM
I think the terminology is key for reading it to reflect the intentions of our Framers. That means defining terms in the vernacular of the time.

Yes, true. When considering slavery versus the human rights guaranteed by the Constitution, legislators weaseled out of the issue by considering slaves to be less than human. As I recall the issue was brought up at the time and abandoned for political expediency.

Fish
11-07-2012, 09:58 AM
Good point.

I live in MO, a 'red' state.

I hate Obama...but really didn't want to vite for Romney.

Knowing that MO would be 70% red, and therefore casting our electoral votes for Romney, I voted for Gary Johnson.

Then, Romney won MO, took the popular vote...but lost the election.

I'm stunned.

I'm not going to work today, not going to school, either.

Fuck this shit.

LMAO

You can't be serious.......

BigCatDaddy
11-07-2012, 10:16 AM
LMAO

You can't be serious.......

What's wrong with joining the Democratic party?

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 10:18 AM
Yes, true. When considering slavery versus the human rights guaranteed by the Constitution, legislators weaseled out of the issue by considering slaves to be less than human. As I recall the issue was brought up at the time and abandoned for political expediency.

Sometimes, things take more time to change. It was a thousand year practice. Yes, it was expedient, but the alternative was no Constitution either. That's just the facts. We don't live in a perfect world. Yet cosmos, made an argument based on perfection.

Pitt Gorilla
11-07-2012, 10:24 AM
I dont understand why there isnt more of a push to abolish it? Especially since 2000 and the POTUS elections being so close.


I agree, its pointless. Theres this myth out there that a direct election would force the candidates to concentrate on only big cities, but how is that any different than what we have now where they only campaign in like 7 or 8 swing states? IN fact, id argue that the EC makes alot of voters stay home and not care, if they know their vote doesnt matter.

Ill take an election process with a TRUE "Every Vote Counts" any day of the week.

The Electoral College is a Joke.Become a swing state. Stop voting for a single party every single time.

underEJ
11-07-2012, 12:49 PM
Rather than eliminate the Electoral College I'd do away with the "winner take all" system of assigning electoral votes.

This is possible already if the state wants to. If you want your state to split electoral votes, get the legislature to change the rules like Maine and Nebraska. I don't know Nebraska's rules, but Maine the state winner takes the two common votes, and the winner of each district takes the district's vote.

Captain Obvious
11-07-2012, 12:57 PM
Good point.

I live in MO, a 'red' state.

I hate Obama...but really didn't want to vite for Romney.

Knowing that MO would be 70% red, and therefore casting our electoral votes for Romney, I voted for Gary Johnson.

Then, Romney won MO, took the popular vote...but lost the election.

I'm stunned.

I'm not going to work today, not going to school, either.

**** this shit.

Wait...do you think Romney won the popular vote?

And why are you stunned? How do people not understand how presidential elections work?

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 12:59 PM
This is possible already if the state wants to. If you want your state to split electoral votes, get the legislature to change the rules like Maine and Nebraska. I don't know Nebraska's rules, but Maine the state winner takes the two common votes, and the winner of each district takes the district's vote.

Yup. My bro lives there.

whoman69
11-07-2012, 01:30 PM
yes but at least if you are in texas and are a democrat and you vote you know that your vote is going to count toward the end result, where as it stands right now you get absolutly zero credit, vis versa in cailfornia

Just wait until 2016.

whoman69
11-07-2012, 01:35 PM
The electoral college is in place to give smaller states a larger say in electing the President. Its also in place to protect against a regional candidate gaining power. Its also in place to make certain there is a mandate for winning candidate even if their margin is a small one.

While I agree the winner take all part is unfair and non-representative, a better system is in place in Nebraska and Maine where each congressional district vote is up for grabs. I think it would put more of the country in play and have more people vote knowing their vote can now make a difference.

tooge
11-07-2012, 01:40 PM
more importantly, could the football team of Electoral College beat the chiefs?

Calcountry
11-07-2012, 04:03 PM
We had slavery back then, that isn't the right thing, we have a popular vote for local officials, there is no reason we should not have one for the presidentThis is a very ignorant and uneducated post.

Try googling the term "Federalism". Start there.

Deberg_1990
11-07-2012, 05:15 PM
The electoral college is in place to give smaller states a larger say in electing the President. Its also in place to protect against a regional candidate gaining power. Its also in place to make certain there is a mandate for winning candidate even if their margin is a small one.

While I agree the winner take all part is unfair and non-representative, a better system is in place in Nebraska and Maine where each congressional district vote is up for grabs. I think it would put more of the country in play and have more people vote knowing their vote can now make a difference.

I just don't get those arguments for it anymore? There are no more regional candidates in today's modern world with Internet, 24/7 news cycles, talk radio etc.....people have access to an overwhelming amount of info. No matter where you live, rural or big city.
I know it will,never happen because too many people are for the status quo, but a direct election where every vote truly does matter just makes the most sense in today's world.

I would be all for ditching the winner takes all system as well. The system as it stands now is stupid.

RNR
11-07-2012, 05:36 PM
I just don't get those arguments for it anymore? There are no more regional candidates in today's modern world with Internet, 24/7 news cycles, talk radio etc.....people have access to an overwhelming amount of info. No matter where you live, rural or big city.
I know it will,never happen because too many people are for the status quo, but a direct election where every vote truly does matter just makes the most sense in today's world.

I would be all for ditching the winner takes all system as well. The system as it stands now is stupid.

The left will fight tooth and nail to preserve their advantage if anyone wants to do away with this antiquated system~

Calcountry
11-07-2012, 05:38 PM
I just don't get those arguments for it anymore? There are no more regional candidates in today's modern world with Internet, 24/7 news cycles, talk radio etc.....people have access to an overwhelming amount of info. No matter where you live, rural or big city.
I know it will,never happen because too many people are for the status quo, but a direct election where every vote truly does matter just makes the most sense in today's world.

I would be all for ditching the winner takes all system as well. The system as it stands now is stupid.Try googling, "The great compromise".

I know that our history and institutions don't mean a damn thing to you socialists, but you can try to educate yourself?, no wait, you depend on the government to give you a REAL education?

Deberg_1990
11-07-2012, 05:42 PM
Try googling, "The great compromise".

I know that our history and institutions don't mean a damn thing to you socialists, but you can try to educate yourself?, no wait, you depend on the government to give you a REAL education?

Huh? I'm a conservative dumbass

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:47 PM
Try googling, "The great compromise".

I know that our history and institutions don't mean a damn thing to you socialists, but you can try to educate yourself?, no wait, you depend on the government to give you a REAL education?

He's not a socialist.

Calcountry
11-07-2012, 05:50 PM
Huh? I'm a conservative dumbassMy bad, except, that eliminating the EC, IMHO, is NOT a conservative position.

Calcountry
11-07-2012, 05:51 PM
It's time for me to push away from the keyboard. Deberg, I apologize. When I start to get hyped up, I start posting generalized vitriol at all those who I know are peeping. Nothing personal dude.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:52 PM
My bad, except, that eliminating the EC, IMHO, is NOT a conservative position.

It's not. So I can see why you thought that.

Calcountry
11-07-2012, 06:14 PM
It's not. So I can see why you thought that.It's in the constitution?

If you want to eliminate it, fine, then amend the constitution as set forth in the constitution.

Calcountry
11-07-2012, 06:19 PM
There are many reasons for keeping it, not the least of which is, how easy would it be for the Chicago and California machines to manufacture votes to offset the few thousand votes of concerned North Dakotan's about their own sovereign interests in their own state?

whoman69
11-07-2012, 06:19 PM
The left will fight tooth and nail to preserve their advantage if anyone wants to do away with this antiquated system~

Without this antiquated system Bush would have never been elected. Romney didn't win the popular vote either.

whoman69
11-07-2012, 06:23 PM
There are many reasons for keeping it, not the least of which is, how easy would it be for the Chicago and California machines to manufacture votes to offset the few thousand votes of concerned North Dakotan's about their own sovereign interests in their own state?

Good points. I can't believe Republicans want to do away with states rights. The electoral college makes this an election of 50 states and the District of Columbia. A popular vote would silence the voice of individual states.

mlyonsd
11-07-2012, 06:25 PM
There are many reasons for keeping it, not the least of which is, how easy would it be for the Chicago and California machines to manufacture votes to offset the few thousand votes of concerned North Dakotan's about their own sovereign interests in their own state?Pretty much Duh.

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 06:25 PM
It just goes to show you that freaking over Citizen's United was wasted energy.

It does not show that. If Romney wouldn't have been such a weak candidate then it would have been a different story.

DaFace
11-07-2012, 06:26 PM
I honestly don't think it will change in our lifetimes, but I agree that it's pretty pointless anymore.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:34 PM
Good points. I can't believe Republicans want to do away with states rights. The electoral college makes this an election of 50 states and the District of Columbia. A popular vote would silence the voice of individual states.

Yeah, plus it relates to a president's Constitutional role. That branch represents the country as a whole unit, not just the big cities or the people. The latter is what reps in the House are for. The president's powers deal with the country more as a whole nation—ambassadors, treaties, foreign policy etc. Presidents are not even supposed to craft legislation. That was left to the congress.

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 06:35 PM
The electoral college is in place to give smaller states a larger say in electing the President. Its also in place to protect against a regional candidate gaining power. Its also in place to make certain there is a mandate for winning candidate even if their margin is a small one.

While I agree the winner take all part is unfair and non-representative, a better system is in place in Nebraska and Maine where each congressional district vote is up for grabs. I think it would put more of the country in play and have more people vote knowing their vote can now make a difference.

While I agree with the reasons for the electoral college in the first place, I disagree with the necessity now outside of the logistics. Every vote should count and I would much rather have individual votes determine the outcome of an election then pockets of party concentrated areas. However, I don't feel now there is a way to do that effectively and efficiently. There are still problems with voting machines, ballots, and I couldn't even begin to imagine the master cluster fuck that would come with a close race/recount.

mlyonsd
11-07-2012, 06:36 PM
Good points. I can't believe Republicans want to do away with states rights. The electoral college makes this an election of 50 states and the District of Columbia. A popular vote would silence the voice of individual states.

Very well put.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:37 PM
It's in the constitution?

If you want to eliminate it, fine, then amend the constitution as set forth in the constitution.

What is wrong with you tonight? I was agreeing with you that it's not a conservative position.
See below what I responded to.

Originally Posted by Calcountry View Post
My bad, except, that eliminating the EC, IMHO, is NOT a conservative position.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:38 PM
While I agree with the reasons for the electoral college in the first place, I disagree with the necessity now outside of the logistics. Every vote should count and I would much rather have individual votes determine the outcome of an election then pockets of party concentrated areas. However, I don't feel now there is a way to do that effectively and efficiently. There are still problems with voting machines, ballots, and I couldn't even begin to imagine the master cluster **** that would come with a close race/recount.
On man one vote means democracy. That's the worst form of govt. We're a republic. Let's keep it that way.

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 06:40 PM
On man one vote means democracy. That's the worst form of govt. We're a republic. Let's keep it that way.

Do please tell me why you think so?

RNR
11-07-2012, 06:46 PM
Without this antiquated system Bush would have never been elected. Romney didn't win the popular vote either.

And your point?

whoman69
11-07-2012, 07:00 PM
And your point?

That should be an auto response for every post in this forum.

Bump
11-07-2012, 08:15 PM
the electoral college is almost as stupid and outdated as the bible

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 08:34 PM
On man one vote means democracy. That's the worst form of govt. We're a republic. Let's keep it that way.

Really? The worst? The worst? Really?

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 08:36 PM
the electoral college is almost as stupid and outdated as the bible

Trolling, yet still mostly true. Nicely done.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 08:54 PM
I honestly don't think it will change in our lifetimes, but I agree that it's pretty pointless anymore.

I don't think it's pointless but it needs to be modified. I was bitching about CA having so many EC votes last night. Pawnmower foisted the idea that their state needs to get rid of the "winner take all" rule and break up the votes.

In small states like NH it doesn't matter. But in states such as CA, TX, FL, OH, and PA I think those EC votes need to be broken up among the state. Some locla talkshow gal was crying on the radio yesterday about how she realized her vote wouldn't count because Kansas would go for Romney. In a state with only 6 EC votes you have to say WHA!

But in a state like CA where 55 EC votes are at stake there is a legit complaint to say that when the majority of the counties vote one way but they are negated in whole by a larger populated but yet smaller amount of counties then there is a reason to cry foul.

Plus I think it would make candidates pay attention to more states.

L.A. Chieffan
11-07-2012, 09:07 PM
Why not just have a candidate than can win California?

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 09:15 PM
I don't think it's pointless but it needs to be modified. I was bitching about CA having so many EC votes last night. Pawnmower foisted the idea that their state needs to get rid of the "winner take all" rule and break up the votes.

In small states like NH it doesn't matter. But in states such as CA, TX, FL, OH, and PA I think those EC votes need to be broken up among the state. Some locla talkshow gal was crying on the radio yesterday about how she realized her vote wouldn't count because Kansas would go for Romney. In a state with only 6 EC votes you have to say WHA!

But in a state like CA where 55 EC votes are at stake there is a legit complaint to say that when the majority of the counties vote one way but they are negated in whole by a larger populated but yet smaller amount of counties then there is a reason to cry foul.

Plus I think it would make candidates pay attention to more states.

I doubt sincerely you would feel the same way if it were a red state.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 09:21 PM
I doubt sincerely you would feel the same way if it were a red state.

Well you can doubt that all you want but I truly believe that breaking up the EC votes in large EC vote states is a good idea. It's better than the current system and better than a straight popular vote.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 09:21 PM
Why not just have a candidate than can win California?

Why not make it a little more fair for the people in CA?

L.A. Chieffan
11-07-2012, 09:24 PM
Why not make it a little more fair for the people in CA?

Explain.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 09:36 PM
Explain.

Break up the 55 votes among the state. Similar to what Maine and Nebraska do. I know there are very conservative parts of CA but they are outnumbered compared to LA, SD and SF. Not sure exactly how it would be drawn up but you simply apportion a certain # of EC votes to a number of counties, etc.

To use modern day realities, if a Dem wanted to get all 55 CA votes it would actually require the Dem to visit CA. I don't recall the last time a candidate visited CA like they do say Ohio? Right now our Presidentials only visit a few states during campaign season. It makes it a lot tougher to get to the magic 270 when you can't take certain large states for granted like Ca and Texas.

Take Mo for example though I still see them on the smaller side. But say you alot 3 of the 11 EC votes to the KC areas, 4 to the STL areas and the remaining 4 across the state. If that were the case, Obama would probably have gotten 7 of the 11 with Romney only getting 4 as opposed to all 11.

tk13
11-07-2012, 09:37 PM
I don't get it either. California has a bazillion people. Of course they're going to have a bunch of electoral college votes.

DrunkBassGuitar
11-07-2012, 09:41 PM
if you want urban centers deciding all the elections...go for it.

I'm sure the democrats would thank you for eliminating the EC

petegz28
11-07-2012, 09:43 PM
I don't get it either. California has a bazillion people. Of course they're going to have a bunch of electoral college votes.

It's not about reducing their EC votes. It's about spreading them out among the state. The "winner take all" method in these larger states has run it's course.

Take a look at this map and you tell me if you think just by looking at it if Obama should have won?

http://freedomslighthouse.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012electoralcountybycountymap110712.jpg

That's why I am saying if you break up the EC votes across the state in the larger EC states it levels out the playing field a little bit more to the fair side but doesn't swing as far as the straight popular vote.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 09:44 PM
if you want urban centers deciding all the elections...go for it.

I'm sure the democrats would thank you for eliminating the EC

I'll repost this image to prove that urban centers obviously do decide elections

http://freedomslighthouse.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012electoralcountybycountymap110712.jpg

Look at Nevada for crying out loud. HTF do 2 counties go for Obama and the rest Romeny and Obama wins it?

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 09:54 PM
I'll repost this image to prove that urban centers obviously do decide elections

http://freedomslighthouse.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012electoralcountybycountymap110712.jpg

Look at Nevada for crying out loud. HTF do 2 counties go for Obama and the rest Romeny and Obama wins it?

OK, you know the answer--because no one lives in the Romney parts.

L.A. Chieffan
11-07-2012, 09:55 PM
Break up the 55 votes among the state. Similar to what Maine and Nebraska do. I know there are very conservative parts of CA but they are outnumbered compared to LA, SD and SF. Not sure exactly how it would be drawn up but you simply apportion a certain # of EC votes to a number of counties, etc.

To use modern day realities, if a Dem wanted to get all 55 CA votes it would actually require the Dem to visit CA. I don't recall the last time a candidate visited CA like they do say Ohio? Right now our Presidentials only visit a few states during campaign season. It makes it a lot tougher to get to the magic 270 when you can't take certain large states for granted like Ca and Texas.

Take Mo for example though I still see them on the smaller side. But say you alot 3 of the 11 EC votes to the KC areas, 4 to the STL areas and the remaining 4 across the state. If that were the case, Obama would probably have gotten 7 of the 11 with Romney only getting 4 as opposed to all 11.

The EC votes in the heavily populated areas would still far outweigh the small unpopulated inland areas and the ECs the Repub candidate might pick up would be negated by the ECs the Democratic candidate would pick up in states that end up being Republican.

Again, if there was actually a candidate that was worth voting for then California would vote for them.

tk13
11-07-2012, 10:01 PM
I get the concept, but I don't understand why dividing it up at a county level is a better idea than any other process. The vote is still based on a state level... in Nevada for instance, there are obviously way more people in the blue counties than red counties... or Romney would've won the state. Why would you punish people for living in a more populated county? There doesn't seem to be a point to the idea beyond that.

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 10:07 PM
Well you can doubt that all you want but I truly believe that breaking up the EC votes in large EC vote states is a good idea. It's better than the current system and better than a straight popular vote.

Bullshit. It's the method that best benefits you.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:09 PM
The EC votes in the heavily populated areas would still far outweigh the small unpopulated inland areas and the ECs the Repub candidate might pick up would be negated by the ECs the Democratic candidate would pick up in states that end up being Republican.

Again, if there was actually a candidate that was worth voting for then California would vote for them.

True and not true. While the heavily populated areas would rightfully be granted more EC votes, they could easily be outnumbered by the collective of smaller EC vote areas in the totality of the race.

AND, one does not negate the other per say in the manner which you present it. Quite the contrary. Just using some hypo's and last night's election let's look at this.

If 40 of the 55 CA votes went to urban areas, Obama probably loses 15 points off his total, hypo speaking. Romney by the same token picks up 15.

Florida let's say of the 29 votes, 18 go to urnab areas. Again, hypo speaking, Obama loses 11 votes, Romney picks up 11.

Between those 2 states alone that's a 26 point swing while still granting urban areas over 1/2 the total EC votes of the state.

what it does in theory is grants the dominant vote to the more populated areas while still giving the outliers a say in the election overall.

Look at Ohio. 18 votes. Give 12 to Urbans and 6 to the rest. Most likely costs Obama another 6 EC votes.

Just givent he hypos with just those 3 states, Obama is suddenly down 32 EC votes.

You add states like PA, NY and TX in that mix and we have a totally different outcome though Obama may still win. Most likely though givent he election map he wouldn't have.

to me it's about as fair as you can get without going straight vote.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:09 PM
Bullshit. It's the method that best benefits you.

Not true.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:12 PM
I get the concept, but I don't understand why dividing it up at a county level is a better idea than any other process. The vote is still based on a state level... in Nevada for instance, there are obviously way more people in the blue counties than red counties... or Romney would've won the state. Why would you punish people for living in a more populated county? There doesn't seem to be a point to the idea beyond that.

It's not punishing them at all. It's spreading out the EC votes so that the less populated areas still have an effective say in the overall outcome of the election. 2 states already do it and both are much, much smaller than CA.

So I guess the question is, why would you punish people for living in a less populated area?

Cannibal
11-07-2012, 10:13 PM
I dont understand why there isnt more of a push to abolish it? Especially since 2000 and the POTUS elections being so close.


I agree, its pointless. Theres this myth out there that a direct election would force the candidates to concentrate on only big cities, but how is that any different than what we have now where they only campaign in like 7 or 8 swing states? IN fact, id argue that the EC makes alot of voters stay home and not care, if they know their vote doesnt matter.

Ill take an election process with a TRUE "Every Vote Counts" any day of the week.

The Electoral College is a Joke.

Agreed

Pitt Gorilla
11-07-2012, 10:13 PM
True and not true. While the heavily populated areas would rightfully be granted more EC votes, they could easily be outnumbered by the collective of smaller EC vote areas in the totality of the race.

AND, one does not negate the other per say in the manner which you present it. Quite the contrary. Just using some hypo's and last night's election let's look at this.

If 40 of the 55 CA votes went to urban areas, Obama probably loses 15 points off his total, hypo speaking. Romney by the same token picks up 15.

Florida let's say of the 29 votes, 18 go to urnab areas. Again, hypo speaking, Obama loses 11 votes, Romney picks up 11.

Between those 2 states alone that's a 26 point swing while still granting urban areas over 1/2 the total EC votes of the state.

what it does in theory is grants the dominant vote to the more populated areas while still giving the outliers a say in the election overall.

Look at Ohio. 18 votes. Give 12 to Urbans and 6 to the rest. Most likely costs Obama another 6 EC votes.

Just givent he hypos with just those 3 states, Obama is suddenly down 32 EC votes.

You add states like PA, NY and TX in that mix and we have a totally different outcome though Obama may still win. Most likely though givent he election map he wouldn't have.

to me it's about as fair as you can get without going straight vote.What about that would be "fair?" Outside of the state distinction, land doesn't (and shouldn't) vote.

tk13
11-07-2012, 10:15 PM
It's not punishing them at all. It's spreading out the EC votes so that the less populated areas still have an effective say in the overall outcome of the election. 2 states already do it and both are much, much smaller than CA.

So I guess the question is, why would you punish people for living in a less populated area?

You aren't. Their vote counts as 1 vote, just like a person living in a big city does.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:16 PM
What about that would be "fair?" Outside of the state distinction, land doesn't (and shouldn't) vote.

How is it not fair? I said the higher populated areas would be granted more EC votes. They just don't get to dominate the entire state. If a state line Maine or Nebraska can do it I think a state like CA or TX can do it.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 10:18 PM
True and not true. While the heavily populated areas would rightfully be granted more EC votes, they could easily be outnumbered by the collective of smaller EC vote areas in the totality of the race.

AND, one does not negate the other per say in the manner which you present it. Quite the contrary. Just using some hypo's and last night's election let's look at this.

If 40 of the 55 CA votes went to urban areas, Obama probably loses 15 points off his total, hypo speaking. Romney by the same token picks up 15.

Florida let's say of the 29 votes, 18 go to urnab areas. Again, hypo speaking, Obama loses 11 votes, Romney picks up 11.

Between those 2 states alone that's a 26 point swing while still granting urban areas over 1/2 the total EC votes of the state.

what it does in theory is grants the dominant vote to the more populated areas while still giving the outliers a say in the election overall.

Look at Ohio. 18 votes. Give 12 to Urbans and 6 to the rest. Most likely costs Obama another 6 EC votes.

Just givent he hypos with just those 3 states, Obama is suddenly down 32 EC votes.

You add states like PA, NY and TX in that mix and we have a totally different outcome though Obama may still win. Most likely though givent he election map he wouldn't have.

to me it's about as fair as you can get without going straight vote.

If you are going to split it, you do it by congressional districts (like Nebraska). Your apparently rather arbitrary method seems kind of retarded.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:19 PM
You aren't. Their vote counts as 1 vote, just like a person living in a big city does.

That would be true if it were a straight majority vote for the overall election. But it isn't.

To go with your argument, CA's votes should not count any more than KS's votes but they get 49 more EC votes.

I am just tossing out a theory that tries to meet that middle ground between the current EC and straight majority vote.

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 10:19 PM
Not true.

Out of the 3, which benefits your party the most?

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:19 PM
If you are going to split it, you do it by congressional districts (like Nebraska). Your apparently rather arbitrary method seems kind of retarded.

You're fucking retarded. I said that was all hypo. Do you understand the definition of hypothetical?

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 10:20 PM
That would be true if it were a straight majority vote for the overall election. But it isn't.

To go with your argument, CA's votes should not count any more than KS's votes but they get 49 more EC votes.

I am just tossing out a theory that tries to meet that middle ground between the current EC and straight majority vote.

One that attempts to negate the population difference between KS and CA.

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 10:23 PM
You aren't. Their vote counts as 1 vote, just like a person living in a big city does.

Exactly.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:26 PM
Out of the 3, which benefits your party the most?

Tough to say. Bush won the EC, lost the Pop. In the current climate the split EC vote would probably favor R's.

I'm just trying to find some middle ground.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:27 PM
One that attempts to negate the population difference between KS and CA.

How so? Where did I say CA should get less than 55 EC's and Kansas should get more than 6?

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 10:30 PM
Tough to say. Bush won the EC, lost the Pop. In the current climate the split EC vote would probably favor R's.

I'm just trying to find some middle ground.

Here's my point, and maybe I'm coming out snarky, because that's not my intent. I've got to go in post election mode.

There are 2 options that will work: the current system, because it has this long or the popular vote. Any other option will be subjected to members of both parties navigating the waters looking for an edge, sort of the same way as gerrymandering is now.

Guru
11-07-2012, 10:32 PM
you only need to carry 11 states to win the election. Balance I tell ya. LMAO

tk13
11-07-2012, 10:34 PM
That would be true if it were a straight majority vote for the overall election. But it isn't.

To go with your argument, CA's votes should not count any more than KS's votes but they get 49 more EC votes.

I am just tossing out a theory that tries to meet that middle ground between the current EC and straight majority vote.

I don't understand. CA's votes probably don't count more than KS if you do the math, at least in terms of population/votes. That's the whole point of the electoral college to begin with, isn't it? Rural Kansas can't get wiped out by cities in Calfornia that have more people than the entire state of Kansas.

L.A. Chieffan
11-07-2012, 10:35 PM
How so? Where did I say CA should get less than 55 EC's and Kansas should get more than 6?

Using you hypo the only area that might get more than 1 EC is Orange County. Other than that Romney wouldnt be getting 15 ECs, more like 5.

And then on the flip side of the coin, you have a state like Texas where 4 or 5 of the most heavily populated areas voted Obama yet Romney reaped the rewards of all 38 ECs

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 10:35 PM
you only need to carry 11 states to win the election. Balance I tell ya. LMAO

Aren't the majority of the US population in those states?

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:39 PM
Using you hypo the only area that might get more than 1 EC is Orange County. Other than that Romney wouldnt be getting 15 ECs, more like 5.

And then on the flip side of the coin, you have a state like Texas where 4 or 5 of the most heavily populated areas voted Obama yet Romney reaped the rewards of all 38 ECs

Depending on how you drew it up, you might be right. This is just an idea that will most likely never, ever happen.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:41 PM
I don't understand. CA's votes probably don't count more than KS if you do the math, at least in terms of population/votes. That's the whole point of the electoral college to begin with, isn't it? Rural Kansas can't get wiped out by cities in Calfornia that have more people than the entire state of Kansas.

So just take that one step further to the intra-state level is all I am saying.

Garcia Bronco
11-07-2012, 11:20 PM
BEP, the start of this thread was about voter representation, direct democracy, win by the amount of votes garnished. If populations are in cities than it is lopsided, based upon population, to give representation to Wyoming or Rhode Island above their population numbers.

And as I said it won't happen because of that lost of power relative to population for those states. I am personally ambivalent about the Electorial College.

This was the end of the thread.

synthesis2
11-07-2012, 11:21 PM
I still don't get the agrument that a popular vote is going to make places like north dakota not count as much as bigger cities.

They would count, every vote would count towards who does and does not get elected.

I am 100% possitive that if they went to a straight popular vote it would by far and away be the biggest turnout ever because people would feel there vote would count.

But to say that a person in a less populated area wouldn't count as much makes no sense.

a vote is a vote

HMc
11-08-2012, 12:27 AM
Pete still has sand in his vagina about the result.

If you think this view of his about breaking up California gets posted if Romney won it...well, it's hard to know what to tell you.

Gravedigger
11-08-2012, 12:55 AM
I still don't get the agrument that a popular vote is going to make places like north dakota not count as much as bigger cities.

They would count, every vote would count towards who does and does not get elected.

I am 100% possitive that if they went to a straight popular vote it would by far and away be the biggest turnout ever because people would feel there vote would count.

But to say that a person in a less populated area wouldn't count as much makes no sense.

a vote is a vote

My thoughts exactly, if you want to Rock the Vote, you have to even the playing field. If you aren't in a swing state your vote doesn't matter as much as other states. There's no equality in it. The election always boils down to Florida, Ohio, Virginia, etc and I'm sick of keeping all eyes on one state out of 50. If you know where the chips are going to fall in 2/3 of the United States then it doesn't leave much up to the individual vote. Also if you made it the popular vote and split it up by states so that each state would be responsible for its votes to hinder against a national recount, then the Presidential Nominees would actually have to tour the country they are about to take over. Maybe I want to see Obama at Oklahoma Joe's getting a BBQ sandwich, or Romney at a Wendy's, but I won't get the opportunity to shake hands unless our state has a catastrophe in it or I'm just lucky enough to get the chance. We deserve to be watched just as much as the other states regardless of their populations.

whoman69
11-08-2012, 01:07 PM
I still don't get the agrument that a popular vote is going to make places like north dakota not count as much as bigger cities.

They would count, every vote would count towards who does and does not get elected.

I am 100% possitive that if they went to a straight popular vote it would by far and away be the biggest turnout ever because people would feel there vote would count.

But to say that a person in a less populated area wouldn't count as much makes no sense.

a vote is a vote

But the vote of the individual is lumped in with every vote in the country. When counted as a total of the whole country a voter in North Dakota is .002 percent of the population. If you use the electorate they cast about the same .002 percent. As a total of the electoral college they are about twice as powerful with .005 percent.

The argument that there would be more voters with a popular vote may not ring true, but even if it does then that change would be across the board. You would also have a boost in voters if you amend the EC to the same program as Maine and Nebraska.

whoman69
11-08-2012, 01:13 PM
My thoughts exactly, if you want to Rock the Vote, you have to even the playing field. If you aren't in a swing state your vote doesn't matter as much as other states. There's no equality in it. The election always boils down to Florida, Ohio, Virginia, etc and I'm sick of keeping all eyes on one state out of 50. If you know where the chips are going to fall in 2/3 of the United States then it doesn't leave much up to the individual vote. Also if you made it the popular vote and split it up by states so that each state would be responsible for its votes to hinder against a national recount, then the Presidential Nominees would actually have to tour the country they are about to take over. Maybe I want to see Obama at Oklahoma Joe's getting a BBQ sandwich, or Romney at a Wendy's, but I won't get the opportunity to shake hands unless our state has a catastrophe in it or I'm just lucky enough to get the chance. We deserve to be watched just as much as the other states regardless of their populations.

In a popular vote candidates will campaign where they can get the most votes. They will still be in swing states because that's where the most undecided voters are.

Barack Obama was behind in the popular vote until they started counting California. That is not going to change.

synthesis2
11-08-2012, 09:55 PM
I know that he won the popular as well as the elect. vote, I get it.

I also understand what you are saying about north dakota counting for .002 percent.

I still don't think this matters.

I think if you polled all of the people in the USA and had a vote as to elect. voting or popular vote it would be a landslide for the poplular, I wouldn't be suprised if it recieved 80% plus votes accross the nation.

If it went to a popular vote people woulnd't care about the states as much and they would just care about what the nation overall wants.

And people would feel like their vote counted as how it stands now many don't

Obama / Rommeny / superman I don't care, just making a point that it makes too much sense and I just don't understand why it hasn't been changed in the last 20 years.

J Diddy
11-08-2012, 09:56 PM
I know that he won the popular as well as the elect. vote, I get it.

I also understand what you are saying about north dakota counting for .002 percent.

I still don't think this matters.

I think if you polled all of the people in the USA and had a vote as to elect. voting or popular vote it would be a landslide for the poplular, I wouldn't be suprised if it recieved 80% plus votes accross the nation.

If it went to a popular vote people woulnd't care about the states as much and they would just care about what the nation overall wants.

And people would feel like their vote counted as how it stands now many don't

Obama / Rommeny / superman I don't care, just making a point that it makes too much sense and I just don't understand why it hasn't been changed in the last 20 years.

I'll give you one reason. Remember the recount in Florida in 2000 and the ensuing cluster fuck. Now expand that to every vote in the country.

synthesis2
11-09-2012, 07:04 AM
I remember but I would be good with it, even if it took a month to sort out the votes, if someone won by 1 vote then he/she wins.

In fact the closer the vote it the more people feel like there vote counted.

Amnorix
11-09-2012, 07:09 AM
I'll repost this image to prove that urban centers obviously do decide elections

Look at Nevada for crying out loud. HTF do 2 counties go for Obama and the rest Romeny and Obama wins it?



Because there's 14 people in those desert-filled counties dumbass.

whoman69
11-09-2012, 02:20 PM
I remember but I would be good with it, even if it took a month to sort out the votes, if someone won by 1 vote then he/she wins.

In fact the closer the vote it the more people feel like there vote counted.

Didn't seem that way in 2000.

whoman69
11-09-2012, 02:24 PM
I know that he won the popular as well as the elect. vote, I get it.

I also understand what you are saying about north dakota counting for .002 percent.

I still don't think this matters.

I think if you polled all of the people in the USA and had a vote as to elect. voting or popular vote it would be a landslide for the poplular, I wouldn't be suprised if it recieved 80% plus votes accross the nation.

If it went to a popular vote people woulnd't care about the states as much and they would just care about what the nation overall wants.

And people would feel like their vote counted as how it stands now many don't

Obama / Rommeny / superman I don't care, just making a point that it makes too much sense and I just don't understand why it hasn't been changed in the last 20 years.

And 90% of those people wouldn't have any idea why the electoral college was set up and what it is supposed to safeguard.