BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?

Subject: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:09 PM

Can anyone give me one good reason why the United States has held on to this antiquated system for electing a president ? What's wrong with the idea of one man { person } - one vote ? As far as I'm concerned it's time to get rid of this system - whoever gets the most votes should get the office.

Your comments ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:12 PM

Helluvan idea.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:30 PM

I feel that a popular vote would be the way to go. There is, however, a certain logic to the Electoral College.   Since all the states are united in a federation called the United States of America and each state has certain sovereign rights (or at least was supposed to) this was meant to level the playing field, so to speak.   A state with a larger population and/or area was given more votes than one with less. These are re-apportioned on a regular basis---each state gets 2 electors (for the senators of each state) and then a proportion equal to their representation in the House.

In this way the states are, in theory, represented properly (not equally).

My own opinion is that if we keep thinking of states as individual sovereignties with "states rights" then it is a proper procedure. If, on the other hand, we are willing to say this is one nation and there are no state bounderies--well, then it would follow a popular vote would be the way to go. We would also eliminate 50 state beurocracies and governors. The down side---we would be giving the Federal Government unlimited authority. Looking at today's situation one has to ask---how smart is that?

So, in short, if it ain't broke don't fix it. But, that said, fix problems like the "short count" (I steal a line from a Dempsey fight)in Florida. Hanky Panky is the enemy not the way the elections work.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 08:38 PM

too many of the states (mostly the conservative ones) LIKE having their influence felt as a bloc vote, rather than take the chance that 51% of the people as a whole will vote against them...that way, they can win, even when they lose, as happened last time. They think it's important to have the opportunity to say "Alabama, as a *state* repudiates that liberal so-and-so"...even if only 51% of Alabama feels that way. If it is close, "we don't want ANY of our citizens votes to count in favor of Kerry!"

you can see why they feel that way...a few hundred votes in Florida the other way would have given the election to the guy most citizens preferred, rather that the one most conservative states preferred.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 11:23 PM

Ahhh, not is the electorial college un-democratin but democracy, the way it is practiced in the US is today, is also un-democratic. Neither are what the Founding Fathers had in mind... The Founding Fathers knew the art of compromise... There no compromise in the US governemnt at all... There's actually no governance... There's rule at that it. Whichever party manges to out manipulate the other in telling better lies, or downright cheating, wins.... gets to rule...

So why keep either the electorial college or a system where winner take all? They are both un-democratic and miserable failures...

Just MO, of course...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 11:35 PM

The electoral college was invented to solve the problems of a time when travel was slow and uncertain. Now that it's established, some elements find it useful and NO ONE trusts any one else to replace it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Nerd
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 01:44 AM

It's true that part of the reason for the electoral college was to deal with issues of travel and communication. At a time when the only way to let Washington know what had happened was to send someone there with the news, a literal delegation had to be created to go there. However, there was another reason for the college which has been subverted. The idea, as Bill H says, was to level the playing field. It's not that "A state with a larger population and/or area was given more votes than one with less," as Bill puts it. This in fact happens naturally with a popular vote.

It's the opposite: a small state gets proportionally MORE electoral votes, not less. Vermont, for example, has only one congressman, but like all states it has two Senators. A state with a hundred congessmen also has two senators. So Vermont gets three electoral votes instead of one --the Senators increase their number of votes by 200 %! Meanwhile, the state with a hundred congressmen gets 102 votes--the senators only increase their number of votes by 2 %. Thus the smalll states get a slight advantage over the situation in a purely popular vote.

As you can imagine, these 100 votes nationwide (2 for each state) are rarely enough to make a difference in an election, though they theoretically could. The real problem is not the existence of the college, but the way the states have chosen to use their delegations.

To explain, there is nothing in the constitution giving the actual procedure of the college; only its bare existence is mandated. Most states have decided to have their delegations vote all-or-nothing, rather than proportionally. So, as people have pointed out above, even if 49 % of people in Alabama vote for gore, he gets zero electoral votes.

Curiously, this has had the opposite effect than the one intended by the creators of the college. Small states have even less power now. By winning only a handful of big states and ignoring all the smaller ones, you can become President.

I believe there is nothing wrong with the electoral college per se. What is screwy is the way its votes are counted. If 49 % of the people in a state vote for Bush, then he should get 49% of its electors, not zero. This creates its own problems (Vermont, for example, can only give 100 %, 66.6 %, 33.3% and zero--three votes, two votes, one vote, no vote) but the result would be more representative of the wishes of Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Two_bears
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 02:08 AM

too many of the states (mostly the conservative ones) LIKE having their influence felt as a bloc vote, rather than take the chance that 51% of the people as a whole will vote against them...that way, they

I see I am going to have to give you an education in regard to the Electoral college.

There is No "conservative" block vote.

The electoral College is a state by state process no block vote.

repudiates that liberal so-and-so"...even if only 51% of Alabama feels that way. If it is close, "we don't want ANY of our citizens votes to count in favor of Kerry!"

The same could be said for the republicans in Vermont, New York, Califorrnia, etc.

The one that wins the popular vote in each state takes ALL of the electoral votes. It has been that way for more than 200 years.

you can see why they feel that way...a few hundred votes in Florida the other way would have given the election to the guy most citizens preferred, rather that the one most conservative states preferred.

If Al Gore had carried his own state (Tenessee); then Florida would have been a non issue.

A good reason for the electoral college is that in close states like Florida; those are the only states that has to endure a recount; instead of forcing a nation wide recount which would have cost $ MILLIONS to do 51 seperate recounts (51 because of 50 states and Washington DC.)

It would do you and others a world of good if you actually read the constitution for yourself; then when the news media lies about something allegedly in the constitution; you would know the truth. instead of demonstrating ignorance to parrot the lies of the news media.

One great example. the wall of seperation between chruch and state. That phrase is NOT in the U.S. constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Nerd
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 02:58 AM

TWO Bears,

you're right about the electoral college not helping either "side" or "party" disproportionately. Overall, for example, it usually results in thousands of liberal Alabamans being disenfranchised and thousands of conservative Vermonters. Whether there are more of one group than the other is an accident of history, not a flaw of the electoral college system. The fact that people are disenfranchised at all, however, is a serious flaw.

However, you have also fallen for a common misconception about the electoral college, which is that it prevents massive nationwide recounts. In fact, there has never been a US election whose popular vote was close enough to warrant a recount. It is the fact of the all-or-nothing electoral college that artificially creates a situation where a few hundred votes in Florida might throw the election to either side. This encourages candidates to seek recounts in those states. Gore won the popular vote by well over half a million votes, for example, so in a popular election no recount would have occurred.

It's also not true to suggest that the electoral college has worked the same way for over two hundred years. There have been changes along the way. Electors were once chosen by state legislatures, for example: Americans in those states did not vote for President at all. Many of the changes have been state-by-state, so it is not easy to chart them. The specific workings of how electors are chosen and how they vote are not in the Constitution at all. The existence of the college is mandated, as is the methhod by which their votes are counted once they are cast, and how that count translated into choosing a President. But how electors cast their votes (eg. by all-or-nothing or proportionally, or by personal preference) is not spelled out.

What this means, two bears, is that the all-or-nothing method of calculating electoral college votes is not mandated in the Constitution, as you seem to think, and indeed is not followed in Maine or Nebraska. The State Legislature decides how the electors of each state vote. The fascinating thing is that all-or-nothing usually favors whichever party wins the legislature; that party is likely to have at least a slim majority in the presidential election, which through all-or-nothing becomes a sizeable bloc vote. So no matter which party is in power in any state, it behooves that party to maintain the all-or-nothing system so they can disenfranchise their opponents' voters. It's a bit perverse, and both parties are equally guilty.

By the way, two bears, it would do YOU good to read the constitution on the electoral college. You seem to have absorbed a lot of media distortions yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 03:39 AM

I'm going to vote for Kerry. I live in Idaho, one of the most --maybe the most-- Republican states, so my vote will count for nothing. I know in advance I might as well not vote. That's not right.

If there's an equally strong Democratic state that's screwing it's Republican citizens that's not right either, and it doesn't balance out.

If I have a vote that doesn't count I don't have a vote.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Two_bears
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 09:36 AM

Clint

I'm going to vote for Kerry. I live in Idaho, one of the most --maybe the most-- Republican states, so my vote will count for nothing. I know in advance I might as well not vote. That's not right.

I will tell you what is not right.

1.What's not right was the useful idiots in the news media giving the state of Florida to Gore about 45 minutes before the polls closed in the pan handle of Florida and people were still standing in line to vote.

2. The way the Democratic party in Florida threw away the absentee votes of the soldiers in the military.

3. The way that Al Gore wanted to recount only the most liberal counties of Florida and ignore the conservative ones.

4. They tried to use different counting protocols in different counties when the law was that the entire state had to use the same counting protocol.

5. Then the liberals used the remark "G.W. Bush was selected not elected." All the Supreme court did was mandate that the state of Florida use the protocol that was in place BEFORE the election.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Two_bears
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 09:39 AM

Nerd

However, you have also fallen for a common misconception about the electoral college, which is that it prevents massive nationwide recounts. In fact, there has never been a US election whose popular vote was close enough to warrant a recount. It is the fact of the all-or-nothing electoral college that artificially creates a situation where a few hundred votes in Florida

Uh huh. If you say so.

I remember quite a dew elections where something fishy happened.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Nerd
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 10:09 AM

Two Bears,

Uh huh. If you say so.

Okay, then, which election was close enough in the popular vote to merit a recount? If there wasn't one, then all the "fishy" in the world doesn't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 11:11 AM

The Republican Party has had control of Alaska for many years. My presidential vote has never counted toward the candidate I wanted to vote for. In the last election 42% of the voters in Alaska voted for Al Gore, yet all of our electoral votes went for Bush.

This is an unfair system that disenfranchises the minority in our state. It is antiquated and needs to be either eliminated or proportioned so that voters like myself do not lose their ability to cast a ballot.

My children have told me they see no reason why they should vote for president, since their vote doesn't count. The Electoral College is one of the reasons there is such apathy in presidential elections in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 12:43 PM

Since Alabama is being given as a popular example in this debate, let me just say that I am a registered voter in the state of Alabama. I know for a fact that my vote will not be counted unless I vote for Bush. And for that reason, I'm going to vote my conscience, since voting for Kerry won't make the slightest bit of difference either way in my case.

I'm voting for Kucinich.

(BTW, we haven't even had our primary (or caucas, whichever the case may be), here in Alabama yet. So my vote counts for nothing in the primaries as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 01:49 PM

well, two bears, your technical arguments about the electoral college and the Constitution have been addressed by others...just to clarify MY post, I was only addressing what I feel to be the attitude that is a major factor in keeping the electoral system in spite of obvious difficulties with it in this modern age.

The ENTIRE system needs to be revised, from the selection of candidates to the finance laws to the primary system to the actual voting and counting. (and you are correct, two bears, that the news media has no business reporting before all votes are cast)....but as has been noted, there is a great difficulty in revising the system, as no one trusts the other side not to 'revise' it to favor their interests and voting habits.

As to the Supreme Court, it is widely believed that it had no business taking that case about the Florida election, as it then became de facto involved in deciding the election. Oh, sure...those who understood that the court makeup would undoubtably decide in a way that favored Republican wishes had NO trouble interpreting the Constitution to justify sending the court into new territory! "First you throw the dart...then you draw the bullseye"

Right now the Republicans are busy appointing judges, making laws, manipulating the tax system, Gerrymandering the voting districts, pressuring (and buying)the media, creating lobbies and special interest groups, designing ad campaigns, influencing the educational system..(especially the textbook procurement process)..etc...etc..to try to ensure that they will always retain power in all significant areas, while retaing the appearance of democracy.
(yes, I know..all political parties try to maximize their advantage in some of these ways...they want to win! But this is different...the influence of Christian fundamentalism in the Republican/conservative ranks has changed the "we want to win" attitude to a "we MUST win because it is justified by 'higher principles' and is for the good of all...we KNOW this." ....This is an attitude that we see expressed in various repressive regimes throughout history, and in many countries today, usually with religious justification overlaying the whole thing.)

Is all that relevant to the thread question? Well, in my opinion, replacing the electoral system would level the playing field a lot more, making it more difficult for any group to stack the deck thru control of just a few states. You will note how much energy and $$$$ will be spent in Ohio, Florida and several other states this Summer and fall...Alabama & Alaska & Kansas are not exactly problems for Bush & his steamroller........

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 02:04 PM

Folks may be interested in the highly readable Electoral College Primer at the Harvard University Web site.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 03:40 PM

Looks to me like we have reached the conclusion that the US shold get to 'one person, one vote'. Is there a good reason anymore to keep the college?

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 03:57 PM

The last election fell past the limits of acceptability because the Bush machine railroaded the Supreme Court into setting aside State jurisdiction. The State Supreme Court had already implement a vote recount, you will recall, but was overridden because Bush said tot he Supreme Court that such a recount would hurt him.

The major argument in favor of the electoral system is that it has a dampening effect on excesses, and has worked for 200 years. I am not asserting it should not be changed, but I am saying you want to approach slowly and carefully when proposing to change a system that is large and complex and has been operating well over all.

I certainly don't feel qualified to prescribe an improvement.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 05:09 PM

"I will tell you what is not right."

Thank you for your humility and courtesy.

While what you say is interesting, it doesn't do much to address what I said: "If I have a vote that doesn't count I don't have a vote."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 05:23 PM

Oh, and that's not a bad idea, Carol C. It'd be great if Kucinich would carry all the democrats in Idaho and Alabama.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 05:51 PM

How about if all those voters in places like Idaho and Alabama who like Kerry were to get in touch with people, in states like Ohio, who'd prefer Kucinich or Nader, and arrange to vote for each others candidate instead?

Thus ensuring the most effective anti-Bush vote, where it might make a difference, but also ensuring that the anti-establishment candidates still got a vote reflecting their actual level of support?

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 06:52 PM

Nerd---I stand, not corrected, but, rather in agreement with your thought re: proportional voting by the electors of each state.

Good point. One that would truly make for a level field.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 07:07 PM

A Question ! Has there ever been a case in recent history of an electoral college delegate changing his/her allegeance ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Nerd
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 11:34 PM

Gareth,

in 2000, a DC elector abstained to protest DC's non-statehood.

in 1988, one delegate voted for Bentsen for president and Dukakis for VP instead of the other way around!

in 1976 a Washington Republican voted for Reagan/Dole instead of Ford/Dole

in 1972 a Republican elector voted for two libertarians, making one of them the first woman to receive an electoral college vote.

etc, etc. It has happened 156 times in American history, but many have been because of the death of the original candidate.

None of these so-called "faithless electors" has ever affected the outcome of an election.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Two_bears
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 11:43 PM

Okay, then, which election was close enough in the popular vote to merit a recount? If there wasn't one, then all the "fishy" in the world doesn't matter.

Well there is the famous newspaper that reports "Dewey Wins!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Two_bears
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 11:51 PM

The Republican Party has had control of Alaska for many years. My presidential vote has never counted toward the candidate I wanted to vote for.

Unh huh. If you say so.

In the last election 42% of the voters in Alaska voted for Al Gore, yet all of our electoral votes went for Bush.

The Republicans in California, Chicago, California, etc could ALL make the same complaint.

The Founding fathers set up the United States that way from the beginning; you complaint should be with them.

This is an unfair system that disenfranchises the minority in our state. It is antiquated and needs to be either eliminated or proportioned so that voters like myself do not lose their ability to cast a ballot.

I still say confining a recount to ONE or TWO close states is much preferable to a long exoensive nation wide recount.

My children have told me they see no reason why they should vote for president, since their vote doesn't count. The Electoral College is one of the reasons there is such apathy in presidential elections in this country

In 2000; I went to the polls and voted against both the republicans and the democrats. I knew the odds of my niminee winning was slim and none but I voted for him none the less.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Two_bears
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 12:01 AM

The last election fell past the limits of acceptability because the Bush machine railroaded the Supreme Court into setting aside State jurisdiction. The State Supreme Court had already implement a vote recount, you will recall, but was overridden

Amos:

You are mistaken. The Florida supreme court tried to legislate from the bench (change the laws on how the vote was to be counted AFTER the vote had already taken place).

All the U.S. Supreme court did was to say that they MUST follow the laws that were in place BEFORE the votes were taken.

The Florida Supreme Court, and U.S. Supreme courts (judiciary) are the triers of the facts. the Legislature (congress and senate) are responsible to writing and passing the laws by over riding a veto. The executive branch either signs bills into law or veto's them.

Read the constitution and understand how the three branches of government works.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Two_bears
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 12:10 AM

While what you say is interesting, it doesn't do much to address what I said: "If I have a vote that doesn't count I don't have a vote."

A minor 700+ (732 if memory serves) votes determined the electoral votes for New Mexico.

If you feel that you do not have a vote; there are two things you could do.

1. Persuade your Democrat friends to go to the polls and vote (Only about 1/4th of registered voters actually voted in the last election) Get involved with the political party of choice.

2. You could move to another state that is more in line with your views philosophically.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 12:23 AM

Two BEars:

It puzzles me how a spiritual healer can consistently come across sounding condescending the way your posts often sound -- at least to me.

Forgive me if I avoid further discussion with you, but I don't need to be talked down to.

I am sure your confidence in your interpretation of facts is high. I suggest it may actually be a bit too high! But I am not game to chase this rabbit any further.



A

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 01:12 AM

"A minor 700+ (732 if memory serves) votes determined the electoral votes for New Mexico."

Could you explain this? You seem to be saying the man with the fewest popular votes got the electoral votes; is this right?

If we were to get a strong Democratic majority in Idaho the Republicans would be disenfranchised on presidential elections, and that wouldn't be right either.

In this country majority rules, but not absolutely. Minorities still have rights. At least that's how it's supposed to work. We are supposed to avoid the situation where two wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 02:40 AM

When Two Bears says "The Founding fathers set up the United States that way from the beginning; you complaint should be with them" he is wrong, as I have pointed out already. He consistently ignores my point: The founding fathers did NOT establish the all-or-nothing system of tabulating electoral college votes. That was done by state legislatures. It's easy to hide behind claims of the Constitution, but there is no Constitutional argument to be made; this is simply not in the Constitution.

Since this is a State Legislature issue, what Two Bears means is "take it up with your State Legislature." And so you should! They have the power to change the way your state's electoral votes are assigned so that the proper proportion of electoral votes goes to the minority. Maine and Nebraska work this way already. Why not Alaska?

Also, Two bears: Truman defeated Dewey by more than two million popular votes, while the electoral count was 303 to 189. It was not nearly close enough to merit a recount, not even as close as Bush V. Gore. Just because a newspaper screwed up doesn't mean it was that close.

Finally, the Florida Supreme Court did not believe they were "legislating from the bench." They believed they were interpreting the laws already in place. The fact that the US Supreme court disagreed can mean one of two things

(1) there was a simple disagreement of legal interpretation
(2) the US Supreme Court threw its weight around because it wanted a Bush presidency.

The fact that four of the nine justices dissented, and that the dissent was entirely along party lines, strongly suggests that the decision was political, NOT a clear-cut legal question of the Florida Court "Legislating from the Bench."

Sorry, Two Bears, that's three strikes!

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 10:27 AM

Nerd for President.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 10:47 AM

We could do worse. But, will Nerd give women the vote?

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 11:00 AM

Lets make it Three Bears, add in the brown bear cos he is full it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Midchuck
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 11:27 AM

The justification for keeping the College is the same as that for keeping the Senate having two senators per state, rather than proportional representation as in the House. It keeps the densly populated parts of the country from running things to suit themselves.

Lazarus Long (Robert A. Heinlein) said:

Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.

The incidence of craziness is vastly greater in urban areas than in rural areas. (But not of stupidity - that's evenly distributed on a percentage basis.) It follows that the country should be run by the rural areas. Strict adherence to One-person-one-vote would cause it to be run wholly by the urban areas (at least until the urban areas, making rules for how agriculture should work while knowing nothing about it, created a system that made it impossible to farm, and everyone starved but the urban areas starved first because they were farthest from the food and needed the most, but I digress).

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 11:54 AM

I don't get it, Brucie. Why wouldn't I give women the vote? Have I said something sexist in my posts above?

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: sledge
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 12:00 PM

Could that post from Brucie have just been a bit of humor?

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 12:37 PM

Yes, I agree it was humor! I just thought it might have been playing on something I said above, but can't figure out what that was.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 02:06 PM

Lets hope the electoral college doesn't screw up this election too. It's time for them to go.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 04:33 PM

I wonder if you folks who crave for the Electoral College to go down the drain will feel the same way if Kerry wins the Electoral College, but Bush wins the popular vote. Hm?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 04:35 PM

Reguardless of who wins I want it to go.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 04:40 PM

Clint: sorry, I don't follow your logic. The problem is NOT that your vote doesn't count. It does. It's just that you appear to vote for candidates that not enough other people vote for to win the election! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:28 AM

Ok, so I voted for Kerry. I'm actually glad I did, even though my vote won't be counted. Kerry got way more votes in Alabama in this election than anyone expected him to, and I was one of the ones who helped make that happen. I feel good about that.

And I agree with Wesley. Regardless of who wins, I'd still like to see it go.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:59 AM

It's okay CarolC - I voted for Kerry also, even though the prediction was my state would go to Bush, which it did. And, like you, Kerry didn't register a "blip" on my conscience radar ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 02:48 AM

Carol C: pardon me, but didn't I read on another thread that you voted for Kucinich (Sp?)? How are you able to vote twice?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 03:45 PM

Is it time to scrap the Electoral College??

Story Here

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 05:35 PM

As I said 4 years ago, I would happily see the electoral college system go away. And to answer Doug R's question of 4 years ago, I will happily take my chances that it doesn't work against MY candidate sometime.
   The system, as it stands, allows stacking the deck by aligning special interests and influencing enough votes in specific states to offset national preferences. (These 'interests' can be religious, issues oriented (guns, immigration ..etc.) or perceived party strengths.
   This system has its virtues 200 years ago when communication was hard and results could not be tabulated quickly...and when 'states rights' was a MAJOR concern, particularly in the South where slavery was being protected. Now it is a travesty on a huge, united country where people move about freely.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 05:09 PM

The problem with the Electoral College is that it doesn't represent population in the US.
There are disproportionately higher electoral representatives in smaller populated states.

It's too arbitrary and it needs to be reformed to truly reflect representative democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 05:36 PM

There are disproportionately higher electoral representatives in smaller populated states.

Exactly. That's the way it was designed, so that the heavy-population states, like California in the present day, couldn't run away with the election every time, leaving the smaller states without any voice at all.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 06:13 PM

The older I get and the more elections I live through, the more opposed to the Electoral College I become.

As a usually-Democratic voter in Louisiana (a "red" state), my vote hasn't meant squat in the last couple of Presidential elections, and probably won't this time, either. Obama is going to carry the city of New Orleans by an overwhelming margin, but statewide, everyone seems to agree that the GOP will always prevail by a few percentage points and therefore "earn" the winner-take-all electoral votes.

Thre is a good side to my situation, though -- I can watch TV all summer and fall without having to endure all those nasty political commercials. It's bad enough I have to sit through the crap they put on the air for the Senatorial candidiates and for all the more local races; at last I'm spared the Presidential sparring and sniping.

I get to the point where I hate the ads even for the candidates I favor: not only the ones I prefer only in a lesser-of-two-evils sense, but even the few that I really like.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Midchuck
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 07:14 PM

You won't get rid of the electoral college. To do so would require a Constitutional amendment. Any amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Not by 3/4 of the population of the country, by 3/4 of the States, each voting individually. All of the less populated states have more power under the present system than they would in a nationwide direct popular vote. What would be the point of their voting in favor of the amendment? I'm not about to say, "Oh dear, Vermont has more power in Presidential elections than it should, it's not right, we should give some of it up, the people in New York and California are smarter than us anyway...." F*** that.

What MIGHT be done is to modify the rules for the College so that each State's votes are cast in as near as feasible proportion to the popular vote in that State, rather than winner-take-all. Individuals' votes would be more meaningful. And I don't THINK you'd have to mess with the Constitution to do that.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: The Electoral College - why keep it ?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 07:36 PM

I suppose you're right, Peter...though the point is that a **state** should not have power as a separate entity, which effectively makes the votes of those living in larger cities in a semi-rural state not worth squat.
Yes, I lived in Wichita, Kansas for 35 years, and the best we could do is occasionally elect a decent congressman from our district. (We sent Dan Glickman to Washington for 12-14 years). I voted for Kennedy and Carter, though my vote meant nothing.....
   If everyone's INDIVIDUAL vote for president counted, both sides..(and even 3rd & 4th sides).. could feel like they had a chance to be heard. Republicans in Connecticut could feel like they were helping to elect someone. Since national elections have been reasonably close in recent years, it 'should' give hope to BOTH sides.

   It sure would be the fairest way to go...but who said certain people want to be 'fair' if they think winning is easier the other way?