Electoral College

[Bodi]

Let me see if I can explain this to you.

Assume that I am Presidential Candidate X. I want to get a lot of popular votes, so I announce that I will favor moving a nuclear waste dump from California (lots of votes) to North Dakota (few vote.) State issues do affect the national campaigns. they do now, but the current system sets some small limits.

My statement was rhetorical...

I hear you, and I agree that moving a nuclear waste dump into Los Angeles would effect votes, but that is not a realistic analogy, IMO.

Things like that are determined by Health Factors, besides, if you look, States with big populations have more nuclear dump sites than states with small populations, minus ID and NM.

IL = 9
CA = 8
NY = 5
TX = 5

OCRWM - Waste locations by state


I am sure that there are other anologies too, but in general, individuals voting in Conservative or Liberal States just as individuals voting in large or small states will have an equal vote. It would be based on individuality, and not as a whole. Conservatives in San Fran are not affected if a nuclear dump site goes into LA, just as they are not affected if one goes into NM.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Firstly: Someone above was going on about how abolishing the EC would give too much power to big states. That is completely a completely bogus argument. Let's look at the EC: 270 votes are needed to win. Now let's imagine Candidate Bob wins these states:

California
Texas
New York
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida
Illinois

Candidate Bob would be exactly one vote away from being president, by just winning these 11 states.

 

[emdash]

Firstly: Someone above was going on about how abolishing the EC would give too much power to big states. That is completely a completely bogus argument. Let's look at the EC: 270 votes are needed to win. Now let's imagine Candidate Bob wins these states:

California
Texas
New York
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida
Illinois

Candidate Bob would be exactly one vote away from being president, by just winning these 11 states.

without the electoral college, candidate bob wouldn't need 270 votes to win. he would need a majority of the popular vote, he would get it by winning those states.

 

[lawshume]

Incorrect. The fact that a third party hasn't built up enough credibility to put a president in office now is not a result of the electoral process.

Partially agree. Media control by the ruling elites also effectively herds
Americans into voting for one of the media's approved candidates.
The one-two punch of media control and the electoral college kills
off alternative choices. For example: how many times have we been
scolded by media voices to not waste our votes on alternatives?

 

[Oftencold]

Firstly: Someone above was going on about how abolishing the EC would give too much power to big states. That is completely a completely bogus argument. Let's look at the EC: 270 votes are needed to win. Now let's imagine Candidate Bob wins these states:

California
Texas
New York
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida
Illinois

Candidate Bob would be exactly one vote away from being president, by just winning these 11 states.

So, now candidate Bob can win by getting the electoral votes from my state, Alaska.

But in a purely popular vote, my state could not sway the election in all likelihood. So, I have incentive to favor the College.

 

[Goobieman]

Look, saying that we vote for an elector who then represents us and our votes by casting a representative vote for President and then, that the President does not represent the People is RIDICULOUS.

Not according to the Constitution, which states that Congress represents the people within the Federal government.
The Presidnet is the head of state of the United States.

And what it was designed to do is flawed.

Given the above -- hardly.

 

[the makeout hobo]

So, now candidate Bob can win by getting the electoral votes from my state, Alaska.

But in a purely popular vote, my state could not sway the election in all likelihood. So, I have incentive to favor the College.

That's assuming he wins just those states. Let's say he wins those 11 states and DC. He's at 272 votes, and the next president of the US. Sorry, Alaska. You're useless.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

without the electoral college, candidate bob wouldn't need 270 votes to win. he would need a majority of the popular vote, he would get it by winning those states.

No he couldn't - unless he unanimously won the states. With the EC winning a majority of a state is identical to winning that state unanimously, which is most of the problem with the EC. There are a couple of states that split their votes, but even then you get a much worse resolution than with popular vote.

 

[Goobieman]

OCRWM - Waste locations by state

Just for the record:
I've lived in close proximity to one of the green dots for years.
Decades, even.
Never once did it bother me -- but then, I'm not scared by everything that involves the use of the word 'nuclear'.

 

[emdash]

No he couldn't - unless he unanimously won the states.

bottom line is 75% of the pop. lives in the 20 biggest states. all a popular vote would do is render +/-30 smaller states officially useless. that's why wyoming idaho etc currently get like 4 times as many electoral votes per person as CA does--so that they actually have a say, however small, in who gets elected.

edit: source

With the EC winning a majority of a state is identical to winning that state unanimously, which is most of the problem with the EC. There are a couple of states that split their votes, but even then you get a much worse resolution than with popular vote.

states are supposed to be the ones deciding, not individuals, so it makes sense that a state votes for one candidate completely. you wouldn't go to a polling place and say, "well I'm 25% for mccain because he's a war vet, but put me down for 75% obama, I like his style." states are entities, not just geographical areas.

 

[the makeout hobo]

bottom line is 75% of the pop. lives in the 20 biggest states. all a popular vote would do is render +/-30 smaller states officially useless. that's why wyoming idaho etc currently get like 4 times as many electoral votes per person as CA does--so that they actually have a say, however small, in who gets elected.

That still irks me that Wyoming gets so much more votes per capita than California. Bottom line, lots of people live in California, not many live in Wyoming. I'd like to see the Electoral College amended so that states get as many votes as they have congressmen, not congressmen and senators. Seems more fair to me. Then again, I'd like to see a bigger house, but that's another issue.

 

[Bodi]

Not according to the Constitution, which states that Congress represents the people within the Federal government.
The Presidnet is the head of state of the United States.

The President is only head of the Executive Branch.

Given the above -- hardly.

Logically, the EC is flawed.

Just for the record:
I've lived in close proximity to one of the green dots for years.
Decades, even.
Never once did it bother me -- but then, I'm not scared by everything that involves the use of the word 'nuclear'.

Yeah, they don't really bother me either. We lived fairly close to one in CA.
I also don't think that his analogy would affect votes or voters all that much either...

 

[KenD]

I'm late to this thread and haven't had time to read the entire thing, but I'll just toss in my vote on this.

I feel that the EC has outlived its usefulness. There was a time when it had a good purpose, but with the advent of mass media and a more mobile populace, I feel that the concept of regional voting has gone by the wayside.

As for me, my vote for President hasn't counted since I moved to Texas in 1990. Texas always goes strongly Republican and a Democratic vote counts only as a wistful nod in the direction of the popular vote. For example, I might be able to say that Al Gore was really the choice of most Americans in 2000 and be very happy that I voted for him, but that doesn't really change anything, does it? Some will argue that the popular vote will weigh heavily on the actual EC winner and cause that person to pay attention to the issues of the opposite side of the aisle, but I feel that the past 8 years have given strong evidence to the contrary.

And as far as getting candidates to pay attention to a small state... Do they really? When the EC votes still essentially reflect the populace of the state (albeit and adjusted measure)? I can guarantee you that the candidates pay very little attention to the very large state of Texas, since the outcome here is virtually carved in granite. If there wasn't an EC, I'd think that might change - just a little at least.

 

[Keorythe]

And as far as getting candidates to pay attention to a small state... Do they really? When the EC votes still essentially reflect the populace of the state (albeit and adjusted measure)? I can guarantee you that the candidates pay very little attention to the very large state of Texas, since the outcome here is virtually carved in granite. If there wasn't an EC, I'd think that might change - just a little at least.

Actually they do. Candidate have to play the state not the populace since each state has its own culture. Nationalizing the the election to a popular vote eliminates any chance that a candidate is going to fight for your state and your state's needs. Instead they are going to go full out media and pander to the popular topics at the time. Wouldn't mind pointing out that the recent Gore issue may have brought this issue to head it isn't always going to go the way you want. Looking at the election numbers on popularity and you'll notice the election was alot closer than people realize.

Oh, and just because your state is solid red doesn't mean that it won't change. Texas only became a Republican bastion in the early 70's. Removing the EC isn't going to do much to change your state's stance. Thats just ignorant thinking. You should have seen this in some of the states that changed their color with this election.

 

[Goobieman]

The President is only head of the Executive Branch.

The President is the Head of State as well as the Hread of Government.
And, the President is NOT the Peoples' representative in the Federal government -- Congress is.

Logically, the EC is flawed.

Not that you have shown.

 

[KenD]

Actually they do. Candidate have to play the state not the populace since each state has its own culture. Nationalizing the the election to a popular vote eliminates any chance that a candidate is going to fight for your state and your state's needs. Instead they are going to go full out media and pander to the popular topics at the time. Wouldn't mind pointing out that the recent Gore issue may have brought this issue to head it isn't always going to go the way you want. Looking at the election numbers on popularity and you'll notice the election was alot closer than people realize.

Oh, and just because your state is solid red doesn't mean that it won't change. Texas only became a Republican bastion in the early 70's. Removing the EC isn't going to do much to change your state's stance. Thats just ignorant thinking. You should have seen this in some of the states that changed their color with this election.

I see your point. I just know that I've always felt that my vote doesn't count because I live in such a staunchly red state. I still vote, but I know a lot of people who don't because they feel there's no point in it. In that sense, the EC is counter to democracy and I think that trumps other concerns.

 

[Bodi]

The President is the Head of State as well as the Hread of Government.

Head of the Government?
The Constitution says nothing about the President being "Head of Government".
That is what Wikipedia and most people think though, when in fact, the President is actually just head of the Executive Branch, which is Head of State and Commander if Chief and able to appoint judges and such... and that branch has no more power than either of the other two branches of government.

And, the President is NOT the Peoples' representative in the Federal government -- Congress is.

Debatable. Barely...

If our vote is supposed to be voting for an EV that will represent our vote in the EC and vote for the President, then our vote is voting for the President. I am not voting for an "Elector". I am voting for an elector to cast their vote to represent mine regarding the President. It is a ridiculous "middleman" terminology game, all this "voting for an Elector", that is all.

Not that you have shown.

The fact that an Electoral Voter can ABSTAIN their vote, negating mine is enough logical proof to show that the EC is assuredly flawed.