The Real McCoy
What do you think about the electoral college? If you choose option 3, explain how you would like to see it changed.
This is correct.cnredd said:People seem to have a problem understanding that the President is not, and should not, be elected by a will of the people...
But the underlying statement from above still holds...The President is NOT to be elected by the people...never was...
This isnt a function of the size of the state, but the way that state leans. WY ND SD MT AK - these are all easy wins. OH FL WI PA MN IA (etc) are visited often because they could go either way.Chris said:I can appreciate that the electoral college system has good underlying intentions, the problem is that it simply doesn't do what it is supposed to effectively. Smaller states are still largely ignored in campaigns (ie Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Wyoming, etc), and swing states simply take the place of large urban centers (ie: Florida, Ohio, etc).
And that may and/or will change at any time...That's why the political affiliation of a certain state is irrelevant...M14 Shooter said:This isnt a function of the size of the state, but the way that state leans. WY ND SD MT AK - these are all easy wins. OH FL WI PA MN IA (etc) are visited often because they could go either way.
It may change over time, but not quite 'at any time'.cnredd said:And that may and/or will change at any time...That's why the political affiliation of a certain state is irrelevant...
This all depends on how you define the majority. In other words, urban areas will have a different need and opinion than rural areas, however, because some cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Detroit individually have greater populations than some regions, they would dictate who won an election. So, would it then be fair to the less populous regions of the country to be literally ignored by a presidential administration just because they are smaller in population? the short answer is no. Rural areas would suffer because of who they are and all because the places with more people would dictate federal policy, this is exactly why the electoral college was set up and why we should continue to use it.JustMyPOV said:I also suggested scrapping it. It's absurd to go against the will of the majority in the election of the one person who is supposed to represent the interests of the country as a whole. Nobody's vote should have greater weight than anyone else's.
This is not a foregone conclsion.LaMidRighter said:-On a side note, Gore would have been president had the popular vote been the only requirement
Never thought of that. The country would still be rebounding from an event of that magnitude. Still is as of the electoral result in some ways.M14 Shooter said:This is not a foregone conclsion.
Had the popular vote decided the election, there would have been a recount in every state, with the campaigns trying to eek out every last vote.
So, instead of 1 FL debacle, there wousl have been 50.
Nah.LaMidRighter said:Never thought of that. The country would still be rebounding from an event of that magnitude. Still is as of the electoral result in some ways.
All their backers too. I think that's one of the reasons for most of the tactics used against the president currently, then again, the most extreme of Democrats will do anything to control this country and get their way, the nuts on my side as well.M14 Shooter said:Nah.
The only people keeping the sunject alive are Sore Losermen.
I agree. I would have accepted the result myself, but that's because I believe the EC is the most efficient and fair system for choosing a president, it isn't perfect, but has worked very well for over 200 years.Suffice it to say that had Ohio gone the other way by 200k votes, giving Kerry the EC win but a 3 million popular vote deficit, those presently complaing about the EC would be touting its virtues.
I did the math in the 2000 election.The Real McCoy said:While I'm far from an Electoral College guru, I voted option #3 and here's my proposal:
Keep the electoral college but instead of shelling all the state's votes out to the candidate if they gains a 51% majority in that state, the electorate votes should be divided within the states.
Any thoughts on this idea?
. Honestly, we only use it for the presidency, but I think that the Republicans would never win because urban centers almost always vote Democrat, and since we have four or five major cities that pretty much nullify about three states just by themselves, it makes me like the EC even more.GarzaUK said:I thought if the electoral system was scrapped it would be said that the Democrats would never get into office
I really want to talk to the other side, and some people on it are open minded, but once you find the extremists you have a better chance of changing a wall's mind, so it would be wiser to argue with it instead.You Americans polarize EVERYTHING, it's crazy lol. Every subject is Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative.
that idea has been kicked around, under that scenario, then the Democrats never win another presidencyMaybe the electoral seats per state should be carved up.
California - 50 seats (I'm def wrong)
Democrat 60% - gets 60% of those 50 seats
Rep. 40% - gets 40% of those seats.
I like a good challenge.:mrgreen:Just to make things more complicated. :smile:
http://www.citizinemag.com/commentary/commentary-0411_mileswoolley.htm This page shows visually what I mean by tampering with the methods of the popular vote or splitting by county.