Electoral College

[MtnBiker]

A map of the past elections with the electoral college.
And an - electoral caculator

 

[MtnBiker]

A point of interest, in the last 8 elections Florida went to the democrat canidate only twice. And both times with a Southern canidate. I'm sure it will be fought over this election and watched closely.

 

[jones]

And a Democrat has never won without Ohio. Electoral college should be taken out anyway, it just doesnt apply.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by jones
And a Democrat has never won without Ohio. Electoral college should be taken out anyway, it just doesnt apply.

Good point about Ohio, look like a repubulican hasn't won in the last 8 elections without Ohio either.

The electoral college is in the Constitution.

 

[eric]

Hey Mtn,

Looks like us repubs will be picking up some more seats. I say 2-3, but could be as much as 5.

 

[MtnBiker]

Yeah I think you are right, btw that calculator is not updated, some of the electoral votes have shifted. I believe Texas has picked up one or two votes and another state I can't remember right now. Losses of votes came from California and New York.

 

[Isaac Brock]

I personally don't see how the electoral college is very democratic. As I understand in some states if you have 50+1% of the votes, you take all the electoral college votes. How does that reflect the voting views of your electorate?

 

[5stringJeff]

The Electoral College was put into place to ensure that states elected the Chief Executive.

During the Constitutional Convention, there were a lot of states worried about a strong Chief Executive. In fact, the President under the Articles of Confederation was a weak one, and so it was a big deal to give the President the powers that ours has. But, in the same way that Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures, the Chief Executive was chosen by representatives from the states - in what is called the Electoral College. It affords all states - populous or not - a say in who the Chief Executive is.

Without the electoral college, smaller states would cease to have any influenece in elections. All candidates would campaign in major metropolitan areas, ignoring states like Iowa, New Hampshire, the Dakotas, etc., in search of the popular vote.

 

[MtnBiker]

Living in a low populated state I appreciate that.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Yeah I think you are right, btw that calculator is not updated, some of the electoral votes have shifted. I believe Texas has picked up one or two votes and another state I can't remember right now. Losses of votes came from California and New York.

The electoral college is designed to protect the populations in smaller states from the tyrrany of the majority. It's important to remember that the U.S. is a Republic, not a pure democracy.

I'd prefer to do away with the winner takes all aspect of electoral votes which is in place in most states. A proportionate allocation based upon popular vote would be fairer.

 

[acludem]

Proportional allocation of electoral votes would've been interesting in 2000. One of my political science professors did a hypothecial allocation based on population and found that the 2000 election would've been thrown into the House of Representatives, and the VP into the Senate, this would mean that we would likely have had Bush for Prez and Lieberman for VP assuming all Senators voted party line (it was 50-50 at the time) and Al Gore casts the tie breaking vote.

 

[wonderwench]

That wouldn't have been a bad result.

Lieberman, out of all the Dem candidates, is the only one to grasp the national security issues facing the U.S.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I'd prefer to do away with the winner takes all aspect of electoral votes which is in place in most states. A proportionate allocation based upon popular vote would be fairer.

That pretty much comes out to the same thing as a popular vote.

 

[wonderwench]

No, it doesn't. Electoral votes for a state are based upon the total of Senators and House Representatives. Senators are two per state, regardless of population - so there is a bit of a levelling for less populous states.

 

[acludem]

Correct, that was all a part of the compromises to create Congress during the Constitutional Convention. There have been only a few elections where the popular winner wasn't the electoral winner. John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson (the only president chosen by the House of Reps), Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden in 1876, the most controversial election in U.S. History until 2000, Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland in 1888, and George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Other than that, the electoral vote winner has been the popular winner. The electoral college does make less populous states important. For example if Al Gore had won West Virginia, Florida would've been irrelevent in 2000.

 

[MtnBiker]

Look what I found, this is hilarous
The Electoral College Sucks.com

The United States has grown up and it is time for this archaic system to go!

I wonder if they feel the same about the consitution?

 

[Annie]

That is hilarious. Gee I was shocked, they had a link to KatherineHarrissucks.com too.

No agenda there, just keep moving.

 

[ANYONE-BUT-BUSH]

IT DON'T MATTER ANYWAY BUSH BOUGHT HIS WAY IN IN 2000 HE PAID OFF THE COURT!!!!!!!!

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by ANYONE-BUT-BUSH
IT DON'T MATTER ANYWAY BUSH BOUGHT HIS WAY IN IN 2000 HE PAID OFF THE COURT!!!!!!!!

Look everyone, a troll has come out of the forest, and he's messing all oover himself. Isn't that sweet..smelling.

:

 

[ANYONE-BUT-BUSH]

WHAT U CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH ! EVERYONE KNOWS HE STOLED IT, UR THE DUMB@SS OFF IN DREAM LAND STILL THINKING BUSH WON BY A LANDSLIDE!