Electoral College

[Paulie]

You do have a great point though, if we completely scrap the electoral college how does say Wyoming have the same representation as say New York?

This is precisely the reason for the EC.

 

[Bern80]

so much buffonery, on one thread.

The EC doesn't "force" candidates to campaign in small states.

Because of the EC, candidates pretty much only campaign in swing states. Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.

They're not campaiging in either Vermont, New York, Montana, or California for the most part. There's nothing about the EC that makes them campaign in small states.

Small states already have disproportionate representation at the federal level. Wyoming has as many senators as California. And, in terms of choosing presidential candidates in the primaries, small states already have a disproportionate influence: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.

Then there's that other house of congress.......

buffoonery? Look in the mirror.

 

[JeffWartman]

Why do you feel that way?

Because democracy is nothing but slavery to 49% of the people.

 

[Annie]

Although I follow you and agree that the states need equal representation. Wouldn't you admit that say a state like Maryland or Texas, receive very little attention during the general election because the canididates know how those states are going to vote. Texas- Republican, Maryland- Democrat
When are these states issues heard?

But things change. Those states used to be reversed. Illinois used to be a toss up. FL for years was Republican, changing...

 

[Bern80]

Because democracy is nothing but slavery to 49% of the people.

and you propose what exacltley? What's the alternative? Rule by minority? Debate till everyone agrees?

 

[pegwinn]

So someone's vote in Wyoming should be worth more than my vote just to satisfy some desire to see rural areas have more of a say than their populations warrant?

And just because something has always been done, doesn't mean it should continue to be. Until women's sufferage... only men could vote...oh yeah, WHITE men.....

Women and Blacks should go into the church of thier choice and praise the God of thier choice that we have a Republic instead of a Democracy. In a Democracy there is a good chance that those changes would not have happened. I am glad to see that you get it.

Again, my comments have NOTHING to do with taking away states rights. Since the vote of the individual appears to be inconsequential in your argument, I don't see that I have any other point to make.

My initial comment was in reference to the state level, not the Federal level. Again, refer back to the sentence preceeding this one.

Bottom line is, while you have your prediction of what you think might occur as a result of using the popular vote, we can SEE the result of the electoral college voting its own interest first.

We have a government that is out of control and elected officials that do not represent the viewpoints of the people they are supposed to represent. We have a Federal government assuming more and more control and while eroding the very states rights you champion.

As I stated previously, why bother with the facade? The selling point "your vote counts?" Your vote counts if its in the electoral college's interest.

Yeah, score one for being a Republic and not a democracy.

Wherever the happy medium is between a republic and a democracy, we've lost sight of it.

Relax Guns. You have your opinion and I respect it. I looked back at the thread and don't see where I challenged anyone. I answered a question in my normally entertaining way.

I never implied that a persons vote isn't important. It is. At the local/state level. From the individual to the fed we go from democracy (Local and some states), to republic (some states and the fed) and most places in between.

I believe you and I should know more about Texas than the Fed. I believe that because I would really like to get the fed out of my life. Of course once I accomplish that, then Austin can stand the hell by.

I say, out with the electroal college and in with the popular vote...of course this means that had it been this way in 2000, Bush would never have been elected in the first place.

If worms had guns birds wouldn't mess with em.

Small states already have disproportionate representation at the federal level. Wyoming has as many senators as California. And, in terms of choosing presidential candidates in the primaries, small states already have a disproportionate influence: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.

I left most of your post out since this excerpt alone hit the stupid limit for one day. When you can intelligently post on the purpose and history of the Senate we will revisit your first two sentences in the above excerpt. When you can discuss the differences between legislature and political party then we will tackle the last sentence.

 

[Gunny]

Unfortunately no you can't. if you take away the electoral college, the system that is designed to give all states proportionate representation, then why have states? What needs to be 'fixed' about the electoral college? If you remove the EC, then you have to do something about the fact that the small states now have no say in who gets elected. Your one vote equals one vote argument is BS because the majority of votes lie within limited geographic areas of the country and again any candidate that has a brain is gonna campaign where the most votes are and not where there are very few.




I don't drink coffee.

Fortunately, yes I can.

I suppose I could ask if you are so unconcerned about the individual voters, then what does it matter what I think about some insignificant little states that don't need to be telling us how to live down here anyway?

The one vote equal one vote idea I tossed out is hardly BS. Pretty simple and straight-forward. In fact, it's so easy a caveman can figure it out.

It's a fact one vote equals one vote. It is assumption on your part how and where candidates would campaign.

Be all that as it may, my point is and was not in doing away with fair representation of the states. Again, that is an assumption on your part, and apparently you are too closed-minded on the topic to hear a damned thing.

My problem is with the makeup of the electoral college itself, and who and/or what it represents.

What does it matter how many electoral college votes states get if those in the electoral college don't represent the people in those states?

As I said, quit trying to blow smoke up my ass and do away with the popular vote and just let lobby-serving politicians appoint your "King." That's what it amounts to.

 

[Gunny]

The US a Federal Republic, not a democracy.

The states, not the people, elect the President, because the President is not The People's representative on the Federal Gvmnt -- which is why the people do not have a right to vote or President.

There's no reason to change that.

No, of course not. We should just be all smiles and giggles that our government doesn't represent us.

Don't you think the states should represent its people? Or should they represent whoever has the money therefore the power in the state?

 

[Gunny]

Then you need to take that issue up with your state legislature, and lobby it to change the election law to award electors proportionally.

Of course, they might just decide to not put it to a vote at all - leaving you with no recourse other than trying to throw the legislature out of office.

Yeah, and that's perfectly okay, right? The little bureaucracies elect the head of the big bureaucracy that has its nose in all of our business and wallets, right?

 

[jreeves]

And how would that be different if there were no states and thus no electoral college? Of course certain areas are going to vote certain ways.

Well if we want our President to represent the "states" then why shouldn't they have to lay out their agenda for each state and how that agenda affects that state. For instance, I am from Maryland and I plan on voting for MCcain, my vote more than likely will be voided by a vast majority of other Marylanders. Why shouldn't the state split their electors to reflect the popular vote? It would seem this would still preserve the "state's representation" as well as giving a voice to actual voters. Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that electors should be legally bound to vote according to the popular vote in that state?

 

[Gunny]

Stating what you believe is irrelevant. The result of what you propose would be that states would not be represented fairly.



I don't assume any position of you other than what you have stated. What I'm saying is you have made an argument that the EC needs to be done away with. The purpose of the EC is to give all states a say. And as RGS noted the operative word is 'states'. Your vote does count.... at the state level. Saying there should not be an EC is clearly an argument against having a republic form of government, which is why I ask if you want to maintain that the EC should be gone, but you still believe in states rights, how do you propose with an EC gone that you make the vote fair to all the states?

the annoying think about your argument is that it's a solution that a leftist would come up with and you aren't a leftist. Saying there are problems with the EC and thus should be done away with is equivalent to something like some guns are used illegally so all guns should be banned or some innocent people have died from the death penalty so it should be thrown out.

No, stating what i believe is the purpose of this forum.

You need to loosen up that chinstrap and let some oxygen in. What part of overhauling a flawed electoral college is not mutually inclusive with taking away states rights is it that is beyond your comprehension?

My argument is leftist? You mean my argument is liberal? So fuckin be it. What's your point? I'm not some ass-kissing, cowtowing, ball-less Republican, and if you ever thought THAT, you thought wrong.

Your argument ignores everything that doesn't blindly support the status quo. For instance the two times I have explained in 3rd grade level English twice exactly what I mean, and it certainly doesn't add up to any position you have assumed for me.

 

[Gunny]

and you propose what exacltley? What's the alternative? Rule by minority? Debate till everyone agrees?

What exactly do you call giving states like Vt, CT, NH and those other timy states you mentioned an equal vote with states like CA, FL. TX and NY?

If that isn't giving the minority a disproportionate vote to its size I don't what is.

 

[jreeves]

The US a Federal Republic, not a democracy.

The states, not the people, elect the President, because the President is not The People's representative on the Federal Gvmnt -- which is why the people do not have a right to vote or President.

There's no reason to change that.

Question, if we are to let electors from the states decide solely who the President is, then why even go through the facade of collecting a popular vote. Just let the state legislators decide who the next President is going to be. I understand it is in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that the system shouldn't be changed.

 

[Larkinn]

Question, if we are to let electors from the states decide solely who the President is, then why even go through the facade of collecting a popular vote. Just let the state legislators decide who the next President is going to be. I understand it is in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that the system shouldn't be changed.

Because the electors almost always vote the way the popular vote does. Its not exactly a facade...the electors don't have to vote the same way (according to federal law anyway...some states make them), but they do anyway.

 

[Larkinn]

the annoying think about your argument is that it's a solution that a leftist would come up with and you aren't a leftist. Saying there are problems with the EC and thus should be done away with is equivalent to something like some guns are used illegally so all guns should be banned or some innocent people have died from the death penalty so it should be thrown out.

Like all the leftists who think there are problems with the UN, and therefore it should be discarded?....oh wait.

 

[jreeves]

I say, out with the electroal college and in with the popular vote...of course this means that had it been this way in 2000, Bush would never have been elected in the first place.

Maybe or maybe not, depending on the popular vote you are talking about. Yes he wouldn't have been President if it was federal popular vote, but if it was state popular vote, I think the result very well could have been the same. I believe in fairness in the system, I don't care about the consquences of past elections.

 

[Larkinn]

Wyoming has less representation than New York even with the electoral college.

As a state, yes. However every Wyoming citizen has more representation than every New York citizen.

 

[jreeves]

Because the electors almost always vote the way the popular vote does. Its not exactly a facade...the electors don't have to vote the same way (according to federal law anyway...some states make them), but they do anyway.

No your right Larkinn "almost always". But shouldn't the popular votes in the states mandate how the electors vote?

 

[Larkinn]

No your right Larkinn "almost always". But shouldn't the popular votes in the states mandate how the electors vote?

No. Especially not now. We have a very strong tradition in this country of electors electing whoever wins the popular vote. For that to change something drastic would have to happen. If the voting populace wants to vote in Hitler, or someone who wants to re-enslave the blacks or such, I'd rather there be a process for over-ruling them.

The nice thing about large segments about the modern educated elite is that they aren't power hungry and accept that decision-making power often should rest in other peoples hands.

 

[jreeves]

No. Especially not now. We have a very strong tradition in this country of electors electing whoever wins the popular vote. For that to change something drastic would have to happen. If the voting populace wants to vote in Hitler, or someone who wants to re-enslave the blacks or such, I'd rather there be a process for over-ruling them.

The nice thing about large segments about the modern educated elite is that they aren't power hungry and accept that decision-making power often should rest in other peoples hands.

You can trust "them", I would rather not though. Electors have voted differently than the popular vote, not because Hitler was running for office either. It's fine having electors, in my opinion, as long as they reflect the state's popular vote.