Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?

[Texanmike]

Here's one of my main issues with the EC;

Lets say 1 million people vote in CA and vote Pres A. He gets 55 EC votes
5 million people in the states touching CA vote Pres B. He gets 36 EC votes

I know this is an extreme example, but it was to prove a point.

The EC flies in the face of 1 man 1 vote. It's a democratic vote that does not destroy our Republic b/c we have the Constitution and Congress.

When each vote had to be read and the results sent by Pony express, this made sense, but in an age when you can go into your den, turn on your pc, type in Fedelection2012.us.fed.gov, put in your information, click on who you want, then type in Stateelection2012.us.pa.gov.....

It's outdated and useless.

its not useless as it confirms the fact that the president is not only elected by the people, but elected by the people of the states. I know our current system is basically supplanting the federal system as designed by the founders, but this is one of the cornerstones. The concept is that each STATE elects a president, with the people in said state deciding by popular vote who the state will back (or how the Electoral votes are split). Remember the "all or nothing" concept is at the state level, not the federal level. If the states simply revoked thier winner takes all requirement for the EC you would have de facto direct national election for the president.

I wish there were more people out there like you.

Mike

 

[martybegan]

Here's one of my main issues with the EC;

Lets say 1 million people vote in CA and vote Pres A. He gets 55 EC votes
5 million people in the states touching CA vote Pres B. He gets 36 EC votes

I know this is an extreme example, but it was to prove a point.

The EC flies in the face of 1 man 1 vote. It's a democratic vote that does not destroy our Republic b/c we have the Constitution and Congress.

When each vote had to be read and the results sent by Pony express, this made sense, but in an age when you can go into your den, turn on your pc, type in Fedelection2012.us.fed.gov, put in your information, click on who you want, then type in Stateelection2012.us.pa.gov.....

It's outdated and useless.

its not useless as it confirms the fact that the president is not only elected by the people, but elected by the people of the states. I know our current system is basically supplanting the federal system as designed by the founders, but this is one of the cornerstones. The concept is that each STATE elects a president, with the people in said state deciding by popular vote who the state will back (or how the Electoral votes are split). Remember the "all or nothing" concept is at the state level, not the federal level. If the states simply revoked thier winner takes all requirement for the EC you would have de facto direct national election for the president.

Then we are stuck with larger states controlling everything, even if they don't have as many people vote.

It's a shitty way of doing things.

it would be far worse with national voting for president. At that point the largest CITIES would control the presidential voting, and since urban voters swing democratic now, that would result in a built in advantage for any democratic candidate.

Thats why you see democrats pushing so hard for removal either de jure or de facto of the EC, it would help them in presidential elections.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think it is time for Seawytch's Massingill bath.

 

[Texanmike]

It would not be a pure or direct democracy to get rid off the electorial college.

We would still be electing reps you silly git

Popular vote, ignoring implications of expanded federal powers. run along junior.

If you believe in state rights then each state has the right to design its self to its citizens wishes.

Each state them attracks Americans who want to join that state due to it direction.

That is pretty much a tennant of the republican ideals.

For a minute there I thought someone had jacked your name and was posting something that made sense.

If your state isnt attracting more American than others maybe the people dont like the direction of your state and choose to live in a different one,

They have voted with their feet.

Now why should we handi cap the states that Americans have voted with their feet to support so we can give the edge to states that dont attract many Americans?


The constitution protects you from the "tyranny of the majority".

This is about getting the leaders MOST of America wants to see lead.

I'm not sure what you're saying here... We should keep the EC, but it should be apportioned by population?

Mike

 

[Sallow]

Most conservatives hate the idea of democracy, I get it.

Very much so.

It goes against the types of government they favor..like Monarchy.

LOL Okie dokie TM

Well it sure seems like the case. Time and time again conservatives talk about how the "majority" of Americans support their causes but do their damnest to assure that the real majority of American votes are invalid.

And while they are doing that..they want to make sure it becomes harder for folks to vote.

Some 41% of the people eligible to vote..actually do. It's the lowest amount in countries that are on our level.

So why is that?

Oh yeah..it's because conservatives prefer governments that don't have a democratic element.

 

[Two Thumbs]

its not useless as it confirms the fact that the president is not only elected by the people, but elected by the people of the states. I know our current system is basically supplanting the federal system as designed by the founders, but this is one of the cornerstones. The concept is that each STATE elects a president, with the people in said state deciding by popular vote who the state will back (or how the Electoral votes are split). Remember the "all or nothing" concept is at the state level, not the federal level. If the states simply revoked thier winner takes all requirement for the EC you would have de facto direct national election for the president.

Then we are stuck with larger states controlling everything, even if they don't have as many people vote.

It's a shitty way of doing things.

it would be far worse with national voting for president. At that point the largest CITIES would control the presidential voting, and since urban voters swing democratic now, that would result in a built in advantage for any democratic candidate.

Thats why you see democrats pushing so hard for removal either de jure or de facto of the EC, it would help them in presidential elections.

That would make sense in a world w/o the net and TV.

Most people that are dems don't vote. blacks and browns are mostly dems and they historically don't vote.

Fear that they cities will take over b/c you don't want 1 man 1 vote, is just nuts.

we should use the Constitution and force it upon the people so there is no voting money into your pocket. If we did that, the EC would quietly go into the waste bin.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Very much so.

It goes against the types of government they favor..like Monarchy.

LOL Okie dokie TM

Well it sure seems like the case. Time and time again conservatives talk about how the "majority" of Americans support their causes but do their damnest to assure that the real majority of American votes are invalid.

And while they are doing that..they want to make sure it becomes harder for folks to vote.

Some 41% of the people eligible to vote..actually do. It's the lowest amount in countries that are on our level.

So why is that?

Oh yeah..it's because conservatives prefer governments that don't have a democratic element.

What a loopy bunch of non-sense.

Today we want a monarchy and tomorrow we will be drowning the government b/c we want anarchy.

Pick one and be consistant.

 

[martybegan]

Then we are stuck with larger states controlling everything, even if they don't have as many people vote.

It's a shitty way of doing things.

it would be far worse with national voting for president. At that point the largest CITIES would control the presidential voting, and since urban voters swing democratic now, that would result in a built in advantage for any democratic candidate.

Thats why you see democrats pushing so hard for removal either de jure or de facto of the EC, it would help them in presidential elections.

That would make sense in a world w/o the net and TV.

Most people that are dems don't vote. blacks and browns are mostly dems and they historically don't vote.

Fear that they cities will take over b/c you don't want 1 man 1 vote, is just nuts.

we should use the Constitution and force it upon the people so there is no voting money into your pocket. If we did that, the EC would quietly go into the waste bin.

The only way to prevent voting money in your pocket would be to prevent people who get government payments from voting. That would have to include government workers, government contractors, and welfare/FS recipients, if you go with its purest form. Also each state would have to go for it as your franchise comes from your state. I really do not want to go down that path, it is too reminiscent of property requirments to vote.

My solution to this would be to get the feds out the welfare business entirely, leaving it to the states to implement. At that point those being taxed at the state level can decide "with thier feet" if they want to support a massive welfare state, and we can really see if it is supported by the masses or not.

 

[Trajan]

Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.

It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.

California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.

Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?

asking the 'people' about something they don't understand makes me laugh.

by all means, I am all for just pulling the plug on any ceremony now....... lets hand it all over to the urbanites, they can vote for us all, Philly, Houston, NYC, LA, Miami....think of the money they can save by not having to print literature and open any polling stations or campaign anywhere but urban areas.......

the politicians then can reward them with more goodies delivered right to their mailbox or bank account they don't have becasue they don't have a picture ID's Oh, wait...

who's up for that?

 

[Trajan]

How? How are minority rights protected by the Electoral College in Presidential Elections?

This, for once is not about minorities, it's about population. Not fair the biggest and most populous cities get to decide elections.

It's not fair that any American's right to vote and the value of that vote would be diluted or diminished merely because that person happens to live in an urban area. Each American should have an equal voice in every election he or she has a right to vote in.

cry me a river, doesn't he or she get paid for it?

and as usual, it appears some people like to conveniently forget when its not to their particular topical advantage; we live in a Republic, not a Democracy, get over it.

 

[Patrick2]

The EC is just fine - it is a means of implementing a FEDERAL system, wherein states have significance beyond just how many people are in them. I once read an analysis by a political scientist that showed that for most 20th century elections, if the election was by a popular vote, all elections would have been determined by just the vote in 13 states (the same 13 states) - everyone else could have stayed home - their vote didn't make any difference in the outcome.

 

[Texanmike]

it would be far worse with national voting for president. At that point the largest CITIES would control the presidential voting, and since urban voters swing democratic now, that would result in a built in advantage for any democratic candidate.

Thats why you see democrats pushing so hard for removal either de jure or de facto of the EC, it would help them in presidential elections.

That would make sense in a world w/o the net and TV.

Most people that are dems don't vote. blacks and browns are mostly dems and they historically don't vote.

Fear that they cities will take over b/c you don't want 1 man 1 vote, is just nuts.

we should use the Constitution and force it upon the people so there is no voting money into your pocket. If we did that, the EC would quietly go into the waste bin.

The only way to prevent voting money in your pocket would be to prevent people who get government payments from voting. That would have to include government workers, government contractors, and welfare/FS recipients, if you go with its purest form. Also each state would have to go for it as your franchise comes from your state. I really do not want to go down that path, it is too reminiscent of property requirments to vote.

My solution to this would be to get the feds out the welfare business entirely, leaving it to the states to implement. At that point those being taxed at the state level can decide "with thier feet" if they want to support a massive welfare state, and we can really see if it is supported by the masses or not.

I agree with this, and disagree with it at the same time lol. As far as the preventing people who work for the government from voting, I disagree. The people who work for the government are receiving compensation for their work. That is not the same as voting yourself money from someone elses pocket. Welfare recipients, I agree wholeheartedly. Furthermore, I do think that we should get the federal government out of the welfare business entirely.

Mike

 

[Conservative]

why does the state a person happens to reside in matter, in regards to that persons vote?

 

[martybegan]

That would make sense in a world w/o the net and TV.

Most people that are dems don't vote. blacks and browns are mostly dems and they historically don't vote.

Fear that they cities will take over b/c you don't want 1 man 1 vote, is just nuts.

we should use the Constitution and force it upon the people so there is no voting money into your pocket. If we did that, the EC would quietly go into the waste bin.

The only way to prevent voting money in your pocket would be to prevent people who get government payments from voting. That would have to include government workers, government contractors, and welfare/FS recipients, if you go with its purest form. Also each state would have to go for it as your franchise comes from your state. I really do not want to go down that path, it is too reminiscent of property requirments to vote.

My solution to this would be to get the feds out the welfare business entirely, leaving it to the states to implement. At that point those being taxed at the state level can decide "with thier feet" if they want to support a massive welfare state, and we can really see if it is supported by the masses or not.

I agree with this, and disagree with it at the same time lol. As far as the preventing people who work for the government from voting, I disagree. The people who work for the government are receiving compensation for their work. That is not the same as voting yourself money from someone elses pocket. Welfare recipients, I agree wholeheartedly. Furthermore, I do think that we should get the federal government out of the welfare business entirely.

Mike

The problem with the buracracy at all levels of government becoming self sustaining is just as bad as the problem with the welfare class becoming self sustaining. Worse, the two classes will vote together, so even if both of them beocme the majority they can write all the checks they want.

I don't want to remove the vote from anybody. What I want to do is remove the role of welfare from the federal level down to the state level, thus giving those in a given state a choice of funding it or not.

The states have the same problem, but I feel the states should have the right to run themselves as they please as long as they do not violate the federal consitutuiton.

 

[Sallow]

LOL Okie dokie TM

Well it sure seems like the case. Time and time again conservatives talk about how the "majority" of Americans support their causes but do their damnest to assure that the real majority of American votes are invalid.

And while they are doing that..they want to make sure it becomes harder for folks to vote.

Some 41% of the people eligible to vote..actually do. It's the lowest amount in countries that are on our level.

So why is that?

Oh yeah..it's because conservatives prefer governments that don't have a democratic element.

What a loopy bunch of non-sense.

Today we want a monarchy and tomorrow we will be drowning the government b/c we want anarchy.

Pick one and be consistant.

I have been consistent.

You guys want to drown this government and set up something more to your liking.

Like a monarchy. Except instead of "god" determining leaders..money would.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Well it sure seems like the case. Time and time again conservatives talk about how the "majority" of Americans support their causes but do their damnest to assure that the real majority of American votes are invalid.

And while they are doing that..they want to make sure it becomes harder for folks to vote.

Some 41% of the people eligible to vote..actually do. It's the lowest amount in countries that are on our level.

So why is that?

Oh yeah..it's because conservatives prefer governments that don't have a democratic element.

What a loopy bunch of non-sense.

Today we want a monarchy and tomorrow we will be drowning the government b/c we want anarchy.

Pick one and be consistant.

I have been consistent.

You guys want to drown this government and set up something more to your liking.

Like a monarchy. Except instead of "god" determining leaders..money would.

 

[oreo]

Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.

It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.

California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.

Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?

Not unless the less populace states want to become fly over states for Presidential candidates?

There is a reason for the electoral college--and it's one our forefathers saw way in advance. What may thrill large population centers--(metropolitan cities) may not be good for rural areas.

I don't think we really want New York and L.A. to pick our Presidents.

 

[Sallow]

Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.

It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.

California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.

Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?

Not unless the less populace states want to become fly over states for Presidential candidates?

There is a reason for the electoral college--and it's one our forefathers saw way in advance. What may thrill large population centers--(metropolitan cities) may not be good for rural areas.

I don't think we really want New York and L.A. to pick our Presidents.

Which begs the question.

When you guys are talking about the majority of Americans..do you mean in real numbers? Or do you mean the majority of Americans that think just like you do?

 

[Sallow]

Hey Two Thumbs..

Check above.

 

[martybegan]

Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.

It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.

California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.

Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?

Not unless the less populace states want to become fly over states for Presidential candidates?

There is a reason for the electoral college--and it's one our forefathers saw way in advance. What may thrill large population centers--(metropolitan cities) may not be good for rural areas.

I don't think we really want New York and L.A. to pick our Presidents.

Which begs the question.

When you guys are talking about the majority of Americans..do you mean in real numbers? Or do you mean the majority of Americans that think just like you do?

The EC has nothing to do with denying the will of the majority in general, it just skews the election of the president to a majority based on a state by state wieghted average. The government has a direct population based process in the house of representatives. Most states are also majority rule for thier house and often the executive. The presidental position is unique because that was the compromise that allowed for the consitution to pass.