Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?

[bigrebnc1775]

We are a democracy, retard. Democratic republics are democracies.

In a constitutional republic we have rule of law. You don't have that in anything else.

The states aren't republics. Are you saying we don't have rule of law at the state level?

the states make up a republic are you saying we have majority rule?

 

[sitarro]

This is also why today's Obama supporters want to eliminate the EC. They think it is going to be hard to win the red states and figure they are likely to loose a few of the blue states, but by damned if they can get the popular vote and not have to worry about Florida, Ohio and Texas, they might just be able to steal another election right out from under the countries nose.

Immie

Steal another election? After Gore v. Bush you say that with a straight face?

Gee, Algore wasn't successful in his attempt to stack the decks in order to steal the election...... and you dishonest fucks continue to whine about it 11 years late, you need to ask your mistress to change you diaper for you. Democrats cheat in every election...... just like they are more than happy to have their team cheat at basketball. Some asshole elbows a guy in the the eye..... on national television and he will argue with the ref that call it on him...... the crowd will dishonestly back the offending player........ that is the democrats to a tee.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals are going to favor scrapping the Electoral College while Conservatives are going to favor keeping it. This goes beyond the understandable preference of conservatives for the Constitution as written and the Liberal willingness to change customs with the seasons.

If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential election you'll see why. There's a lot of overflow for liberal votes in urban areas but very efficient wins for conservatives in rural areas.

Not being either liberal or conservative, I have to go with the liberals on this one. The electoral college inhibits direct democracy at a high cost: one person, one vote. The original intent was to preserve Federalist designs and respect the sovereignty of states. But there are better ways to do that. Just as America went to direct elections of Senators with the 17th Amendment, another Amendment should eliminate the false +2 electoral votes given to every state.

In exchange for this, the liberals should compromise, and offer an amendment that addresses conservative concerns about Federalism. I would advise a Constitutional provision that clarifies the meaning of the Commerce Clause and overturns Wickard v. Filburn along with a host of Federal programs which should be state and local: especially including criminal statutes but also including economic programs which are more properly intrastate.

Ha ha. I'm just kidding. Liberal/Conservative compromise? In this country?

Why, sure I'll compromise, Kuros. Only you're not goin' to like it.

For every acre of land you own, you get one and only one vote. Wanna look at that map again?

Sure ya do:

GOP is lookin' large. Now what were you saying something about the electoral college dismissal and replacement with compromise?
​

People are still posting that retarded map after all these years, and yet not a person who has ever posted it can explain what the point is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a constitutional republic we have rule of law. You don't have that in anything else.

The states aren't republics. Are you saying we don't have rule of law at the state level?

the states make up a republic are you saying we have majority rule?

No I'm saying you're retarded. You're jabbering like a monkey about shit you have no clue about.

We have absolute majority rule. If enough people want it, they can make the Constitution say anything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As I've said before...we are a federal government system, as in a federation of states.

The Electoral College protects smaller states voices from being drowned out by the larger more populous states.

No it doesn't. The popular vote winner wins almost every time anyway. When has the electoral college really helped the smaller states?

Name all the elections where that happened.

Every election.

The winner of the electoral college has the broadest base of support nationwide.

look at the facts...the 2004 election as an example because it is clear cut.

Bush only had 3 million more votes than Kerry...a 2.5% difference.

BUT...Bush received 286 Electoral Votes compared to Kerry's 251.

Look at the map...Bush had the much wider base of support nationwide.

​

.
.
.
.
.
.

Now let's look at an election where the winner of the electoral college is not the winner of the popular vote...the 2000 election.


Al Gore won the popular vote by 450,000 votes over Bush...a difference of .5%.

But Bush had a significantly wider base of support.

Bush won 30 states, Gore 20 + DC.

Look at the map:

​

.
.
.
.
..
.
And there you have it.

That is how the electoral college protects the smaller less populated states from being overwhelmed by the larger more populated states in the Federal system.

Checks and balances.

Really? Looks to me, in that second map, like Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine all got overwhelmed

by the electoral college trumping the popular vote.

 

[Leweman]

We are a democracy, retard. Democratic republics are democracies.

In a constitutional republic we have rule of law. You don't have that in anything else.

The states aren't republics. Are you saying we don't have rule of law at the state level?

ummmmmmmmmmm .... yeah they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Electoral College has long outlived it's usefulness. One of the main reasons the EC was formed was slavery. The southern states liked the fact that their slaves, who would be excluded from a direct vote, would be counted when Electoral College votes were apportioned. (at 3/5ths of course)

Another reason for the EC was our means of communication and "getting the word out". 200 years ago there was no internet or television and the FF were concerned that "the folks" wouldn't know enough about the candidates.

The EC has lost all relevance.

Stop disenfranchising voters and end the EC...

Just admit you wish to do away with the republic and move to a pure democracy. Because that is what you are proposing.

The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.

Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?

 

[martybegan]

The Senate should remain in it's current configuration for the exact purpose of protecting the right of the minority to have a say.

I just don't think that 2 branches of government should be protecting the minority rights of Americans.

The Majority should have more weight.

There have been only 2 or 3 times where the "minority" won the election, and in both cases the split was basically 50-50 in the popular vote, down to tenths of a percent.

The president is elected by a preponderance of the states, weighted by population, but normalized to even the spread out. In each state you have a direct vote to determine which candidate your state votes for (or in the case of some states which candidate your district votes for).

There is majority rule in each state or district. Only then does the EC take over and determine who is president by a population weighted poll of each state.

So what's the problem with getting rid of it?

You guys constantly say that the Majority are with you. Yet you consistently move to block votes and keep antiquated counting systems in place...for what exactly?

41% of the people in this country that can vote, do.

That something you guys support?

The problem is it would skew presidential elections to favor one consituency, urban voters. I AM an urban voter, and I can see the unfairness of this. With the EC you have the states deciding who is president, using a majority vote in each state. At least then the smaller states have even a chance at a say in who gets into the presidency.

With a majority vote that influence goes away, and destroys the federal nature of the system.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a constitutional republic we have rule of law. You don't have that in anything else.

The states aren't republics. Are you saying we don't have rule of law at the state level?

ummmmmmmmmmm .... yeah they are.

Not in the sense of the distinction the other poster was trying to make.

What states elect their governors by an electoral college system, or the equivalent, as opposed to by popular vote?

Name them please.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Electoral College has long outlived it's usefulness. One of the main reasons the EC was formed was slavery. The southern states liked the fact that their slaves, who would be excluded from a direct vote, would be counted when Electoral College votes were apportioned. (at 3/5ths of course)

Another reason for the EC was our means of communication and "getting the word out". 200 years ago there was no internet or television and the FF were concerned that "the folks" wouldn't know enough about the candidates.

The EC has lost all relevance.

Stop disenfranchising voters and end the EC...

Just admit you wish to do away with the republic and move to a pure democracy. Because that is what you are proposing.

The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.

Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?

Senators have the same power, since they represent states.
Congressman represent people of their district, there fore states with more people/districts have more representatives in the US Congress.
Checks and balances.

 

[martybegan]

The Electoral College has long outlived it's usefulness. One of the main reasons the EC was formed was slavery. The southern states liked the fact that their slaves, who would be excluded from a direct vote, would be counted when Electoral College votes were apportioned. (at 3/5ths of course)

Another reason for the EC was our means of communication and "getting the word out". 200 years ago there was no internet or television and the FF were concerned that "the folks" wouldn't know enough about the candidates.

The EC has lost all relevance.

Stop disenfranchising voters and end the EC...

Just admit you wish to do away with the republic and move to a pure democracy. Because that is what you are proposing.

The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.

Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?

Why does it have to be "fair"? The system was set up this way and it works. Just because it makes it harder for you to promote your political agenda does not make it "unfair".

Fairness is an arbitrary concept anyway, usually brought up by those who want something made easier for themselves.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just admit you wish to do away with the republic and move to a pure democracy. Because that is what you are proposing.

The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.

Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?

Why does it have to be "fair"? The system was set up this way and it works. Just because it makes it harder for you to promote your political agenda does not make it "unfair".

Fairness is an arbitrary concept anyway, usually brought up by those who want something made easier for themselves.

There's no such thing as fairness?? That's quite a concept.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just admit you wish to do away with the republic and move to a pure democracy. Because that is what you are proposing.

The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.

Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?

Senators have the same power, since they represent states.
Congressman represent people of their district, there fore states with more people/districts have more representatives in the US Congress.
Checks and balances.

So if NY were to divide into 20 states, and thus go from 2 Senators to 40, that would be 'fair' because 'states' were being represented, not 'the people'?

That's hilarious.

 

[Texanmike]

The Electoral College has long outlived it's usefulness. One of the main reasons the EC was formed was slavery. The southern states liked the fact that their slaves, who would be excluded from a direct vote, would be counted when Electoral College votes were apportioned. (at 3/5ths of course)

Another reason for the EC was our means of communication and "getting the word out". 200 years ago there was no internet or television and the FF were concerned that "the folks" wouldn't know enough about the candidates.

The EC has lost all relevance.

Stop disenfranchising voters and end the EC...

Just admit you wish to do away with the republic and move to a pure democracy. Because that is what you are proposing.

The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.

Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?

Dude, I went and even found an online copy for you. You want your answer, you do your reading... I'm tired of doing it for people:

Online Library of Liberty - The Writings, vol. 2 (1783-1787)

Mike

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just admit you wish to do away with the republic and move to a pure democracy. Because that is what you are proposing.

The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.

Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?

Why does it have to be "fair"? The system was set up this way and it works. Just because it makes it harder for you to promote your political agenda does not make it "unfair".

Fairness is an arbitrary concept anyway, usually brought up by those who want something made easier for themselves.

Well if fairness is meaningless, why'd we bother to give women the vote? The system was working fine without them for 150 years...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just admit you wish to do away with the republic and move to a pure democracy. Because that is what you are proposing.

The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.

Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?

Dude, I went and even found an online copy for you. You want your answer, you do your reading... I'm tired of doing it for people:

Online Library of Liberty - The Writings, vol. 2 (1783-1787)

Mike

I know the answer. It isn't fair. You want to argue that it is go ahead. You want to be a librarian, try your local school or municipality.

 

[Sallow]

There have been only 2 or 3 times where the "minority" won the election, and in both cases the split was basically 50-50 in the popular vote, down to tenths of a percent.

The president is elected by a preponderance of the states, weighted by population, but normalized to even the spread out. In each state you have a direct vote to determine which candidate your state votes for (or in the case of some states which candidate your district votes for).

There is majority rule in each state or district. Only then does the EC take over and determine who is president by a population weighted poll of each state.

So what's the problem with getting rid of it?

You guys constantly say that the Majority are with you. Yet you consistently move to block votes and keep antiquated counting systems in place...for what exactly?

41% of the people in this country that can vote, do.

That something you guys support?

The problem is it would skew presidential elections to favor one consituency, urban voters. I AM an urban voter, and I can see the unfairness of this. With the EC you have the states deciding who is president, using a majority vote in each state. At least then the smaller states have even a chance at a say in who gets into the presidency.

With a majority vote that influence goes away, and destroys the federal nature of the system.

Which would be what? A bad thing?

The Senate provides a stop gap on "Majority Tyranny" (What ever the fuck that is), and what we have now is a country skewed toward the minority. So much so..it's created a de facto dysfunctional government. That's nuts.

 

[Truthmatters]

The system was set you long ago with the states were very isolated from each other.

Today with modern travel they are merely hours apart by plane.

They are much more interdependnet than they were in the day.


Giving people in Wyoming same power in the senate as California is just absurd

 

[NYcarbineer]

There have been only 2 or 3 times where the "minority" won the election, and in both cases the split was basically 50-50 in the popular vote, down to tenths of a percent.

The president is elected by a preponderance of the states, weighted by population, but normalized to even the spread out. In each state you have a direct vote to determine which candidate your state votes for (or in the case of some states which candidate your district votes for).

There is majority rule in each state or district. Only then does the EC take over and determine who is president by a population weighted poll of each state.

So what's the problem with getting rid of it?

You guys constantly say that the Majority are with you. Yet you consistently move to block votes and keep antiquated counting systems in place...for what exactly?

41% of the people in this country that can vote, do.

That something you guys support?

The problem is it would skew presidential elections to favor one consituency, urban voters. I AM an urban voter, and I can see the unfairness of this. With the EC you have the states deciding who is president, using a majority vote in each state. At least then the smaller states have even a chance at a say in who gets into the presidency.

With a majority vote that influence goes away, and destroys the federal nature of the system.

The rural voters don't win anything with the electoral college that the popular vote doesn't win them anyway.

In New York state the rural voters are overwhelmingly Republican, by HUGE margins that probably would suprise most non New Yorkers. However in the presidential election, time after time after time, because of the electoral college,

their millions of votes count as ZERO towards electing the President, because, obviously, New York also has many large metropolitan areas that vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

Now, seriously, how does being counted as ZERO help the rural voter in NY?

 

[Ame®icano]

The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.

Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?

Senators have the same power, since they represent states.
Congressman represent people of their district, there fore states with more people/districts have more representatives in the US Congress.
Checks and balances.

So if NY were to divide into 20 states, and thus go from 2 Senators to 40, that would be 'fair' because 'states' were being represented, not 'the people'?

That's hilarious.

It is, actually. If voters of New York are willing to do so, and if all those "new states" are recognized by the 2/3 of the Congress, it's unlikely but possible.