Why Left Wingers HATE the Electoral College !!!

[thereisnospoon]

I can't speak for "left-wingers" or "Right-wingers" on this issue, but here's why I think it's a bad idea.

It distorts democracy. It allows a few swing states to have way too much say in the process.

NY, TX, IL, CA will all go one way or the other this next time. In fact, these states have been reliably red or blue since 1992. So instead of addressing the interests of Illinois, where a lot of people live, they will address the issues of Iowa because it's a swing state.

The reason why Republicans should be worried and seeking to end this system. because eventually, Texas is going to be a Blue state. The growth of the Hispanic population will flip it, probably by 2020. When that happens, there will be no way a Republican will be able to cobble together enough electors to win.

Obama starts this election with 217 electoral votes firmly in his camp. All he has to do is pick up 53 out of 140 up for grabs. That's it.

Why Republicans defend such an awful system is beyond me, but they've become idealogically wedded to it since 2000.

Since you opened the door, you will now post where you got the information that allows you to state Obama's guarantee of the 217 EC votes.
You are every bit as criminal as those election day pundits who would call elections hours before polls closed so as to influence the election.
This is the way I see it turning out in November..
The GOP will win VA, NC WI, PA.........Those are states taken by Obama in 2008.

 

[Meister]

You and I are way off on this one, Jillian. Do you really think that Wy. North Dakota, or New Hampshire should not be represented?
I don't see anything contrived by our FF's, I see that every state gets represented....every state.
Having said that, the populated states have the lions share of the power in this country.

i know. not the first time we disagree. won't be the last.

they are represented...one person/one vote. giving their people more power per vote is unjustifiable, imo.

shouldn't the more populous states have more power? after all, they represent more people.

it seems pretty straightforward.

Votes are not being represented. Politicians could promise the world to 5-6 states and say, "screw you" to the rest of the states and still get elected.
How is that being represented?

 

[Cammmpbell]

I can't speak for "left-wingers" or "Right-wingers" on this issue, but here's why I think it's a bad idea.

It distorts democracy. It allows a few swing states to have way too much say in the process.

NY, TX, IL, CA will all go one way or the other this next time. In fact, these states have been reliably red or blue since 1992. So instead of addressing the interests of Illinois, where a lot of people live, they will address the issues of Iowa because it's a swing state.

The reason why Republicans should be worried and seeking to end this system. because eventually, Texas is going to be a Blue state. The growth of the Hispanic population will flip it, probably by 2020. When that happens, there will be no way a Republican will be able to cobble together enough electors to win.

Obama starts this election with 217 electoral votes firmly in his camp. All he has to do is pick up 53 out of 140 up for grabs. That's it.

Why Republicans defend such an awful system is beyond me, but they've become idealogically wedded to it since 2000.

Yeah and what the knit wits don't even begin to get is why the system was set up that way. Transportation. The two methods of travel for 95% of the people was walking and horseback. There wasn't a bus nor a car and just like everything else people today just cannot fathom that. The electoral college is without a doubt the most antiquated thing we do.

 

[Dr Grump]

As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY

It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote.
A straight popular vote would never work.

Who's talking about taking away representation?

 

[Dr Grump]

You and I are way off on this one, Jillian. Do you really think that Wy. North Dakota, or New Hampshire should not be represented?
I don't see anything contrived by our FF's, I see that every state gets represented....every state.
Having said that, the populated states have the lions share of the power in this country.

i know. not the first time we disagree. won't be the last.

they are represented...one person/one vote. giving their people more power per vote is unjustifiable, imo.

shouldn't the more populous states have more power? after all, they represent more people.

it seems pretty straightforward.

Votes are not being represented. Politicians could promise the world to 5-6 states and say, "screw you" to the rest of the states and still get elected.
How is that being represented?

C'mon, Meister, they do that already..

 

[thereisnospoon]

As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY

It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote.
A straight popular vote would never work.

Who's talking about taking away representation?

I have no idea. Who? I neither stated nor implied anything of the kind.
Look, if you want to debate the issue, please pay attention.

 

[Dr Grump]

It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote.
A straight popular vote would never work.

Who's talking about taking away representation?

I have no idea. Who? I neither stated nor implied anything of the kind.
Look, if you want to debate the issue, please pay attention.

Then there was no point to your post...

 

[JoeB131]

I can't speak for "left-wingers" or "Right-wingers" on this issue, but here's why I think it's a bad idea.

It distorts democracy. It allows a few swing states to have way too much say in the process.

NY, TX, IL, CA will all go one way or the other this next time. In fact, these states have been reliably red or blue since 1992. So instead of addressing the interests of Illinois, where a lot of people live, they will address the issues of Iowa because it's a swing state.

The reason why Republicans should be worried and seeking to end this system. because eventually, Texas is going to be a Blue state. The growth of the Hispanic population will flip it, probably by 2020. When that happens, there will be no way a Republican will be able to cobble together enough electors to win.

Obama starts this election with 217 electoral votes firmly in his camp. All he has to do is pick up 53 out of 140 up for grabs. That's it.

Why Republicans defend such an awful system is beyond me, but they've become idealogically wedded to it since 2000.

That is a blatantly racist point of view. You just threw out the well worn generalization that non-whites vote in lock step and always vote democrat.
You should ask you fellow libs why they oppose the EC.

1) NOt a lib.

2) Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Sorry, the GOP has not gotten a majority of this voting block in any election as long as they've been keeping records.

Now the GOP could do the breathetakingly rational thing and try to work this group, instead of letting the MInutemen, Nativists and that asshole Tancredo dominate the discussion... but they won't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cooperation and compromise dominated the issue of representation and the electoral college. The maritime business North and the agriculturally bound South possessed differing interests. Federalist 51, by Alexander Hamilton, answers all objections in this thread. Go read it at The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51.

The only way to control power (the big states ~ Massachusetts, New York, Virginia ~ was to concentrate their power in the House) and to diffuse their power in the Senate (each state possessing the same number of votes). The Electoral College fairly representing the smaller states in a way that recognizes their demographic and geographic peculiarities while preventing the larger states (now NY, CA, FL, etc) from overly dominating the smaller states.

Use power (to the smaller states) to mitigate overwhelming power ( the larger states).

On this issue of representational power, the Founders got it right, I believe.

 

[JoeB131]

Since you opened the door, you will now post where you got the information that allows you to state Obama's guarantee of the 217 EC votes.
You are every bit as criminal as those election day pundits who would call elections hours before polls closed so as to influence the election.
This is the way I see it turning out in November..
The GOP will win VA, NC WI, PA.........Those are states taken by Obama in 2008.

Making the statement based on estimates on RealClearPolitics, a right wing cite, that have declared 217 votes either safe for Obama or leaning Obama.

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Battle for White House

But let's ignore that for a minute. All the states that John Kerry took last time, except for New Hampshire, have gone Democratic in the last five elections. Giving him those states that Democrats have reliably taken in the last five elections - gives him 242. RCP is putting PA and WI in play, which I personally don't agree with.

So let's look at the other big prizes on the board-

Florida- Dems took it in 1996 and 2008. Probably took it in 2000, but Jeb was cheating.
29 EC. He just takes all Kerry's states and Florida, he wins.

Ohio- 20 EV- Took it in 1992, 1996, 2008.

Virginia- 13 EV Obama took that first time since LBJ.

New Mexico- Democrats took that four out of five times. Currently leans Obama, according to RCP.

New Hampshire- Democrats took that four out of five times.

Nevada- Took that in 1992, 1996 and 2008.

So a whole lot of pickup oppurtunities for the Dems.. while teh GOP is playing an increasingly limited board.

If the GOP had a brain, they'd be for getting rid of the EC. Make the Democrats work for every vote in every state.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah and what the knit wits don't even begin to get is why the system was set up that way. Transportation. The two methods of travel for 95% of the people was walking and horseback. There wasn't a bus nor a car and just like everything else people today just cannot fathom that. The electoral college is without a doubt the most antiquated thing we do.

That's why they have actual electors rather than just assigning a certain number of votes to each state. However, it doesn't matter why it was setup. The bottom line is that it isn't in the interests of most states to abolish it. Therefore, it will never be abolished.

It's time liberals sucked it up and quit their incessant whining about it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who's talking about taking away representation?

I have no idea. Who? I neither stated nor implied anything of the kind.
Look, if you want to debate the issue, please pay attention.

Then there was no point to your post...

This is what you wrote...
"As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY"
Here is my response..."It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote."
My post a direct response to your post.
Selective amnesia is not going to help your cause.
If what you state is true, your original post was every bit if not more pointless.
Your line of comment here has all the usefulness of smashing your head against a wall because you are unhappy with the way things are.
If you don't like the EC, instead of bitching about it here, go talk to your local and State reps and get them to write legislation that will outlaw the EC.

 

[bripat9643]

1) NOt a lib.

2) Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Sorry, the GOP has not gotten a majority of this voting block in any election as long as they've been keeping records.

Now the GOP could do the breathetakingly rational thing and try to work this group, instead of letting the MInutemen, Nativists and that asshole Tancredo dominate the discussion... but they won't.

How would Republicans "work" Hispanics, promise to open the flood gates to illegal immigration? Promise them bigger welfare checks?

The fact that you advise Republicans to "work" a minority group is instructive. It shows the Democrat mentality about these groups. They are pigeons to be "worked" rather than people who have goals and principles.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I can't speak for "left-wingers" or "Right-wingers" on this issue, but here's why I think it's a bad idea.

It distorts democracy. It allows a few swing states to have way too much say in the process.

NY, TX, IL, CA will all go one way or the other this next time. In fact, these states have been reliably red or blue since 1992. So instead of addressing the interests of Illinois, where a lot of people live, they will address the issues of Iowa because it's a swing state.

The reason why Republicans should be worried and seeking to end this system. because eventually, Texas is going to be a Blue state. The growth of the Hispanic population will flip it, probably by 2020. When that happens, there will be no way a Republican will be able to cobble together enough electors to win.

Obama starts this election with 217 electoral votes firmly in his camp. All he has to do is pick up 53 out of 140 up for grabs. That's it.

Why Republicans defend such an awful system is beyond me, but they've become idealogically wedded to it since 2000.

That is a blatantly racist point of view. You just threw out the well worn generalization that non-whites vote in lock step and always vote democrat.
You should ask you fellow libs why they oppose the EC.

1) NOt a lib.

2) Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Sorry, the GOP has not gotten a majority of this voting block in any election as long as they've been keeping records.

Now the GOP could do the breathetakingly rational thing and try to work this group, instead of letting the MInutemen, Nativists and that asshole Tancredo dominate the discussion... but they won't.

I find it amusing when those who post left, talk left, agree with the left insist they are not liberal or progressive.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Since you opened the door, you will now post where you got the information that allows you to state Obama's guarantee of the 217 EC votes.
You are every bit as criminal as those election day pundits who would call elections hours before polls closed so as to influence the election.
This is the way I see it turning out in November..
The GOP will win VA, NC WI, PA.........Those are states taken by Obama in 2008.

Making the statement based on estimates on RealClearPolitics, a right wing cite, that have declared 217 votes either safe for Obama or leaning Obama.

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Battle for White House

But let's ignore that for a minute. All the states that John Kerry took last time, except for New Hampshire, have gone Democratic in the last five elections. Giving him those states that Democrats have reliably taken in the last five elections - gives him 242. RCP is putting PA and WI in play, which I personally don't agree with.

So let's look at the other big prizes on the board-

Florida- Dems took it in 1996 and 2008. Probably took it in 2000, but Jeb was cheating.
29 EC. He just takes all Kerry's states and Florida, he wins.

Ohio- 20 EV- Took it in 1992, 1996, 2008.

Virginia- 13 EV Obama took that first time since LBJ.

New Mexico- Democrats took that four out of five times. Currently leans Obama, according to RCP.

New Hampshire- Democrats took that four out of five times.

Nevada- Took that in 1992, 1996 and 2008.

So a whole lot of pickup oppurtunities for the Dems.. while teh GOP is playing an increasingly limited board.

If the GOP had a brain, they'd be for getting rid of the EC. Make the Democrats work for every vote in every state.

You don't agree with...Let's stop right there. Because you do not agree, you declare an Obama win?
You insist Jeb Bush cheated. HUH? Tests were done on those dimpled chad voting card machines and the only way the result could be duplicated was to have at least three cards shoved into the machine. Also, the DNC went to court to block all absentee ballots from overseas military. Anyway the Gore Lieberman campaign wanted the issue to go to court. They lost. Lastly, the voting precincts involved in the controversy were ALL DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED.
Florida residents are very pissed off that their homes are worth at least 1/3rd less than they were 4 years ago. They are going to look for someone to blame.
Virginia Indiana Ohio Wisconsin....All replaced democrat governors with republicans. Also, Wisconsin, Indiana and North Carolina ( went with Obama in 2008) have majority GOP legislatures.
I give NV to The dems. Harry Reid is still there.
History shows that in periods with poor economies, the incumbent president does not pick up states. There are losses. This economy still sucks. Home sales are the drag. Until the federal government gets out of the housing business and allow the market to bottom out, that will not change. All these programs and offers from the government to help people with troubled mortgages are going to place a further drag on the economy. They will only prolong the inevitable. That is foreclosure or a short sale.
Oh, let us not forget the biggest elephant of all in the room. Four Dollar gasoline.

 

[Contumacious]

The popular election of senators still meets the needs of the overwhelming numbers of Americans, and far rightist are dead wrong wanting to change it. They can't.

Bullshit.

James Madison Federalist No. 62:

"If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation…In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic."

.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Why the Electoral College?

by P. Andrew Sandlin

In this atmosphere, the Founders were concerned that a popular regional candidate in a populous area may be able to garner enough votes to win the election, particularly if several other candidates divided the balance of the vote. This regionally popular first candidate would not likely have the interests of the entire number of states – the nation itself – at heart. If a candidate needed to win only the popular vote, it would possible for him to be elected President without winning a majority of anything. He would not have been elected on the basis of any sort of consensus of the states, but simply on his popularity in a particular state or in two or three heavily populated areas.

Article 2 of the Constitution and its 12th Amendment stipulate that the President is chosen by electors, who are themselves chosen by the state, "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct … equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This arrangement obliges candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply were required to win the popular national election.

The electoral college is a bulwark of states’ rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.

To eliminate the electoral college would be essentially to eliminate the role of states in presidential elections. It would comprehensively nationalize the selection and insinuate that states as such have no interest in national presidential politics. For all practical purposes, it would remove the borders between states and transform the United States of America into the united people of America.

.

So the answer is to give voters in small states more voting power than voters in big states? I would argue the real reason is southern states were worried about slavery and this is the only way they would vote for the Constitution, if it were electoral and the slaves counted but could not vote.

 

[Dr Grump]

I have no idea. Who? I neither stated nor implied anything of the kind.
Look, if you want to debate the issue, please pay attention.

Then there was no point to your post...

This is what you wrote...
"As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY"
Here is my response..."It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote."
My post a direct response to your post.
Selective amnesia is not going to help your cause.
If what you state is true, your original post was every bit if not more pointless.
Your line of comment here has all the usefulness of smashing your head against a wall because you are unhappy with the way things are.
If you don't like the EC, instead of bitching about it here, go talk to your local and State reps and get them to write legislation that will outlaw the EC.

Your post is irrelevent to mine.
In my example of 326,000 vs 600,000 or even if in both states one EC vote equalled 326,000 they would both have representation. So no, it's not about representation at all. It's about the value of one EC vote. It has twice the value in Alaska as it does in NY. That is my point.

You are making a point, but it has nothing to do with mine..

Your thought processes are akin to a drunk wombat with alzheimers...

And I'm not American.

 

[FA_Q2]

Then there was no point to your post...

This is what you wrote...
"As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY"
Here is my response..."It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote."
My post a direct response to your post.
Selective amnesia is not going to help your cause.
If what you state is true, your original post was every bit if not more pointless.
Your line of comment here has all the usefulness of smashing your head against a wall because you are unhappy with the way things are.
If you don't like the EC, instead of bitching about it here, go talk to your local and State reps and get them to write legislation that will outlaw the EC.

Your post is irrelevent to mine.
In my example of 326,000 vs 600,000 or even if in both states one EC vote equalled 326,000 they would both have representation. So no, it's not about representation at all. It's about the value of one EC vote. It has twice the value in Alaska as it does in NY. That is my point.

You are making a point, but it has nothing to do with mine..

Your thought processes are akin to a drunk wombat with alzheimers...

And I'm not American.

I think you missed her point. The idea was that each STATE would have some representation, not just each person. What you are failing to understand is there is a balance between that representation. If Rhode Island and Alaska were reduced to having representation based solely on population, they would be completely irrelevant. Not only do the people themselves get representation but the state itself (through 2 senators and the EC cotes they represent) gets representation. If you are looking at this issue as a straight people issue and ignoring the state and its interest then you are not seeing the whole picture. Now, you can disagree that the state should come into play and that is fine but it is also not how the government is set up in America. We not only have a sovereign federal government but each state operates as it own sub country able to govern AND influence the federal government. Indeed, upon the establishment of the government this was even more true because of the way senators were elected.

 

[FA_Q2]

You and I are way off on this one, Jillian. Do you really think that Wy. North Dakota, or New Hampshire should not be represented?
I don't see anything contrived by our FF's, I see that every state gets represented....every state.
Having said that, the populated states have the lions share of the power in this country.

i know. not the first time we disagree. won't be the last.

they are represented...one person/one vote. giving their people more power per vote is unjustifiable, imo.

shouldn't the more populous states have more power? after all, they represent more people.

it seems pretty straightforward.

Votes are not being represented. Politicians could promise the world to 5-6 states and say, "screw you" to the rest of the states and still get elected.
How is that being represented?

I think that everyone fails to realize that if the EC was done away with - the EXACT same thing would occur.