Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Look again and see how wrong you are!

Tiny little New Hampshire decided the 2000 election.

Those 4 electoral votes is what separated Bush 271 / Gore 266 from Gore 270 / Bush 267.

Just like I said...the electoral college protects the smaller less populous states...welcome to the Federal system.

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

 

[Missourian]

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.

Look again and see how wrong you are!

Tiny little New Hampshire decided the 2000 election.

Those 4 electoral votes is what separated Bush 271 / Gore 266 from Gore 270 / Bush 267.

Just like I said...the electoral college protects the smaller less populous states...welcome to the Federal system.

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

What???

 

[del]

Only this time..Emus would become the slaves (well food) of wolves.

gotta catch one first...

Getting the grill ready as we speak.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKmocwltXk]Emu running - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Trajan]

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

It was due to changing morals of the time. I would say it was more the "right" thing to do than the "fair" thing to do. Same with enforcement of the Reconstruction amendments during the 60's and the revocation of plessy v. furgeson.

I am not against the concept of fairness, just the use of the word when what you really mean is "screw over people I disagree with while tipping the scales towards people like me", which is what removing the EC would do.

But the electoral college doesn't DO anything!! why are you denying that? If you live in Montana, or Vermont,

what does the electoral college actually DO for you?

And answer in real material, tangible benefits, not just some meaningless theory.

You can't.

you never cease to amaze me....really... I am glad you're here man, you give me more spontaneous laughs than anyone here but sallow.....now....

lets see, an analogy that even you can understand.....I don't want to get wet or chance getting wet...sooooooooo;

I build a dam, it holds back the water, I am always always dry. BUT, if I remove the dam....I get wet....get it now?

 

[DiamondDave]

Holy @%$ing @#%^$ @#%@#$ing @^$#^ @#$ks!!! Seriously? Have you EVER read ANYTHING? That is not the point. You float these stupid "facts" out there like you've actually read anything. What would be the reason for the smaller states staying if they did not have an equal voice in one of the houses of congress? The people are represented numerically in the HoR and the STATES are represented in the SENATE. Do you get that? The STATES ratified the Constitution, NOT the people.

Mik

Ah.

Can we meet one of these "States". What do they look like?

Got a description?

Are you being obtuse? Seriously?

Mike

They simply do not get that the federal government only has its power because the states allow it to have that power

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Look again and see how wrong you are!

Tiny little New Hampshire decided the 2000 election.

Those 4 electoral votes is what separated Bush 271 / Gore 266 from Gore 270 / Bush 267.

Just like I said...the electoral college protects the smaller less populous states...welcome to the Federal system.

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

You sir, are an idiot... with the reasoning power of a star nosed mole

 

[Trajan]

gotta catch one first...

Getting the grill ready as we speak.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKmocwltXk]Emu running - YouTube[/ame]

hummm dry sandy track. no sandals, smart. That cuts a 1/2 sec. on their quarter mile I bet......

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look again and see how wrong you are!

Tiny little New Hampshire decided the 2000 election.

Those 4 electoral votes is what separated Bush 271 / Gore 266 from Gore 270 / Bush 267.

Just like I said...the electoral college protects the smaller less populous states...welcome to the Federal system.

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

You sir, are an idiot... with the reasoning power of a star nosed mole

Rhode Island has a smaller population than New Hampshire, and voted for Gore in 2000. As does and did Vermont, Delaware, and Maine.

So how did the electoral college help those small states in 2000?

 

[Trajan]

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...

So should we end the senate as well?

Slaves were also counted for representation in the house, it just wasn't for EV's.

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.

really, so when a states pop. votes yes on or for for a ballot initiative or law, majority rules....?

 

[Trajan]

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

You sir, are an idiot... with the reasoning power of a star nosed mole

Rhode Island has a smaller population than New Hampshire, and voted for Gore in 2000. As does and did Vermont, Delaware, and Maine.

So how did the electoral college help those small states in 2000?

I just answered you, its not hard to comprehend....stop making yourself look like even a greater fool, just read and try and please use your head.

 

[FuelRod]

If electoral college votes were divided district by district vs.a winner take all (state) it is possible the Democrats would never win another national election.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was due to changing morals of the time. I would say it was more the "right" thing to do than the "fair" thing to do. Same with enforcement of the Reconstruction amendments during the 60's and the revocation of plessy v. furgeson.

I am not against the concept of fairness, just the use of the word when what you really mean is "screw over people I disagree with while tipping the scales towards people like me", which is what removing the EC would do.

But the electoral college doesn't DO anything!! why are you denying that? If you live in Montana, or Vermont,

what does the electoral college actually DO for you?

And answer in real material, tangible benefits, not just some meaningless theory.

You can't.

you never cease to amaze me....really... I am glad you're here man, you give me more spontaneous laughs than anyone here but sallow.....now....

lets see, an analogy that even you can understand.....I don't want to get wet or chance getting wet...sooooooooo;

I build a dam, it holds back the water, I am always always dry. BUT, if I remove the dam....I get wet....get it now?

IOW, you can't answer the question either.

The small population states get no help from the electoral college for the simple reasons that

1. the 'bonus' electoral votes aren't enough to help them

2. the small states don't vote as a bloc so they end up canceling each other out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If electoral college votes were divided district by district vs.a winner take all (state) it is possible the Democrats would never win another national election.

This is the essence of conservatism, i.e., let's concoct some absurd election rules that magically let the smaller Republican party win over the larger Democratic party.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look again and see how wrong you are!

Tiny little New Hampshire decided the 2000 election.

Those 4 electoral votes is what separated Bush 271 / Gore 266 from Gore 270 / Bush 267.

Just like I said...the electoral college protects the smaller less populous states...welcome to the Federal system.

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

You sir, are an idiot... with the reasoning power of a star nosed mole

And at this point, I win the argument.

 

[FuelRod]

If electoral college votes were divided district by district vs.a winner take all (state) it is possible the Democrats would never win another national election.

This is the essence of conservatism, i.e., let's concoct some absurd election rules that magically let the smaller Republican party win over the larger Democratic party.

Conservatives here are not the one's calling for a blanket removal of the electoral college allowing for simply urban/mob rule to reign in the Executive Branch.

 

[martybegan]

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

It was due to changing morals of the time. I would say it was more the "right" thing to do than the "fair" thing to do. Same with enforcement of the Reconstruction amendments during the 60's and the revocation of plessy v. furgeson.

I am not against the concept of fairness, just the use of the word when what you really mean is "screw over people I disagree with while tipping the scales towards people like me", which is what removing the EC would do.

But the electoral college doesn't DO anything!! why are you denying that? If you live in Montana, or Vermont,

what does the electoral college actually DO for you?

And answer in real material, tangible benefits, not just some meaningless theory.

You can't.

I stated before. it forces candidates to focus on certain STATES seen as battlegrounds, not to just go pander to the large population centers. It allows the whole country to be part of the process, not just flyover country. It requires a candidate be a conensus builder between urban, suburban, and rural. Instead of having to appeal to 50.1% of the people you have to appeal to a population wieghted average of states, with different views and agendas.

From year to year the battleground states can and will change, allowing for different states at different times to have a greater say in who becomes president.

For me in NY as a republican, it basically screws me, unless you have some type of Reagan level wave overtaking the country. I still do NOT see abolishing it as healthy for our republic.

 

[Missourian]

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

You sir, are an idiot... with the reasoning power of a star nosed mole

Rhode Island has a smaller population than New Hampshire, and voted for Gore in 2000. As does and did Vermont, Delaware, and Maine.

So how did the electoral college help those small states in 2000?

I think you are replying so quickly that you are not allowing time to let things sink in.

Your preconceptions are interfering with your ability to digest new information.

I'm not being condescending, I honest don't think you are taking the time to process the information and answer your own question.

I've got some things to do...I'll come back to this thread in tonight and is you still need this explained, I'll explain it...but I imagine you won't.

 

[martybegan]

But the electoral college doesn't DO anything!! why are you denying that? If you live in Montana, or Vermont,

what does the electoral college actually DO for you?

And answer in real material, tangible benefits, not just some meaningless theory.

You can't.

you never cease to amaze me....really... I am glad you're here man, you give me more spontaneous laughs than anyone here but sallow.....now....

lets see, an analogy that even you can understand.....I don't want to get wet or chance getting wet...sooooooooo;

I build a dam, it holds back the water, I am always always dry. BUT, if I remove the dam....I get wet....get it now?

IOW, you can't answer the question either.

The small population states get no help from the electoral college for the simple reasons that

1. the 'bonus' electoral votes aren't enough to help them

2. the small states don't vote as a bloc so they end up canceling each other out.

The bonus is significant if you are one of the 1-3 rep states. As for voting as a bloc it doesnt really matter. the big effect is that instead of fighting only in 3 or 4 metro areas the candidates have to go out and appeal to other areas, smaller areas.

In a direct election places like Colorado, nebraska, ohio, etc wouldn't even get a passing thought.

 

[Missourian]

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

You sir, are an idiot... with the reasoning power of a star nosed mole

And at this point, I win the argument.

Dave's correct in that you certainly didn't think that "cancelled out" theory through before you posted it.

It flies in the face of the facts presented.

 

[DiamondDave]

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

You sir, are an idiot... with the reasoning power of a star nosed mole

And at this point, I win the argument.

If you were making a point...

I have explained things before, even in this thread early on... very simple points.... which you simply ignore because of your preconceived notion of direct vote democracy in all aspects of government, which goes against the balance of power and for tyranny of the majority....

There is great reason for the balance of power, not just in having branches who check each other, but also in the way those branches are filled...