Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?

[Truthmatters]

Nope. The college gives us a little more balance.

A pure democracy tramples the rights of the minorty

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.

why do we have people vote in the first place?

 

[Truthmatters]

The EC needs to stay. Consider the following:

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul ,
Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 McCain: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents
in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

so you dont like democracy and think land is more important than people?

 

[Full-Auto]

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?

Nope. The college gives us a little more balance.

A pure democracy tramples the rights of the minorty

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.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

 

[Contumacious]

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

Yeah man, its time for it to go. No more 1/2 assed welfare/warfare state when we can have a full fledged one.

Yeah, let the narcotized victims of government education decide our future.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The funniest part of this debate is that the electoral college doesn't even do what it's proponents seem to think it does.

Having the electoral college only means that about once every 100 years, in some extremely close election, the guy who got fewer popular votes wins the electoral vote. Other than those extremely rare oddities, the popular vote guy wins.

It's a useless, irrelevant, joke of a system.

What it does is force the politicians spend time campaigning in those small states, as they now matter, as compared to a pure national vote system, where all they would have to do is campaign in NY, LA/SD/SF, Chicago, Boston, etc.

This unbalanced form of presidential election and sentate representation are also one of the reasons the consitution was enacted in the first place. To change it would be to change one of the fundemental concepts of the document, and of how our government works.

The current system causes presidential candidates to essentially concede to each other most of the states, and reduce the campaign to a small set of battleground states.

 

[Full-Auto]

The funniest part of this debate is that the electoral college doesn't even do what it's proponents seem to think it does.

Having the electoral college only means that about once every 100 years, in some extremely close election, the guy who got fewer popular votes wins the electoral vote. Other than those extremely rare oddities, the popular vote guy wins.

It's a useless, irrelevant, joke of a system.

What it does is force the politicians spend time campaigning in those small states, as they now matter, as compared to a pure national vote system, where all they would have to do is campaign in NY, LA/SD/SF, Chicago, Boston, etc.

This unbalanced form of presidential election and sentate representation are also one of the reasons the consitution was enacted in the first place. To change it would be to change one of the fundemental concepts of the document, and of how our government works.

The current system causes presidential candidates to essentially concede to each other most of the states, and reduce the campaign to a small set of battleground states.

A good argument that all states should have the same votes.

 

[Truthmatters]

Nope. The college gives us a little more balance.

A pure democracy tramples the rights of the minorty

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.

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.

 

[naturegirl]

Our form of government is a Republic, not a Democracy. There are vast differences, there was a reason our founding fathers wanted a Republic.

Republic vs. Democracy

 

[Conservative]

The EC needs to stay. Consider the following:

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul ,
Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 McCain: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents
in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Immaterial.

If you are a US citizen, regardless of your financial status, you have a right to vote and to have that vote actually MEAN something.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

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.

Why do you insist on leaving out all elements of human nature? I live where I do because of the weather, not the politics.

 

[Texanmike]

1 person 1 vote

The EC is as about as unconstitutional as you can get.

The idea of a state handing out all thier "points" to the popular vote getter is just as dumb.

We live in a computerised age. And besides, the election is in Nov but the winner isn't seated until Jan, so it's not like there's a big hurry.

Not really big on the study of history I see.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

The EC needs to stay. Consider the following:

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul ,
Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 McCain: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents
in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Immaterial.

If you are a US citizen, regardless of your financial status, you have a right to vote and to have that vote actually MEAN something.

God no. Can we please find a way to prevent people who don't pay any taxes from voting? Why should they get to vote on how to spend my money?

Mike

 

[martybegan]

The funniest part of this debate is that the electoral college doesn't even do what it's proponents seem to think it does.

Having the electoral college only means that about once every 100 years, in some extremely close election, the guy who got fewer popular votes wins the electoral vote. Other than those extremely rare oddities, the popular vote guy wins.

It's a useless, irrelevant, joke of a system.

What it does is force the politicians spend time campaigning in those small states, as they now matter, as compared to a pure national vote system, where all they would have to do is campaign in NY, LA/SD/SF, Chicago, Boston, etc.

This unbalanced form of presidential election and sentate representation are also one of the reasons the consitution was enacted in the first place. To change it would be to change one of the fundemental concepts of the document, and of how our government works.

The current system causes presidential candidates to essentially concede to each other most of the states, and reduce the campaign to a small set of battleground states.

It would happen in either system. Also the battle states can change from election to election. Without the the EC you would basically pander to the urban areas and be done with it.

High urban areas have their proportional representation in the House. The senate mitigates the effect of population in the legistature, and the EC forces the president to care about all the states, not just those with the most people.

 

[Contumacious]

Immaterial.

If you are a US citizen, regardless of your financial status, you have a right to vote and to have that vote actually MEAN something.

How can YOU tell when your "vote means something"?

.

 

[B. Kidd]

OP question is really moot in our Plutocracy.

 

[Mr Natural]

The EC needs to stay. Consider the following:

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul ,
Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 McCain: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents
in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Immaterial.

If you are a US citizen, regardless of your financial status, you have a right to vote and to have that vote actually MEAN something.

Keep dreaming the dream.

 

[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.

 

[Defiant1]

The EC needs to stay. Consider the following:

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul ,
Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 McCain: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents
in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

so you dont like democracy and think land is more important than people?

No, dimwit. If you were campaigning would you rather cover 2 1/2 million square miles or 1/2 million square miles?

And in reality the conservative candidate would still have to cover the 1/2 million to have any chance.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.