The electoral college is broken

[randyjohnson]

Why do we still go by the electoral vote? Some people say it's because if it's not broke, don't fix it. Well I'm telling you that it is broken.

Al Gore lost because he didn't get the electoral vote. If we went by the popular vote, he would've won and our country would be in a much better shape.

Thanks to George Bush, we're in a bad recession and in a war as well. We'd be in neither if we didn't have the electoral college.

Barack Obama is now the only hope we have of getting us out of this mess that Bush has gotten us into. That's why I voted for Obama. The electoral college should be dismantled.

 

[Navy1960]

The constitutional theory behind the indirect election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,[15] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.

You do realize you don't actually vote for president when you vote but electors right? One reason why you don't have Presidents elected by a popular vote, is because, you will never again have a President elected by any state other than the large population centers, New York and California. Presidential campaigns will boil down to local elections in large urban centers, like LA, NY, Chicago, Atlanta. The apportioned representation the larger states have is in the House. So to do away with the electorial college would be an extremely bad idea. One more thing to consider, Al Gore is not the only person ever win the popular vote and lose the election . You have to take into consideration again that no matter how disappointing that was, it is not how we elect Presidents here.

Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[auditor0007]

Why do we still go by the electoral vote? Some people say it's because if it's not broke, don't fix it. Well I'm telling you that it is broken.

Al Gore lost because he didn't get the electoral vote. If we went by the popular vote, he would've won and our country would be in a much better shape.

Thanks to George Bush, we're in a bad recession and in a war as well. We'd be in neither if we didn't have the electoral college.

Barack Obama is now the only hope we have of getting us out of this mess that Bush has gotten us into. That's why I voted for Obama. The electoral college should be dismantled.

Your assumption that we would be in much better shape under Gore is exactly that, an assumption. It might be that we would be much worse off than we are now. There really is no way to predict that. Based on the fact that the Dems fully supported no regulation in the mortgage industry, I'm not certain Gore would have done us any favors.

As for the electoral college, the reason for it's use is to prevent one state from having too much influence in the election of our President. If, in any given election, 49 states narrowly vote for Candidate A, but the state of California votes overwhelmingly for Candidate B, Candidate B might become President even though 49 of the 50 states voted in favor of Candidate A. The electoral college is set up to prevent a regional candidate from winning office based solely on his/her strength in a certain region.

 

[Bern80]

Why do we still go by the electoral vote? Some people say it's because if it's not broke, don't fix it. Well I'm telling you that it is broken.

Al Gore lost because he didn't get the electoral vote. If we went by the popular vote, he would've won and our country would be in a much better shape.

Thanks to George Bush, we're in a bad recession and in a war as well. We'd be in neither if we didn't have the electoral college.

Barack Obama is now the only hope we have of getting us out of this mess that Bush has gotten us into. That's why I voted for Obama. The electoral college should be dismantled.

So because the guy you liked didn't win the system is broke? The system isn't broke. More likely you are simply a hypcocrit as it appears you would not be complaining about it if Gore were president.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is a damn good reason why the Presidential election is not on popular vote.... that is simply because with the 3 branches, we have and need 3 different ways of appointment/election to help ensure more balance of power...

We already have our legislative branch which is the branch elected by popular vote... the Judiciary is appointed and confirmed/approved by the legislative and executive branch... and the executive/Prez is selected thru the electoral college to ensure that each state gets to voice their opinion/choice in the election. Otherwise the smaller states wills/wishes would be drowned out by the urban/city populace....

 

[strollingbones]

blah blah blah every election this shit about the electoral college begins..then after the election everyone shuts up again

 

[del]

Why do we still go by the electoral vote? Some people say it's because if it's not broke, don't fix it. Well I'm telling you that it is broken.

Al Gore lost because he didn't get the electoral vote. If we went by the popular vote, he would've won and our country would be in a much better shape.

Thanks to George Bush, we're in a bad recession and in a war as well. We'd be in neither if we didn't have the electoral college.

Barack Obama is now the only hope we have of getting us out of this mess that Bush has gotten us into. That's why I voted for Obama. The electoral college should be dismantled.

if al had carried his home state he would have won.

his home state.

now grow a pair and move along.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yeah, we need the population centers of California and New York to dictate our new President every four or eight years.

Wake the fuck up.

 

[KGB]

blah blah blah every election this shit about the electoral college begins..then after the election everyone shuts up again

that's because there are simpletons who don't understand its intent....

 

[Luissa]

The constitutional theory behind the indirect election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,[15] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.

You do realize you don't actually vote for president when you vote but electors right? One reason why you don't have Presidents elected by a popular vote, is because, you will never again have a President elected by any state other than the large population centers, New York and California. Presidential campaigns will boil down to local elections in large urban centers, like LA, NY, Chicago, Atlanta. The apportioned representation the larger states have is in the House. So to do away with the electorial college would be an extremely bad idea. One more thing to consider, Al Gore is not the only person ever win the popular vote and lose the election . You have to take into consideration again that no matter how disappointing that was, it is not how we elect Presidents here.

Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are founding father's pretty much feared democracy!

 

[Mad Dog]

The constitutional theory behind the indirect election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,[15] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.

But what doesn't make since is the fact that California gets 55 electoral votes where-as Montana only gets 3 votes. The electoral college is broke in the fact that states don't have equal votes. I believe in its conception it was based on population but I think the electoral college should be made up by the state governors and they elect the president. If the governors do't vote the way we want them to then we simply don't vote them back into office.

 

[DiamondDave]

But what doesn't make since is the fact that California gets 55 electoral votes where-as Montana only gets 3 votes. The electoral college is broke in the fact that states don't have equal votes. I believe in its conception it was based on population but I think the electoral college should be made up by the state governors and they elect the president. If the governors do't vote the way we want them to then we simply don't vote them back into office.

But that is the key to the balance... the states get to show their individual 'choices', but the populace still matters...

 

[Luissa]

But what doesn't make since is the fact that California gets 55 electoral votes where-as Montana only gets 3 votes. The electoral college is broke in the fact that states don't have equal votes. I believe in its conception it was based on population but I think the electoral college should be made up by the state governors and they elect the president. If the governors do't vote the way we want them to then we simply don't vote them back into office.

IF we went by what you are suggesting we would have even less of a democracy with less representation of the people this why also we do not have the Articles of the Confederation anymore. Which gave each state one vote!

 

[Navy1960]

Are founding father's pretty much feared democracy!

Luissa IMO the founders created a democratic republic not a democracy in the true sense. Our system of government based more on a mish mash of greek and roman forms of republican government. The problem is, the the idea of pure democracy where the majority rules has been put ingrained into the minds of many and when they realize that this is not so they are suddenly surprised. I submit that the founder were very intelligent in the way our government was structured in it's fairness to all, so that a majority could in principle not dominate a minority. Thus the reason why each state has two Senators and in the House you have a representation based on demograhpics. Check and balances in our system of government while not the most perfect have functioned pretty well overall. While it may take a while for some things to correct themselves under this system they eventually do. IMHO Luissa, I don't believe so much they feared a true democracy, more so they felt that a true democracy would eventually collapse after the minority got tired of being domintated over. People like John Adams warned of this many times as did Thomas Jefferson and many others.

 

[Navy1960]

But what doesn't make since is the fact that California gets 55 electoral votes where-as Montana only gets 3 votes. The electoral college is broke in the fact that states don't have equal votes. I believe in its conception it was based on population but I think the electoral college should be made up by the state governors and they elect the president. If the governors do't vote the way we want them to then we simply don't vote them back into office.

Well as I was going to respnd to this Mad Dog , my apologies for being a little late, Dave's answer as well as Luissa's make up the basis for what a response from me would have been. The beauty of the electorial college is that it represents both, I also might suggest you click on the link and look for the section that says "faithless electors" . While some states have laws that make it an offense for an elector to vote any other way than the way they have contracted to vote. There is nothing in the constitution that I am aware of in the elctorial college, that would still keep an elector from voting as they have been chartered to do. In fact an Al Gore elector even refused to vote .

 

[Mad Dog]

But the electoral college is one big reason we are constricted to a two party system. Take Ron Paul, if he was still in the running and magically got the popular vote, he would still not get the presidency. The electoral college are supposed to vote the "will of the people" from wince they came, sometimes they don't. With little to no reprocussions.

When was the last time the system was updated? What if there was a large influx of people into Louisiana where the population rose to 30 million over 10 years? Would they update to give Louisiana more than 7 electoral votes? I doubt it. It would mean correcting the system.

 

[del]

But the electoral college is one big reason we are constricted to a two party system. Take Ron Paul, if he was still in the running and magically got the popular vote, he would still not get the presidency. The electoral college are supposed to vote the "will of the people" from wince they came, sometimes they don't. With little to no reprocussions.

When was the last time the system was updated? What if there was a large influx of people into Louisiana where the population rose to 30 million over 10 years? Would they update to give Louisiana more than 7 electoral votes? I doubt it. It would mean correcting the system.

it's called apportionment. the number of electoral votes is changed, if necessary after every census. your state has more people, you get more representation in the electoral college and the house, less you get less.

works pretty well.

 

[KGB]

But what doesn't make since is the fact that California gets 55 electoral votes where-as Montana only gets 3 votes. The electoral college is broke in the fact that states don't have equal votes. I believe in its conception it was based on population but I think the electoral college should be made up by the state governors and they elect the president. If the governors do't vote the way we want them to then we simply don't vote them back into office.

how much time have either candidate spent in California this season? Very little, since that state will go to Obama. Same in reverse with Texas.....the electoral college was put into place to ensure the little states wouldn't get squashed by the big states.....it's worked pretty well in that regard....

There is a reason why there is an odd number of electors in the college.....if every state had equal representation, then you would have exactly 50 votes possible in the electoral college. What happens if both candidates are tied 25-25? What happens also if you throw in US territories such Guam, Puerto Rico & the Virgin Islands? They suddenly have an equal say even though they usually don't have the same obligations as true states? That is the beauty of the electoral college....it is purposely skewed so that you have an uneven number of total electors (539) & has electors determined on population to account for migration patterns over time.....to change any part of this equation is to flirt with disaster....

 

[DiamondDave]

But the electoral college is one big reason we are constricted to a two party system. Take Ron Paul, if he was still in the running and magically got the popular vote, he would still not get the presidency. The electoral college are supposed to vote the "will of the people" from wince they came, sometimes they don't. With little to no reprocussions.

When was the last time the system was updated? What if there was a large influx of people into Louisiana where the population rose to 30 million over 10 years? Would they update to give Louisiana more than 7 electoral votes? I doubt it. It would mean correcting the system.

Electoral college votes are adjusted every 10 years according to the census

I would actually suggest looking up some information about the system before you just go blindly complaining about it


There is beauty in the balance that is set forth

 

[KGB]

But the electoral college is one big reason we are constricted to a two party system. Take Ron Paul, if he was still in the running and magically got the popular vote, he would still not get the presidency. The electoral college are supposed to vote the "will of the people" from wince they came, sometimes they don't. With little to no reprocussions.

When was the last time the system was updated? What if there was a large influx of people into Louisiana where the population rose to 30 million over 10 years? Would they update to give Louisiana more than 7 electoral votes? I doubt it. It would mean correcting the system.

the electoral college was in place long before there was a 2 party system...