The electoral college is broken

[Mad Dog]

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

My appologies, I was slightly mistaken in the way it worked. But I have proper information now.

 

[Luissa]

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 .

It doesn't it is in Article II by the way Mad Dog and there was amendment 12 which also brings of the subject of election which I think is interesting because it still states how a Vice President can be elected serperatly, it is only a modern thing where you vote on them together.

 

[Luissa]

My appologies, I was slightly mistaken in the way it worked. But I have proper information now.

And read the constitution, like my history teacher says you can never read it to much. I just read it again for class and I don't think I have read it completly in eight years since the last time I was in college.

 

[Luissa]

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.

Thomas Jefferson also said their should be a Revolution every generation with a new party coming in, I will try to find an exact quote. I can also see why some Repubs love in, I know the Republican party is different from the party Jefferson belonged to but some of it's core values are the same. Jefferson was alittle like Bush in the respect he ran on wanting small central gov't but the central gov't grew very large during his terms.

 

[Luissa]

Here our a few quotes! And some go back to him being a deist somewhat!

"Every generation needs a new revolution." - Thomas Jefferson by Gerald_Waving my Freak-flag High Brewster — presidents, quotes, thomas jefferson | Gather

 

[Navy1960]

"I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.


Thomas Jefferson IMO Luissa has such a firm grasp on government and the dangers of letting that government get to the point where it usurped liberties.

 

[Luissa]

"I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.


Thomas Jefferson IMO Luissa has such a firm grasp on government and the dangers of letting that government get to the point where it usurped liberties.

The fact we didn't change our gov't ten time in the beginning speaks volumes about the intelligence of him and the other authors of the constitution. He wasn't perfect though and made a few mistakes! He was the first one to question the orgins of the Native Americans and if they came from Asia or not!

Now if you will excuse me it smells like something died in my son's diaper!

 

[mvymvy]

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.


The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See NationalPopularVote.com

 

[mvymvy]

Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run can be found by examining the way presidential candidates currently campaign inside battleground states. Inside Ohio or Florida, the big cities do not receive all the attention. And, the cities of Ohio and Florida certainly do not control the outcome in those states. Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows--namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.

Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from national advertisers who seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. A national advertiser does not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor makes more sales in those particular states. Moreover, a national advertiser enjoying an edge over its competitors in Indiana or Illinois does not stop trying to make additional sales in those states. National advertisers go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.

Leave the Electoral College alone. This system allows the President to be elected by the states. The President isn't the President of the people. He is the President of the United States. We are not a peoples republic.

 

[Zoomie1980]

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.

Bush had nothing to do with the economy. Fiscal and tax policy is up to Congress. Congress also had to agree to the war and to keep funding. Neither has anything to do with Bush, and everything to do with Congress. Go ***** to your congressman, he/she's the one that was responsible.

 

[pegwinn]

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. No it isn't. Those that say it is are of course mistaken.

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

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. More speculation. Please see this IRT who is at fault.

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. You didn't vote for Obama. You voted for a slate of electors who are pledged to him.

You need to work on your arguments. They are weak. You also need to be aware that Clinton received more popular votes (including MI/FL and excluding caucous) than Obama. But, he won the nod due to delegate counts. A mini electoral college. So you voted for your slate pledged to the guy who didn't win it the way you want. But he's your "only hope"?

TOTAL (w/ FL & MI - excludes caucuses) BHO- 13,104,492 HRC- 13,243,919 Source

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

Just like tax talk. On April 16 everyone picks a new beef to grill.

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.

Bad idea for all the reasons already spelled out for you. You are advocating a pure democracy. Very Very Bad idea.

Which issues would require a popular vote?
How would you avoid gridlock on issues?
How long would it take to drain the treasury or force the fed to print mo money fo thuh masses?

There are so many checks and balances built into the systems of our government that you really need to do your homework. Oh, and BHO isn't a fan of the Constitution at all either. But, he will support the rules (as he did in the primaries) if it will get him into the big house with the good linen and dishes.

 

[Dr Grump]

Can somebody explain to this dern foreigner whether you use the EC or not, how does it equal out the small states agains the big ones? California gets 55 votes, right? Nevada about 4 or 5? Aren't the bigger population centres getting more votes any way, whether they use the EC or popular?

I think the EC is archaic, but that aside, if it is being used, then the EC votes should be divided in the states by percentages. If 70 percent of Californians vote for Dems, then that approx 37 EC votes, with the remaining 17 going to the Repubs. The winner takes all approach means there is a whole slew of disinfranchised voters IMO..

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Can somebody explain to this dern foreigner whether you use the EC or not, how does it equal out the small states agains the big ones? California gets 55 votes, right? Nevada about 4 or 5? Aren't the bigger population centres getting more votes any way, whether they use the EC or popular?

I think the EC is archaic, but that aside, if it is being used, then the EC votes should be divided in the states by percentages. If 70 percent of Californians vote for Dems, then that approx 37 EC votes, with the remaining 17 going to the Repubs. The winner takes all approach means there is a whole slew of disinfranchised voters IMO..

Again, the President is elected by the states, not the people. We are a union of states. Each individual state divides its electoral votes as it sees fit, per the popular vote. It isn't intended to be equal, it is intended to be fair. That is what the framers wanted.

 

[Dr Grump]

Again, the President is elected by the states, not the people. We are a union of states. Each individual state divides its electoral votes as it sees fit, per the popular vote. It isn't intended to be equal, it is intended to be fair. That is what the framers wanted.

And how is it fair that California gets 55 votes and Nevada 4? Don't get me wrong, I know it is due to the population of each state, so what is the difference between the two? Gore only just got more popular votes than Bush. It wasn't like it was this huge landslide. That aside, more people in your United States wanted Gore as president but didn't get him. How is that fair?

 

[editec]

The electoral college does not grant electors fairly

It grants more electors to smaller states than it should (based on population, I mean) and because of that numerical problem, smaller state voters actually have a larger share in the decision process than they really ought to have.

 

[pegwinn]

Can somebody explain to this dern foreigner whether you use the EC or not, how does it equal out the small states agains the big ones? California gets 55 votes, right? Nevada about 4 or 5? Aren't the bigger population centres getting more votes any way, whether they use the EC or popular?

I think the EC is archaic, but that aside, if it is being used, then the EC votes should be divided in the states by percentages. If 70 percent of Californians vote for Dems, then that approx 37 EC votes, with the remaining 17 going to the Repubs. The winner takes all approach means there is a whole slew of disenfranchised voters IMO..

No one is disenfranchised. In fact, as noted below by Editec, on a purely mathematical level the smaller states are apportioned less voters per electoral vote. Your desire for proportional electoral distribution via percentages is used by a few states. IOW it is a states rights issue as to how the electors are chosen. Quite frankly the population of each state votes because the state says they can. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the state legislatures from simply selecting a slate of electors. It would not be popular, but it would be legal and Constitutional.

The electoral college does not grant electors fairly

It grants more electors to smaller states than it should (based on population, I mean) and because of that numerical problem, smaller state voters actually have a larger share in the decision process than they really ought to have.

The very small states like Wyoming have to have a minimum of three. The EC is equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. Population doesn't figure into it until the minimum threshold is breached.

 

[Gurdari]

You have to believe that each citizen should not have an equal say, otherwise the electoral college is anti-democratic. Just because you live in a large population center you should have less say in who runs the country...

 

[CrimsonWhite]

And how is it fair that California gets 55 votes and Nevada 4? Don't get me wrong, I know it is due to the population of each state, so what is the difference between the two? Gore only just got more popular votes than Bush. It wasn't like it was this huge landslide. That aside, more people in your United States wanted Gore as president but didn't get him. How is that fair?

It isn't fair and it was never intended to be. The Electoral college was actually designed to circumvent the popular vote. The system has worked for over 200 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Luissa]

It isn't fair and it was never intended to be. The Electoral college was actually designed to circumvent the popular vote. The system has worked for over 200 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

People don't understand they really don't want true democracy! And that our founding father's knew this.