The Electorial College

[ihopehefails]

The one advantage to the electorial college as it was originally done was that it was the state governments themselves that picked the president. This always made the federal government something that represented the state's interest and was one more thing that kept the state governments in the loop of the entire system.

Discuss...

 

[rightwinger]

Can't trust the people can we?

 

[LuckyDan]

Can't trust the people can we?

Has nothing to do with distrusting "the people." The EC keeps one or two regions from dominating the entire electorate and helps build a national consensus.

That it kept that crazy son of a bitch Al Gore out of the White House was just gravy.

 

[Dr Grump]

EC is redundant....

 

[jillian]

it also votes land and not people.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It usually puts an end to squablling in close races. Not always, as 2000 showed, but it was a big help in 1960 and 1968, and also in 1992. It amplifies rather than interferes with the will of the people.

 

[The T]

Can't trust the people can we?

Has nothing to do with distrusting "the people." The EC keeps one or two regions from dominating the entire electorate and helps build a national consensus.

That it kept that crazy son of a bitch Al Gore out of the White House was just gravy.

100% Correct. It staves off a PURE Democracy, which can be summed up as mob RULE, and a step or two away from pure anarchy.

The EC ensures this never happens, and the PEOPLE have a voice from far and wide, and not one of just a FEW elect taint the process to the point where THEY solely RULE.

 

[Annie]

EC is redundant....

Says he who hasn't a coal in the fire. Pffft.

 

[jillian]

It usually puts an end to squablling in close races. Not always, as 2000 showed, but it was a big help in 1960 and 1968, and also in 1992. It amplifies rather than interferes with the will of the people.

if that were the case then 2000 would have turned out differently. no?

 

[LuckyDan]

It usually puts an end to squablling in close races. Not always, as 2000 showed, but it was a big help in 1960 and 1968, and also in 1992. It amplifies rather than interferes with the will of the people.

if that were the case then 2000 would have turned out differently. no?

If Gore had been able to win his home state, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It usually puts an end to squablling in close races. Not always, as 2000 showed, but it was a big help in 1960 and 1968, and also in 1992. It amplifies rather than interferes with the will of the people.

if that were the case then 2000 would have turned out differently. no?

2000 was an irreparable farce. The EC couldn't fix it, but I think it prevented it from getting a lot worse.

 

[The T]

It usually puts an end to squablling in close races. Not always, as 2000 showed, but it was a big help in 1960 and 1968, and also in 1992. It amplifies rather than interferes with the will of the people.

if that were the case then 2000 would have turned out differently. no?

Whjat Florida 200 was about was a ROUGE State Court chaning the rules in mid-stream. That was stopped.

 

[Dr Grump]

Can't trust the people can we?

Has nothing to do with distrusting "the people." The EC keeps one or two regions from dominating the entire electorate and helps build a national consensus.

That it kept that crazy son of a bitch Al Gore out of the White House was just gravy.

100% Correct. It staves off a PURE Democracy, which can be summed up as mob RULE, and a step or two away from pure anarchy.

The EC ensures this never happens, and the PEOPLE have a voice from far and wide, and not one of just a FEW elect taint the process to the point where THEY solely RULE.

Right. So the 3 and 4 votes in Alaska and Hawaii are gonna really empower those folks in those states compared the 55 votes California has....

 

[Dr Grump]

It usually puts an end to squablling in close races. Not always, as 2000 showed, but it was a big help in 1960 and 1968, and also in 1992. It amplifies rather than interferes with the will of the people.

if that were the case then 2000 would have turned out differently. no?

Whjat Florida 200 was about was a ROUGE State Court chaning the rules in mid-stream. That was stopped.

I thought all that Rouge state court was trying to do was empower people so that their vote mattered...

 

[jillian]

It usually puts an end to squablling in close races. Not always, as 2000 showed, but it was a big help in 1960 and 1968, and also in 1992. It amplifies rather than interferes with the will of the people.

if that were the case then 2000 would have turned out differently. no?

2000 was an irreparable farce. The EC couldn't fix it, but I think it prevented it from getting a lot worse.

how did it keep it from getting worse when the person who won the popular vote didn't get the presidency and the supreme court appointed the other guy... in a total and complete departure from all federal law at the time...with a decision that for the first time ever was specifically held to have no value as precedent.

 

[jillian]

It usually puts an end to squablling in close races. Not always, as 2000 showed, but it was a big help in 1960 and 1968, and also in 1992. It amplifies rather than interferes with the will of the people.

if that were the case then 2000 would have turned out differently. no?

Whjat Florida 200 was about was a ROUGE State Court chaning the rules in mid-stream. That was stopped.

it would be really, really nice if you actually knew what you were talking about.

prior to Bush v Gore (and currently since Bush v Gore has no value as precedent according to the USSC decision) the highest court of a state is the final arbiter of state election law.

beyond that, i'm not going to go into the potlics of it since i've only ever met one really honest republican on the issue... an attorney who said, "j, the secy of state put in the fix. then the state court put in its fix. and the supreme court put in a bigger fix".

i can accept that, btw... since it's an honest assessment.

 

[VaYank5150]

The one advantage to the electorial college as it was originally done was that it was the state governments themselves that picked the president. This always made the federal government something that represented the state's interest and was one more thing that kept the state governments in the loop of the entire system.

Discuss...

DId you REALLY just call it the "electorial" college?

 

[veritas]

The one advantage to the electorial college as it was originally done was that it was the state governments themselves that picked the president. This always made the federal government something that represented the state's interest and was one more thing that kept the state governments in the loop of the entire system.

Discuss...

DId you REALLY just call it the "electorial" college?

THAT and apostrophe misuse........then the rest of the righties typo-d their little asses off.....or don't know how to spell.......

 

[kyzr]

how did it keep it from getting worse when the person who won the popular vote didn't get the presidency and the supreme court appointed the other guy... in a total and complete departure from all federal law at the time...with a decision that for the first time ever was specifically held to have no value as precedent.

Oh fer chrissake. Let me explain it to you. Person-A won big states by a large popular vote margin, person-B won more states by a close margin. If you add up the popular votes and the electoral votes, person-B won more electoral votes and won the election. Yet person-A had more popular votes.

You see, you add up two tallys per state, the EVs and the popular votes. Only the EVs matter. Thats the way it always was, and the way it will be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can't trust the people can we?

Has nothing to do with distrusting "the people." The EC keeps one or two regions from dominating the entire electorate and helps build a national consensus.

That it kept that crazy son of a bitch Al Gore out of the White House was just gravy.

The electoral college does no such thing. The guy who gets the popular vote almost always wins anyway.

The electoral college only means that if you're in a state where the party you usually oppose is dominant, your vote will usually count for ZERO. And if you're from a state that doesn't qualify as a 'battleground' the candidates will probably ignore you.

What is good about that?