Author Topic: sKerry will win "the popular vote" (Read 1408 times)

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #15 on:** October 05, 2004, 05:45:25 PM »

The Electoral College must GO!

The best evidence...after the Soviet Union and Saddam fell, did we suggest that their democracies have an Electoral College? Nope.

The best alternatives are "Approval Voting" or "Instant Run-off Voting". These voting systems can accomodate any number of candidates (no spoilers!), yet in just one round of voting choose the candidate with the most support.

MRPLUTO

Eagler · « **Reply #16 on:** October 05, 2004, 06:16:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
208 electoral votes still up for grabs...

landslide?

??

hover over the state and it shows the last poll data, click to fill in the state accordingly
the Bush lead is huge

and yes

LANDSLIDE BUSH!!

rpm · « **Reply #17 on:** October 05, 2004, 06:19:39 PM »

I think you guys don't understand how the electoral college works. Each state does not have the same number of votes. It is directly tied to population. Saying that removing it would cost rural areas votes doesn't wash. It would count just as much as a city vote. 1 person, 1 vote. The way it is now more closely resembles the nomination process of the parties than an open election.

john9001 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 05, 2004, 06:56:44 PM »

the electoral college worked fine for 200 years, it was only after algore lost that the liberals now say it is a "bad thing".

be carefull what you ask for , you just might get it.

________________

A) the electoral college protects the votes of small states (population)

B) the electoral college is part of the constitution.

C) the constitution can only be changed by a constitution amendment.

D)it takes a majority of states to pass a amendment.

E) there are more small states(pop) than big states.

therefore: the only way you can get rid of the electoral college is to move to canada.

Dnil · « **Reply #19 on:** October 05, 2004, 06:56:52 PM »

remove the electoral college and get ready for the 2nd civil war. States as it is dont have enough say, imagine 45 states all the sudden not counting at all.

Nash · « **Reply #20 on:** October 05, 2004, 07:01:56 PM »

This came up in a big way during the last election...

From what I remember, the rules are set up such that the odds of getting this changed is tantamount to Rush Limbaugh completing ten consecutive back flips.

Mini D · « **Reply #21 on:** October 05, 2004, 07:10:03 PM »

During Hillary's "freshman" speech she said the first thing she was going to spearhead was "GETTING RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!" There was litteraly dead silence after she said it (with a raised voice at that). She cleared her throat and I believe that was the last she ever mentioned it.

Nash · « **Reply #22 on:** October 05, 2004, 07:11:30 PM »

Hehe.

Sandman · « **Reply #23 on:** October 05, 2004, 07:20:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
??

hover over the state and it shows the last poll data, click to fill in the state accordingly
the Bush lead is huge

and yes

LANDSLIDE BUSH!!

Only if you ignore the "undecided".

Eagler · « **Reply #24 on:** October 05, 2004, 07:38:32 PM »

this is no Undecided

did you click on the state?

J_A_B · « **Reply #25 on:** October 05, 2004, 07:42:56 PM »

"It is directly tied to population. Saying that removing it would cost rural areas votes doesn't wash. It would count just as much as a city vote. 1 person, 1 vote. "

Not entirely wrong, but not entirely right either. States (and DC) are capped at a minimum of 3 electoral votes, so proportionally a state like Delaware has more electoral votes per person than someplace like California.

Here's why the electoral system is important:

Without the electoral system, you're left with some rather sobering problems. Such as:

Los Angeles county would wield more election power than Wyoming, Washington DC, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and New Hampshire combined.

Would it really be a good thing for the republic to concentrate so much power into such a small area? Pesonally, I don't think so. The electoral system isn't perfect--but in a country the size of the US, neither is a system of direct national election.

J_A_B

Sandman · « **Reply #26 on:** October 05, 2004, 07:44:52 PM »

Undecided:

Washington 7%
Oregon 8%
Nevada 5%
New Mexico 6%
Minnesota 6%
Iowa 4%
Missouri 6%
Arkansas 5%
Louisiana 7%
Michigan 9%
Ohio 3%
Tennessee 6%
Pennsylvania 6%
West Virginia 4%
Virginia 8%
Florida 5%
New Hampshire 6%
Maine 15%
New Jersey 6%

Eagler · « **Reply #27 on:** October 05, 2004, 07:56:44 PM »

those undecided LOL

yes - ignore them, if they ain't got it by now, they never will

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #28 on:** October 05, 2004, 09:50:51 PM »

My vote should count no more or less than anyone else's. The Electoral College gives a voter in a state with a small population much more voting power than a voter from a large state.

Now, if there were just a couple of large states that could dominate the whole country, that would be bad. That was the situation in early America. But no longer; a candidate could win the ten largest states and still wouldn't have enough electoral votes to win. With direct elections, it would actually be harder to win by just doing well in the most populous states, since it wouldn't be a winner-take-all arrangement that states (exception: Maine) have opted for.

Why should any group of people get special voting power? One person, one equal vote. If you disagree, I'd like to hear why someone's vote should count more or less than mine. Why are they more or less deserving of equal voting power?

MRPLUTO

rpm · « **Reply #29 on:** October 05, 2004, 10:00:50 PM »

My feelings exactly. I have felt this way about the EC for many, many years. NOT just since the last election as some have insinuated. In the most important election your vote has the power taken away from it. Do I think it will change any time soon? No. But that does not mean it does not need change. When the electoral vote does not reflect the popular vote, that's a huge red flag.