Author Topic: Electoral College ??? (Read 768 times)

BlueJ1 · « **on:** November 02, 2004, 08:17:56 PM »

Being unable to vote as of my age I still have a question about the electoral college. Being as it was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It was believed that this would prevent us uneduacated common folk from making a large mistake and electing the wrong candidate for office. Being 2004, soon to be 2005, being 217 years later, I like to believe that we are somewhat higher educated and can choose on our own. Yes, I understand and have expericenced the stupidity of humans, yes including myself. I would like to be optimistic and say that even in our low points we can still come to a general agreement.

Now with that said I was wondering what is the point of the electoral college today ?

I live in New York, largely Democratic, Bush has no chance of winning here. Kerry won NY as I finished this sentence. Dispite my opinions IF I voted for Bush my vote would be pointless considering Kerry had won NY before voting had begun.

Tried to make sense sorry if I failed, hard to write what I am thinking. Please feel free, which I imagine some of you will, to prove me wrong. I am just trying to figure out what the point of voting would be if I had already lost.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:21:28 PM »

I think it's probably time to come up with another solution other than the Electoral College. It's archaic and unnecessary. In addition to that, you are basically throwing away the votes of persons in certain states. In today's day and age I see no reason why we couldn't go with a popular vote.

RTStuka · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:21:37 PM »

Well said Blue, in fact if you look at the hard numbers, Bush is still winning in NY, that may change and probably will by the end. I just like to believe that would could get rid of the Electoral College and let the popular vote decide the president, only that does truly every vote count. We would no longer have to wait and wait well they call the states, we can simply watch the votes come in and whoever has the most wins.

rpm · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:29:38 PM »

You would have had a much better chance of eliminating the EC before the 2000 elections. Republicans will fight tooth and nail to keep it now.
It's old, it's antiquated, it's un-american and time for it to go.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:37:49 PM »

Quote

Critics condemn the system as an 18th century anachronism. Among its foes: investment banker Sanford R. Robertson, a partner in Francisco Partners, a San Francisco leveraged buyout firm. ''Just a few thousand votes can swing the Electoral College one way or another,'' he says. ''Maybe this is the event that could finally force its elimination.''

Indeed, there have been periodic crusades to abolish the college. But they failed to win much support from many states. And for good reason: If the Electoral College were abolished, candidates would have little incentive to visit less populated states. Nominees would concentrate on big cities and population states, mainly in the Northeast and California. ''Their time would be better spent in places like Brooklyn,'' says Senator Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.). As a result, the college ''keeps us from having a regional Presidency,'' says Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.).

It also has strong backing from powerful interests such as farmers and gun-rights groups. Because of their concentration in such less populated, rural places, it magnifies their power in swing states like Iowa and Tennessee. What's more, both parties back the Electoral College. Because of the winner-take-all-aspect of almost every state's electoral votes, third parties don't stand a chance. In 1992, Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote but did not get a single electoral vote.

I think it serves a great purpose. A canidate could basically win by promising california and New York all sorts of good things completly ignoring the rest of the states.

I'm not saying it doesnt have it's draw backs but it gives voters from Idaho just as much "voting power" as voters from Rhode Island.

other pro's:

Sikboy · « **Reply #5 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:38:32 PM »

The Electoral College would be fought for, and mostly by Republicans. But not just because of the 2000 Election.

It comes down to a State's rights/State Sovereignty issue.

By giving the States control over how the allocate their EC votes, they force the Candidates to pander to the States, as opposed to directly to the People.

We have to remember that while we Generally see ourselves as a single nation, that we are in fact 50 States that form a nation.

Tomorrow, in a fit of sobriety, I'll try to find a Supreme Court Justice who can express this better than I can.

-Sik

jEEZY · « **Reply #6 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:44:13 PM »

Quote

we are in fact 50 States that form a nation

Not quite....U.S. Const. Art. IV, cl 2.

CavemanJ · « **Reply #7 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:45:43 PM »

I'd like to see it changed to lose the 'winner take all' bit. If candidate A gets 60% of the popular vote in a state, and candidate B gets 40%, then A should get 60% of the electoral votes from that state, and B should get 40% of'em.

But I would imagine the 2 big parties would vehemently fight against something like this because then libs/independents might actually take a few electoral votes.

jEEZY · « **Reply #8 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:49:24 PM »

I heard O'Connor talk about the electoral college. She said the problem really is that all of the states would have to agree to change the system--the small states would obviously balk at this for reasons discussed above. She mentioned her home state Arizona.

sorry 3/4 would have to agree.

rpm · « **Reply #9 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:51:07 PM »

Quote

If the Electoral College were abolished, candidates would have little incentive to visit less populated states. Nominees would concentrate on big cities and population states, mainly in the Northeast and California.

That may have been true in 1904. To steal an old line "We've come a long way, Baby!" Television and the internet quash that arguement. America is interwoven now. Presidential candidates pander more to groups than states, unless those states are "swing". This leaves the majority of the states to form their opinion from....wait for it....

television and the internet.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #10 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:54:34 PM »

Increasing the resolution of electorial votes might help. In other words, a state might have the same number of electorial votes, but the could be subdevided( i.e., some parts of the state go one party, another part goes with another party).

jEEZY · « **Reply #11 on:** November 02, 2004, 08:55:46 PM »

Nebraska and Maine theoretically split votes based on house districts

CavemanJ · « **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2004, 09:01:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jEEZY
Nebraska and Maine theoretically split votes based on house districts

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Either do the electoral vote by district (whoever carries the district gets that vote) to split'em, or just split'em outright based on the % of the popular vote.

Sikboy · « **Reply #13 on:** November 02, 2004, 09:02:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jEEZY
Not quite....U.S. Const. Art. IV, cl 2.

And this dissolves dual sovereignty how?

[edit] it would help if I had a Section to look at

-Sik

jEEZY · « **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2004, 09:07:11 PM »

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Section 2