What needs to be changed in the US electoral process

[Fatty]

Those who want to get rid of the electorate system because the larger states have more electorates, be very careful what you wish for.  With some cities' population exceeding some state's populations, the abolishment of the electorate would reduce those states from having a small influence on the result of elections to no influence.

As it stands it is up to each state to decide its own method for voicing its choice for president, and each state's voice is weighted according to population.  To convert that to nationwide totals is to completely ignore the voice of the smaller states.

Keep in mind that the nationwide totals are nothing more than adding up all votes in the states, they MEAN nothing, the presidential election is and always has been the equivalent of a state by state referendum.

If you want your state to split its electorates by the vote split within that state, each state is free to decide its own method for choosing electorates, by all means start a movement locally  

[LJK Raubvogel]

Fatty, that is the best argument I've heard for keeping the Electoral College. I've always been one of those questioning it. Well done. Now stop, you're ruining the reputation of the FDB's  

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[Fatty]

I'll be glad when all this is done and I can return to drunken idiocy, believe me.  If you happen to catch the FSU-UF game in about 10 days, I'll be the drunk guy in the stands  

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Fatty:
If you happen to catch the FSU-UF game in about 10 days, I'll be the drunk guy in the stands  

Wow.....that really narrows it down   lol


------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[Eagler]

 

Originally posted by Fatty:
I'll be glad when all this is done and I can return to drunken idiocy, believe me.  If you happen to catch the FSU-UF game in about 10 days, I'll be the drunk guy in the stands  

Go Gators !!!

Eagler

[Lance]

That is correct, Fatty.  I can't argue with you that currently smaller states do have a larger influence than they would if the electoral college was done away with.

All I can say about that is "good.  Its about time."

I don't think it is a good thing that small segments of the voter population in relatively small geographic areas have the ability to nullify the votes of the majority of our citizens.

I am not saying there was any fraud involved or anything like that.  I am only stating that in national elections I feel we should speak as a nation of individuals, not states, and that the voice of a small group of voters shouldn't drown out the voice of the majority of America.  Just because small states would lose influence due to change doesn't mean that the change isn't in the best interest of the country as a whole.  

You can bet that congressmen from those small states would dig their heels in if such a change were proposed.  Senate approval would be very difficult.

Gordo

[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 11-08-2000).]

[Fatty]

The same as the blance between the house, and representatives based on total population versus the senate, and representatives based on 2 per state, the electorates are weighted per state so as to give more weight to more populated areas while still keeping a voice to the smaller ones.

I'm quite suprised Gordo, our entire system of government is built around this principle.

[Lance]

:::shrugs:::  Well, firstly, its debatable as to whether the ideal of protecting minority opinion was the purpose behind the electoral college.  From what I've been exposed to, a popular vote was deemed undesirable because our founding fathers felt the will of the people needed to be checked during our nation's formative years and because of the logistical problems a national referendum presented given our geographically vast country and available technology.  Only then did they decide upon the electoral college.  Is that the case?  Did they intend for it to be around for 200+ years?  Would they abolish it now if they were alive?  No one can answer those questions with certainty.  The only question we can find an answer to is whether the electoral college benefits our country at this point in time.

As for the rest of your points, it is really just a difference of opinion as to how loud of a voice the individual in a less populated state should have in relation to an individual in a more populated state in one particular area of government.  I don't know why that surprises you.  People will have differing ideas about this, just as our founding fathers did.  It is exactly the reason why there are two houses of congress.

Basically, my views boil down to this:  I feel very strongly that no individual citizen's vote should hold more weight than another's -- in our one and only national election.  The electoral college was adopted at a time when circumstances dictated a popular vote unworkable and/or undesirable.  As those circumstances no longer exist, the electoral college is no longer necessary.  The legislative process is a different matter entirely, and one where I think it exceedingly important to protect the minority voice.

Now, where's SOB so he can do his armpit fart version of "Highway to the Danger Zone?"  I give us both 50 demerits for lowering ourselves to BBS intellectualism.

Gordo

EDIT:  Gotta give me an extra 50 demerits for this.  Fatty, next plate of wings is on me.

[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Eagler]

Gotta bad feeling about the recount here in FL.
Less than 950 diff and shrinking. Amazing they are finding as many discrepancies in the first count. Or are these "new" ballots.

 

Eagler

[Dnil]

how bout this, real simple.

he who wins the most states wins.  If a tie then popular vote is the tie breaker.  That way each state counts the same.  It would also require the candidates to campaign in each state.  Pretty simple.

------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer

[Eagler]

 

Originally posted by Dnil:
how bout this, real simple.

he who wins the most states wins.  If a tie then popular vote is the tie breaker.  That way each state counts the same.  It would also require the candidates to campaign in each state.  Pretty simple.

Never work as New Yorkers and Californians are smarter than people in Florida and Texans don't you know that. So our states are less than theirs and never be counted the same.  

Eagler

[Fatty]

Gordo, that's just it.  Without the electorate, anyone west of the Michigan, north of Texas, and east of California's vote does not count.  At all.

You think it is coincidence they allowed the House to decide the early elections, not the Senate?  Followed by the electorate, weighted similarly to the house of representatives?  The concern was for rural versus urban areas.  The rural areas will never have a significant voting population, and unless they are given a voice, will be living by a set of laws based completely on a few densely populated areas' needs.

[Lance]

In this election, 193442 votes seperates the candidates.  A few small states that went to Gore would have given Bush the popular vote if the ballots were inversed.  That is a say for individuals in those states.  They can influence an election and decide its outcome during a close election.  

Getting rid of the electoral college doesn't make people in rural areas slaves to the laws made by people in geographically-small-but-densely-populated areas.  You have to leave the legislation rhetoric out of your arguments as something other than the electoral college protects smaller state's rights with regards to law-making.  I am not talking about abolishing the Senate.

Getting rid of the electoral college simply makes every citizen's vote count equally in our one and only national referendum.  An individual vote would no longer take on any more or less significance due to where the individual casting it happens to live.  That's all.

You seem to think that the status quo is acceptable, and that's fine.  People will hold differing viewpoints about things like this.  We'll have to agree to disagree, and you can go on being wrong!  

Gordo

[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Snoopi]

I noticed this thread and thought you might want to read this.

 http://www.capecod.net/~pbaum/vote1.htm

It bring up some valid points about why the electoral college can be bad. It talks about the 1992 elections and whether the outcome would be different. It mainly refers to Ross Perot but it makes valid points in a general sense.

Regards,
Snoopi

[Fatty]

Yes, Gordo, I like the status quo.  I don't want to see candidates' campaigns limited to the NY/NJ/Penn tri-state area with a couple of trips to California to hit LA and San Francisco.