Electorial College explained....

[Udie]

 

 here's a map of the USA, it breaks down the counties that went for either Bush or Gore, county by county.  Blue is Gore, Red is Bush......  I think it speaks for itself.


Udie

[Wanker]

LOL, now we're basing our presidency on who won the most real estate?

I guess Montana should change their slogan to "Big Vote" country.  

[Dowding]

lol! Great way to run a democracy - who has the most area wins!

Do those calculations use exact area data? Those mountainous areas are going to be key in the election. Perhaps if Bush built a huge mountain in every state and filled it with his supporters, it would be even more clear cut? He could completely flatten Gore counties and use the soil for more Bush Mountains!    

Please tell me you aren't serious Udie?    



[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-13-2000).]

[Fatty]

What Udie is talking about is the fact we are as designed a nation of states, and each state has a voice in the election of the President.

The danger forseen by our founders was for states with completely different needs and wants to be held to the whim of the few larger states.  Dowding has an excuse, you should know this banana.

[Kieren]

Look a little closer, gents. Notice that the Democrats are wanting recounts not for the whole state, just the Democratic strongholds. Still think they want a "fair and accurate count, so the will of the people will be known"?

The point is valid that eliminating the electoral nullifies the vast majority of the country's votes. Only population centers will matter, and they will always be Democratic strongholds. Voila! Elections are now rendered as mere formalities, the results will be known. The only real election will be during the primary.

[1776]

Interesting map.  Shows just where 99% of the protected class lives!!!

[Cobra]

Dowding,
House of Lords...need I say less.  The Peerage Acts of 1958 and 1963 speak for themselves.  

In other words, any government that allows one house of its legislative branch to be awarded their seat by virtue of heredity cannot be entirely representative of the people. And these two acts granted (1958) baronies for life without limit on numbers and (1963) allowed for all heredity peeresses to be members of the House.

I am confused on the House of Lords actual role these days, but as best as I can determine they still have the ability to act as a veto type of body on any legislation passed by the House of Commons.  I do know that legislation was passed by the Liberal Party to curtail this power in 1911 and further in 1949.

Now I understand the the House of Lords Act of 1999 is trying to reform this "representative" body, so maybe their is hope for the Brits yet!

I guess my point is this....all of our backyards need a little cleaning.

Cobra

[Wanker]

Kieren,

If your argument was valid, then how could any of the popular Republican presidents of the past have been elected? Where was the "Liberal Conspiracy" when Reagan was President? Or Bush(the elder), or the Trickster?

If you guys don't agree with the right of every individual to one vote, no matter where they live, then just come out and say so.

Does John Q Public that lives in New York City have the right to have his vote count the same as his brother Paul H Public, who lives in a small farming community in Nebraska? I believe they should be equal.

I live in a state that has only 10 electoral votes. My state is almost never talked about during a presidential election, because our electoral votes mean next to nothing, compared to big states like Texas or California. But I go and vote every four years, because I believe in the process.



[This message has been edited by banana (edited 11-13-2000).]

[Fatty]

banana, if the New York race is closer than the Nebraska race, the New York vote counts more.  If Nebraska is closer, then the vote cast in Nebraska is "more valuable" as it would be.

There were approximately 648,000 total for president in Nebraksa, for the 5 electoral votes.

There were over 6 million in New York, for the 33 electoral votes there.

Without an electoral college are you telling me any politician will ever care about what Nebraska needs again?  As it is now they care little, if the election was on popular vote only it would be a waste of resources to even advertise in Nebraska, yet I think most will agree regardless of policy the needs of Nebraska are quite different from New York.

[Gunthr]

banana, you remind me of a lot of the kids who live in the inner city and don't really know where milk comes from. (the grocery store?) Please don't take that the wrong way. The electoral colllege has been there all along, doing its work in the background even though many of us were kind of unaware of it's importance.

The states have a right to exist, and a right to maintain their identity separate from the Federal Government. The electoral vote helps insure that the needs of your state won't be overlooked or drowned out by the needs of the people in major cities, who are so alike and so populous that they become, in effect, the people that the politicians will try to please and serve.

Without it, your federal government will become more and more unlike you, will have different values, different priorities. The governor of your state will have little influence on the President. Is that what you want?

Gunthr

[Wanker]

Gunthr, as a person who grew up on a farm as a kid, I'll ignore that cheap shot.   Btw, I now live in a city of 72,000 people.

I must be stating my position poorly. Let me try again...I do see the logic in why the electoral college is needed. I agree with you guys. On the other hand, I'm not one of these "states rights" fanatics. I consider myself an American first, and a Minnesotan second. That's why I don't have a problem with considering the popular vote a viable way to decide a presidential election. I look at myself as one of 250 million Americans, not as just one of 4 million Minnesotans.

I don't see how, in this day and age of advanced communications, that even if all the presidential candidates ignored me and my state, that I would not know what their stands are on each issue. There's TV, the newspaper, the internet, the radio. I've been voting since 1984 and not once have I not known the issues, even though I've never been to a live presidential pep rally.

Look, I'm not a flaming liberal. I'm a thinking person that ponders every issue. I don't just cowtow to the party line. For the record, I am:

-Pro-Life
-in favor of the death penalty
-a tree hugger and whale saver
-for gun control
A supporter of our public schools
-disgusted with the way Clinton abused his power, and at the fact that he lied about it to our face.

Maybe this question needs to be asked: Should we each be considered as individuals in a country, or should we just be considered members of a state? Personally, I consider myself an American, and to this American, it looks like more Americans wanted Gore to be president.

[LJK Raubvogel]

I think middle-of-the-road solution would work well. Do away with the "winner take all" electoral votes in each state. Divide the votes between Congressional districts, or something like that. Someway to delineate the wishes of a major population center from the rest of the state. For instance, I'm pretty sure that the ideals and needs of L.A. are not indicative of the whole of California, but they end up being represented that way. It would still have to be weighted according to population, but instead of L.A. deciding the outcome of all 55 Cali votes, maybe it would only decide 25. Just an idea.

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

[Dnil]

Its the United States of America banana, we are made up of states, thats what we were founded upon.  


Being an American first is right, but  America is made up of a union of states.  In my opinion your state doesnt have enough sway in the country's direction, I believe they should all equally count the same.  Its a core principal.

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

[miko2d]

 banana,
 Since every state gets electoral votes proportionately to it's population, plus two votes, the small states are overrepresented.
 You get 2 free electors per 8 and we in NY get 2 per 31!

LJK Raubvogel:
 If you do not like "winner take all" approach, make it different in Hawaii. It is none of your business how we assign our electors in NY!
 You can suggest abandoning the electoral college altogether in the federal presidential election, but as long as you are a resident of of Hawaii, you cannot demand to change the state laws in 49 other states.

 For you information, some states have different scheme of allocating their electors.

miko

[Dowding]

Cobra - my post was not a judgement of the American electoral system. I simply took Udie's post to mean that Bush should win because most of the map is 'red'.

I didn't really read the topic heading and misunderstood what he was getting at (I understand now).

As for the House of Lords - you won't get any argument from me on its continued existence. Clear in the understanding of the need for a democracy to have two 'Houses', I'm in favour of the creation of an elected body where 'accidents of birth' are not part of the requirement. But the debate is how to replace it with something that would actually function in a similar capacity to the Lords.

You conservatives would approve of their latest action though - they just threw out legislation that would lower the age of consent for homosexual sex from 18 y/o to 16. On its third attempt to get passed.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-13-2000).]