Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on October 05, 2004, 01:45:47 PM
-
by 1 million, perhaps 1.5 million individual votes cast
But........
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
-
Regardless of who wins what, the electoral college is severely outdated. It was designed as a sort of messenger service in the 1700's when gathering the voting results from all the States was just short of a space launch, technically speaking.
-
What is the etymology of the word democracy ?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Regardless of who wins what, the electoral college is severely outdated. It was designed as a sort of messenger service in the 1700's when gathering the voting results from all the States was just short of a space launch, technically speaking.
Yea but how would you feel if ONE STATE controlled who the presidency was because of population density.
How would californians like it if every 4 years some redneck cowboy from texas got elected because texas had the greatest population.....
Or reverse
How would texans feel if a liberal hippie from california got elected every time.
The electoral college is to level the playing field so one states population does not determine the outcome of an election.
But I think Yeager is wrong.....this election is going to be won/lost in a couple court rooms.
-
Demos, but the United States of America is a Republic.
When our Nation was founded the States didn't want a large intrusive Federal government like we have today.
There were many discussions as how to select the president. Some wanted to have the Congress elect the president, some wanted the State legislators to elect the president. Some wanted the president to be directly elected by the popular vote.
In our early history our "democracy" was extremely limited. An oligarchy of wealthy land owning white men thought the general public was too stupid and to easy manipulated to have such a responsibility. In many ways they were right.
They came up with a "College of Electors" similar to how the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals selects a Pope and similar to Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic.
They didn't just make it up out of thin air. It works well and certainly doesn’t need to be tampered with just because some liberals deem it "out dated".
-
Originally posted by Wotan
They didn't just make it up out of thin air. It works well and certainly doesn’t need to be tampered with just because some liberals deem it "out dated".
If Gore had one the electoral votes and lost the popular they'd be saying the exact opposite.
ALL ABOUT BUSH
-
Of course it is.
-
I think getting rid of the electoral college would be a huyge mistake. Remember folks we are the United "STATES" of America, if we ditch it then every election would be determined by the big cities and all others would be left behind. Hell I live damn close to NYC and I sure as hell don't want to see that.
-
Exactly, those in rural low density areas will be ignored as politicians simply campaign within the large population centers.
This good for liberals but bad for America.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Exactly, those in rural low density areas will be ignored as politicians simply campaign within the large population centers.
Why not? We're paying for everything.
-
never say this but..
you are wrong sir
Bush will win both
-
Originally posted by Wotan
They came up with a "College of Electors" similar to how the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals selects a Pope
They originally had regular elections but there was too much violence.
-
try this map from a right wing rag :)
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/election-test-fl,0,1851284.flash?coll=la-home-headlines
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Why not? We're paying for everything.
The dirty secret... those that support the electoral college are socialists. ;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
try this map from a right wing rag :)
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/election-test-fl,0,1851284.flash?coll=la-home-headlines
208 electoral votes still up for grabs...
landslide?
-
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
-
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!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hehe.
-
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".
(http://dotdoubledot.com/img/stuff/upforgrabs.jpg)
-
this is no Undecided
did you click on the state?
-
"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
-
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%
-
those undecided LOL
yes - ignore them, if they ain't got it by now, they never will :)
-
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
-
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.
-
Each persons vote should count the same. That is precisely why the rural areas must be protected from the cities, just as the founders knew.
-
Liz, that was not the original purpose of the EC. The EC was designed to refect the votes of their state's citizens and convey that to the capitol. Remember, there was no telegraph, radio or telephone in 1776. They were couriers.
-
Electoral College serves its Purpose (http://piercecollege.edu/title3/aln/elect04/why.html)
...In 1956 a Republican proposal to abolish the Electoral College was defeated after a vigorous defense by Sen. John F. Kennedy. He declared that "direct election would break down the federal system under which most states entered the union, which provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that no area or group shall obtain too much power."
Of particular concern at the time was that the South could impose a racist demagogue on the country by voting in overwhelming numbers for that regional candidate. Kennedy observed that under the Electoral College, no candidate can be elected president who does not have substantial support in every region of the country.....
......Minorities also are sure to oppose the abolition of the Electoral College. As Vemon Jordan, president of the Urban League, has observed, "Take away the Electoral College and the importance of being black melts away. Blacks, instead of being crucial to victory in major states, simply become 10 percent of the total electorate, with reduced impact,"....
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Each persons vote should count the same. That is precisely why the rural areas must be protected from the cities, just as the founders knew.
Yet... they don't count the same.
-
Sorry, RPM, it was required by the Southern states as prerequisite to agreeing to the constitution to preserve their power as rural states.
-
Come on Sandman, you are a moderately smart guy. You know what "weighted" means and why it is relevant.
-
Wow, I must have had some really bad textbooks and teachers then. Sherman, set the Wayback Machine!
-
remove the EC and candidates will only campaign in 10 states max. Having california, new york and yes texas decide whats best for a UNION OF STATES is inviting a whole world of crap we dont need. Tell the whole middle of the country, the whole south of the country and most of the west that its vote doesnt matter...that they have no voice and see how long this "union" lasts.
Remember no taxation without representation?
Each state should get 1 EC vote. Just would have to figure out a tie breaker when we have even number of votes. I'm thinking pig wrestling.
-
There is no taxation without representation. All taxation is under the control of Congress. No EC there.
-
Do you think the states that no longer matter will feel represented? Do you think their congressmen will matter after they have no say so?
-
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. 1 person, 1 vote. It doesn't matter where you live when you cast it. States are not gerrymandered.
-
It is all about states rights. Even when the country was formed, the little pissant states up in the NE had more people than states in the South. A persons vote in a dense environment has more impact, as it relates to the right of the states influence in a national government, than does someone in a rural area.
-
we are a union of states. The big population states will rule over all the others. Thats bad juju.
-
Originally posted by Dnil
we are a union of states. The big population states will rule over all the others. Thats bad juju.
That's exactly how the EC works right now Drill. A vote in Garwood, Idaho should have the same power that a vote in New York City, New York does. Right now it does not. This "all or nothing" casting of electoral votes does not reflect the view of the population. In fact, it strips you of your voice.
-
you are advocating a straight popular vote? am I wrong? States would have even less of a say so with that option. Read my original plan, each state gets 1 vote.
-
RPM, there is plentiful discussion available in books and on the web that purports that a vote in one state has more/less value than a vote in another state. They even have nifty equations to prove it.
-
Yes, I am advocating a straight popular vote for the only election that does not have one. Like I said, I don't see it changing anytime soon. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
-
Originally posted by Dnil
you are advocating a straight popular vote? am I wrong? States would have even less of a say so with that option. Read my original plan, each state gets 1 vote.
dems would never go for that
(http://www.bushcountry.org/bushcountry-store/images/bc_poster.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Come on Sandman, you are a moderately smart guy. You know what "weighted" means and why it is relevant.
Yeah... it means my vote weighs less than some ****stick in Wyoming.
-
"I don't understand the point you are trying to make. 1 person, 1 vote. It doesn't matter where you live when you cast it. States are not gerrymandered."
It isn't the President's job to directly represent the people (that is what the House of Representatives is for), it is his job to make government work--by definition he is the executive branch. Therefore, choosing the President is based on all facets of our legislative branch, not just one side of it. The Electoral system is derived from the number of votes a State gets from its congressmen. Since the Senate represents STATES while the House represents the population--both the states AND the people choose the president....in theory. Hence the EC system.
The Electoral College system is every bit as based on population as our Congress is, and I don't see anyone claiming that the Senate needs to be abolished (well 100 years ago there were such comments but not today). Take away each state's natural equality as states--their two votes from their senators--and each state has electoral votes in proportion to their population.
The problem as I see it is the way electoral votes are awarded. I figure that each state's first two votes--the ones based on their senators--should vote according to the wishes of the entire state (the winner of the state gets them). Beyond that it should ideally be properly proportional to how the popular votes fell.
J_A_B
-
we had in France something similar to the EC (albeit my country is not made of states) it sucked greatly but again this is not a federal country (we have "région" instead).
I would be pissed to see the enphasys put on some particuliar area because they are small and sucked so much they completly missed the industrial revolution.
I guess you are first citizen of a states then citizen of the USA whereas in France whatever place you are born you are french and should have the same rights whatever is your living place.
-
Well it used to be like that Straffo. Folks were "Virginians, Georgians etc..."
The traitor Lincoln along with many others imposed their ever growing Federal power on the States. Instead of standing up like men and resisting our State representatives saw an opportunity to enhance their own importance by going along.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Exactly, those in rural low density areas will be ignored as politicians simply campaign within the large population centers.
This good for liberals but bad for America.
Isn't that already what's going on? The "real" campaining only happening in several "key" states, and the rest getting only a few ads here and there?
-
No their a difference between campaigning in "key" or "battleground states" and just pandering to urbanites in the large population centers.
-
no point in pandering to the apartment dwelling, taxi riders... they are so out of touch whith middle America that their vote is like the black vote of teachers vote... it is a given and not worth either parties time.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Yeah... it means my vote weighs less than some ****stick in Wyoming.
No it means your vote is equal to everyone in YOUR state. That is all you need to worry about. YOUR state. Not mine not your neighbors but YOUR state.
BTW who is votemaster? and did they see the same debate I did? "John Edwards won the vice-presidential debate 41% to 28% " a tie maybe but no way in hell EITHER actually won outright.
-
That's right Mighty.
If folks spent their political energy getting their local and state governments straight rather then running to the Federal Government then the whole Presidential nonsense would be all but meaningless.
The power of our "Democracy" originally was founded in our local and state governments. This was by design.
Damn Lincoln...