Electoral College

[Cosworth]

So you prefer that the East and West coast population elect our president?

You will have to explain how that works because I do not see it.

Here is my view.

I live in State X. I know that in a winner take all (electoral college) my state always votes for party A. I support party B so in this situation, my vote does not end up counting. The only reason I vote now is because a lot of people died so that we could enjoy that right. My vote does not count in the state that I live. The large states are the ones who make the rules now anyhow so I am not sure how that would change.

If we switches to a popular vote, all votes will count equally. The person in Small town, USA will have the same voting power as the folks in Big Town, USA. Candidates will need to focus on everyone and not just certain swing states or big states. All the votes will count and the votes are everywhere. In this day and age, given the instant communication, no one gets left out.

Other local (state) elections are by popular vote. Does that mean the big cities overrun and neglect the small cities? I do not see the threat at a national level.

Also, in nearly every election, the results would not have changed save for 2000.

 

[KCFlyer]

You will have to explain how that works because I do not see it.

Here is my view.

I live in State X. I know that in a winner take all (electoral college) my state always votes for party A. I support party B so in this situation, my vote does not end up counting. The only reason I vote now is because a lot of people died so that we could enjoy that right. My vote does not count in the state that I live. The large states are the ones who make the rules now anyhow so I am not sure how that would change.

If we switches to a popular vote, all votes will count equally. The person in Small town, USA will have the same voting power as the folks in Big Town, USA. Candidates will need to focus on everyone and not just certain swing states or big states. All the votes will count and the votes are everywhere. In this day and age, given the instant communication, no one gets left out.

Other local (state) elections are by popular vote. Does that mean the big cities overrun and neglect the small cities? I do not see the threat at a national level.

Also, in nearly every election, the results would not have changed save for 2000.

Looks like you responded by creating a new thread. But I'll add my two cents anyways. The electoral college is flawed and does not represent the true vote of the country. My reasons for saying this...I live in a state that never makes a difference in electoral vote (Kansas...I think we have 6 votes). But it does make a difference in other statesIn 2004, 37% of the population voted for John Kerry over George Bush. So when my state electors got together, George Bush got all 6 votes, which effectively negated the wishes of 37% of the population. In the state that "won it" for Bush last year (Ohio)...they have 20 votes. 49% of the population voted for Kerry. 51% voted for Bush. The electoral college gave 20 votes for Bush.

What is the problem with have the electors vote based on the results of the popular vote? For example, in Ohio - give Bush 11 votes - give Kerry 9. In Kansas give Bush 4 votes and give Kerry 2. If the electoral college actually reflected the vote of the PEOPLE in a state...rather than "most of the people" in a state, then I think it might be a bit fairer. And...lest you righties think that I'm only doing it because perhaps Bush would not have been re-elected, consider this...In 2004, Bush took 40% of the vote in New York and 45% in California, yet he got zero votes in those states. If the electoral college reflected the will of the people, Bush would have had 12 votes from New York and 24 votes from California.

 

[Bobbie]

The "true vote of the country" is not what they were looking for. Like many aspects of our country, when evaluating them, you must realize that this is NOT A DEMOCRACY. It's a Constitutional Republic and many powers are granted to the STATES and not the people who reside in them.

The number of electors from a state equals the number of House Reps plus the number of Senators (for all states 2). There is no restriction on to whom the electors cast their votes at least not at the federal level. The tradition has been for them to vote "winner take all" for whoever won the popular vote in the state in an election by the people... that's just the TRADITION. There is nothing saying a state cannot proportionally allocate it's electors. The main thing is that this is a STATE ISSUE and has nothing to do with the federal government. The states should proportionally allocate their electors if they want it to be more fair. 48 out of 50 states use winner-take-all and many attempts have been made to change this, to no avail except in Maine and Nebraska. It would have to be done state-by-state. Again, the states can do WHATEVER they want, including eliminating the election altogether and letting the legislatures pick the President and Vice President votes for all the electors (imagine them trying that!). They could also let the electors vote for whomever they want, without regard for anything. STATE ISSUE. STATE ISSUE. STATE ISSUE. The U.S. Government does not have a federal election. We have 51 State and District elections that come together to form the electoral college vote...and each state has their own rules.

It wasn't until the 17th amendment that Senators were actually elected...that was 1913. Before that, they were appointed by the State Legislatures.

Talk to our founding fathers about the electoral college. It's there for a reason and should not be messed with. Good luck getting a constitutional amendment past the state legislatures. It's here to stay and, in my opinion, is quite brilliant.

 

[Seatacus]

You will have to explain how that works because I do not see it.

My point was that if a candidate just needs a simple majority to win he/she would most likely focus their campaign in the states with the most voters. They would probably not spend a lot of time or focusing on the concerns in states with fewer voters. Places like Montana, Wyoming, and New Mexico may become irrelevant in choosing a president. I don't believe this is what the founders wanted.

 

[KCFlyer]

The "true vote of the country" is not what they were looking for. Like many aspects of our country, when evaluating them, you must realize that this is NOT A DEMOCRACY. It's a Constitutional Republic and many powers are granted to the STATES and not the people who reside in them.

The number of electors from a state equals the number of House Reps plus the number of Senators (for all states 2). There is no restriction on to whom the electors cast their votes at least not at the federal level. The tradition has been for them to vote "winner take all" for whoever won the popular vote in the state in an election by the people... that's just the TRADITION. There is nothing saying a state cannot proportionally allocate it's electors. The main thing is that this is a STATE ISSUE and has nothing to do with the federal government. The states should proportionally allocate their electors if they want it to be more fair. 48 out of 50 states use winner-take-all and many attempts have been made to change this, to no avail except in Maine and Nebraska. It would have to be done state-by-state. Again, the states can do WHATEVER they want, including eliminating the election altogether and letting the legislatures pick the President and Vice President votes for all the electors (imagine them trying that!). They could also let the electors vote for whomever they want, without regard for anything. STATE ISSUE. STATE ISSUE. STATE ISSUE. The U.S. Government does not have a federal election. We have 51 State and District elections that come together to form the electoral college vote...and each state has their own rules.

It wasn't until the 17th amendment that Senators were actually elected...that was 1913. Before that, they were appointed by the State Legislatures.

Talk to our founding fathers about the electoral college. It's there for a reason and should not be messed with. Good luck getting a constitutional amendment past the state legislatures. It's here to stay and, in my opinion, is quite brilliant.

I understand now Bobbie....you live in California, which most likely will go for Obama, so your vote for McCain is just a protest vote.

 

[Bobbie]

I understand now Bobbie....you live in California, which most likely will go for Obama, so your vote for McCain is just a protest vote.

And a proud one at that! No American blood on these hands...only that of the terrorists I'm helping to defeat.