Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?

[elvis]

The 2000 election had nothing to do with protecting small states. It was a close race and the votes in a large state, Florida, was mishandled. As the Floridians were trying to straighten it out, the Supreme Court interjected itself into Florida's sovereign affairs. The right-wing members of the court hypocritically ignored the core principle of Federalism, autonomy of state administration over intrastate matters, to mandate a Bush victory in a decision that was so bad that the court itself refused to allow it to have any weight as future precedent. And politics in this country has been poisoned ever since.

The tragedy of the Bush v. Gore election wasn't that the popular vote was ignored. It was that the Supreme Court tampered with Gore's electoral victory.

what, does your seriously fact challenged rant have to do with the topic?

I'm not going to let that pass. I've put some work into studying Bush v. Gore.

Here's a relatively sympathetic yet critical review of the case.

Its relevant because the 2000 election was offered as an example where small states were protected from larger states. But the truth is otherwise. The court just bungled the law to put Bush in office. There's no broader balance of power issue, because Gore properly won the popular vote AND the electoral vote.

They counted the votes later and Gore still lost. Deal with it, jackass.

 

[Trajan]

what, does your seriously fact challenged rant have to do with the topic?

I'm not going to let that pass. I've put some work into studying Bush v. Gore.

Here's a relatively sympathetic yet critical review of the case.

Its relevant because the 2000 election was offered as an example where small states were protected from larger states. But the truth is otherwise. The court just bungled the law to put Bush in office. There's no broader balance of power issue, because Gore properly won the popular vote AND the electoral vote.

They counted the votes later and Gore still lost. Deal with it, jackass.

the NY Times no less.....the holy of the holies...

 

[Kuros]

I'm not going to let that pass. I've put some work into studying Bush v. Gore.

Here's a relatively sympathetic yet critical review of the case.

Its relevant because the 2000 election was offered as an example where small states were protected from larger states. But the truth is otherwise. The court just bungled the law to put Bush in office. There's no broader balance of power issue, because Gore properly won the popular vote AND the electoral vote.

They counted the votes later and Gore still lost. Deal with it, jackass.

the NY Times no less.....the holy of the holies...

Trajan, The NY Times? What on earth are you babbling about? The link is a book by David Strauss, a professor for the University of Chicago.

Elvis, take it up with the guy who thought the 2000 election was a good example of Federalism. What a blunder on his part.

 

[Missourian]

The 2000 election had nothing to do with protecting small states. It was a close race and the votes in a large state, Florida, was mishandled. As the Floridians were trying to straighten it out, the Supreme Court interjected itself into Florida's sovereign affairs. The right-wing members of the court hypocritically ignored the core principle of Federalism, autonomy of state administration over intrastate matters, to mandate a Bush victory in a decision that was so bad that the court itself refused to allow it to have any weight as future precedent. And politics in this country has been poisoned ever since.

The tragedy of the Bush v. Gore election wasn't that the popular vote was ignored. It was that the Supreme Court tampered with Gore's electoral victory.

what, does your seriously fact challenged rant have to do with the topic?

I'm not going to let that pass. I've put some work into studying Bush v. Gore.

Here's a relatively sympathetic yet critical review of the case.

Its relevant because the 2000 election was offered as an example where small states were protected from larger states. But the truth is otherwise. The court just bungled the law to put Bush in office. There's no broader balance of power issue, because Gore properly won the popular vote AND the electoral vote.

But it is a red herring in the context of how and why a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election via the electoral college.

OFFICIALLY Gore lost Florida.

The OFFICIAL vote tally gave Bush the victory in Florida by 537 votes.

You can debate what should have been to your hearts content.

Like you said, had Gore won Florida, he would have won the electoral college and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

 

[elvis]

They counted the votes later and Gore still lost. Deal with it, jackass.

the NY Times no less.....the holy of the holies...

Trajan, The NY Times? What on earth are you babbling about? The link is a book by David Strauss, a professor for the University of Chicago.

Elvis, take it up with the guy who thought the 2000 election was a good example of Federalism. What a blunder on his part.

Yeah. They should have kept recounting until your candidate won. We get it.

 

[Trajan]

They counted the votes later and Gore still lost. Deal with it, jackass.

the NY Times no less.....the holy of the holies...

Trajan, The NY Times? What on earth are you babbling about? The link is a book by David Strauss, a professor for the University of Chicago.

Elvis, take it up with the guy who thought the 2000 election was a good example of Federalism. What a blunder on his part.

dude, you need to focus. I didn't answer you, did I?

 

[Trajan]

the NY Times no less.....the holy of the holies...

Trajan, The NY Times? What on earth are you babbling about? The link is a book by David Strauss, a professor for the University of Chicago.

Elvis, take it up with the guy who thought the 2000 election was a good example of Federalism. What a blunder on his part.

Yeah. They should have kept recounting until your candidate won. We get it.

11 friggin years.....you believe this?

 

[Missourian]

They counted the votes later and Gore still lost. Deal with it, jackass.

the NY Times no less.....the holy of the holies...

Trajan, The NY Times? What on earth are you babbling about? The link is a book by David Strauss, a professor for the University of Chicago.

Elvis, take it up with the guy who thought the 2000 election was a good example of Federalism. What a blunder on his part.

Listen carefully.

The argument is Gore should have won because he won the popular vote, and that the electoral college is outdated.

NOT that he should have won Florida.

If Gore had won Florida WHICH HE DIDN'T...he would have won the Electoral College.

Is that too complex for you?

 

[bigbull]

Liberals have been bitching about the electoral college since 2000 when Gore lost

 

[del]

Nope. The college gives us a little more balance.

A pure democracy tramples the rights of the minorty

Exactly.

Eh. Nobody has proposed gutting any of the substantive or even procedural rights guaranteed by the US Constitution's Bill of Rights and later Amendments. We're talking about balance of powers and checks and balances issues.

you're not too bright, are you?

 

[dcbl]

We'll just go on ahead & leave it how it is.

UNLESS you can get enough support for a Constitutional amendment.

Not that the Constitution hasn't been trashed & rendered damn near useless.

But good luck with that!

 

[martybegan]

the NY Times no less.....the holy of the holies...

Trajan, The NY Times? What on earth are you babbling about? The link is a book by David Strauss, a professor for the University of Chicago.

Elvis, take it up with the guy who thought the 2000 election was a good example of Federalism. What a blunder on his part.

Listen carefully.

The argument is Gore should have won because he won the popular vote, and that the electoral college is outdated.

NOT that he should have won Florida.

If Gore had won Florida WHICH HE DIDN'T...he would have won the Electoral College.

Is that too complex for you?

People also forget that if he had won his own state we wouldn't be having this discussion. When was the last time a politician lost his own state in a presidential race?

 

[martybegan]

IOW, you can't answer the question either.

The small population states get no help from the electoral college for the simple reasons that

1. the 'bonus' electoral votes aren't enough to help them

2. the small states don't vote as a bloc so they end up canceling each other out.

I just did answer it................. I cannot help it if you are too___________, to think like a mature adult and do some very simple critical thinking.

-just because the EC has not been the arbiter of an election often enough for you does not mean its absent would be good, its absence would have an effect downsteam that is NOT present OR verifiable NOW, because the EC is IN PLACE and has been...so far so good?

Ipso facto- you cannot use any elections so far to say see no it won't, because its mere presence in elections past, renders that 'experiment' meaningless. So saying hey there been no use or need of it, is meaningless. ( Skinner? hello)

-The absence of the EC- we can conjecture on what MIGHT be; It would change the the structure of how the election process takes place; from who announces to run, to campaigning , to nomination, to inauguration....

can you you absorb this?

It's bullshit. Everything you said.

Governors are to the states what the president is to the country. Governors are elected by direct popular vote. Is that the WRONG way to do it?

Only because thats how their constitutions are set up. Technically a state could adopt a parlimentary system, with the legislature choosing the governor if it wants. The state constitutions rule the state, the federal one the federal.

Its the right way to do the states, as thier population is smaller and thier consitutents more uniform than the nation as a whole.

 

[dcbl]

trajan, the ny times? What on earth are you babbling about? The link is a book by david strauss, a professor for the university of chicago.

Elvis, take it up with the guy who thought the 2000 election was a good example of federalism. What a blunder on his part.

listen carefully.

The argument is gore should have won because he won the popular vote, and that the electoral college is outdated.

Not that he should have won florida.

If gore had won florida which he didn't...he would have won the electoral college.

Is that too complex for you?

people also forget that if he had won his own state we wouldn't be having this discussion. When was the last time a politician lost his own state in a presidential race?

2000?

 

[Charles_Main]

the NY Times no less.....the holy of the holies...

Trajan, The NY Times? What on earth are you babbling about? The link is a book by David Strauss, a professor for the University of Chicago.

Elvis, take it up with the guy who thought the 2000 election was a good example of Federalism. What a blunder on his part.

Listen carefully.

The argument is Gore should have won because he won the popular vote, and that the electoral college is outdated.

NOT that he should have won Florida.

If Gore had won Florida WHICH HE DIDN'T...he would have won the Electoral College.

Is that too complex for you?

So you are arguing that we should have ignored the Constitution, and the Election Process that had served us well for over 200 Years, and simply Declared Gore the winner?

Please.

You don't like the way it works, Change the law. Bush was not the First President to not win the Popular Vote but still win the Election, and he wont be the last. The Second time around he won by the Largest Margin in some time, and with over 50% of the Vote for the first time since before Clinton.

I am sure the next time the Guy you want to win, wins the College but loses the Popular Vote you will suddenly see the wisdom in our System of Balanced Powers and checks and Balances. We have Eroded States Rights quite enough think you. The EC is one of the last Remnants of what used to be a system that Balanced the Fed with States.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In this thread we have all the liberals insisting we should AMEND the Constitution. In the other thread they are all bemoaning the right wanting to Amend the Constitution. Can we say Hypocrite yet?

 

[Missourian]

Trajan, The NY Times? What on earth are you babbling about? The link is a book by David Strauss, a professor for the University of Chicago.

Elvis, take it up with the guy who thought the 2000 election was a good example of Federalism. What a blunder on his part.

Listen carefully.

The argument is Gore should have won because he won the popular vote, and that the electoral college is outdated.

NOT that he should have won Florida.

If Gore had won Florida WHICH HE DIDN'T...he would have won the Electoral College.

Is that too complex for you?

So you are arguing that we should have ignored the Constitution, and the Election Process that had served us well for over 200 Years, and simply Declared Gore the winner?

Please.

You don't like the way it works, Change the law. Bush was not the First President to not win the Popular Vote but still win the Election, and he wont be the last. The Second time around he won by the Largest Margin in some time, and with over 50% of the Vote for the first time since before Clinton.

I am sure the next time the Guy you want to win, wins the College but loses the Popular Vote you will suddenly see the wisdom in our System of Balanced Powers and checks and Balances. We have Eroded States Rights quite enough think you. The EC is one of the last Remnants of what used to be a system that Balanced the Fed with States.

No Charles...I'm arguing in favor of the Electoral College and federalism.

The point of the post was that the Florida recount was a red herring for the purpose of the topic of winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college.

 

[Kuros]

Trajan, The NY Times? What on earth are you babbling about? The link is a book by David Strauss, a professor for the University of Chicago.

Elvis, take it up with the guy who thought the 2000 election was a good example of Federalism. What a blunder on his part.

Listen carefully.

The argument is Gore should have won because he won the popular vote, and that the electoral college is outdated.

NOT that he should have won Florida.

If Gore had won Florida WHICH HE DIDN'T...he would have won the Electoral College.

Is that too complex for you?

So you are arguing that we should have ignored the Constitution, and the Election Process that had served us well for over 200 Years, and simply Declared Gore the winner?

Please.

You don't like the way it works, Change the law. Bush was not the First President to not win the Popular Vote but still win the Election, and he wont be the last. The Second time around he won by the Largest Margin in some time, and with over 50% of the Vote for the first time since before Clinton.

I am sure the next time the Guy you want to win, wins the College but loses the Popular Vote you will suddenly see the wisdom in our System of Balanced Powers and checks and Balances. We have Eroded States Rights quite enough think you. The EC is one of the last Remnants of what used to be a system that Balanced the Fed with States.

There seem to be some misunderstandings here. I thought Missourian was offering the 2000 election as an example of Federalist principles within the Electoral College at work. He says he did not.

Likewise, let me be clear. My problem with the Electoral College does not stem from the 2000 election, because I can abide a Constitutional result. I think the Constitution might benefit from an Amendment, but the Electoral College is a legitimate system and conservatives understandably defend it.

What I am saying is that the Bush v. Gore decision was gross, and the Supreme Court hijacked the entire electoral process, and went outside the bounds of established jurisprudence and yes, Federalism itself. Thus, I do not believe the 2000 election is a good example of the Electoral College at work, nor is it an example of why the Electoral College should be abolished.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The sort of worst kept secret as to why conservatives are so madly in love with the electoral college method of electing the President?

It suppresses turnout, a condition conservatives are also madly in love with.

 

[Charles_Main]

Listen carefully.

The argument is Gore should have won because he won the popular vote, and that the electoral college is outdated.

NOT that he should have won Florida.

If Gore had won Florida WHICH HE DIDN'T...he would have won the Electoral College.

Is that too complex for you?

So you are arguing that we should have ignored the Constitution, and the Election Process that had served us well for over 200 Years, and simply Declared Gore the winner?

Please.

You don't like the way it works, Change the law. Bush was not the First President to not win the Popular Vote but still win the Election, and he wont be the last. The Second time around he won by the Largest Margin in some time, and with over 50% of the Vote for the first time since before Clinton.

I am sure the next time the Guy you want to win, wins the College but loses the Popular Vote you will suddenly see the wisdom in our System of Balanced Powers and checks and Balances. We have Eroded States Rights quite enough think you. The EC is one of the last Remnants of what used to be a system that Balanced the Fed with States.

I'm pretty sure this wasn't meant for me, Charles...I'm arguing in favor of the Electoral College and federalism.

The point of the post was that the Florida recount was a red herring for the purpose of the topic of winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college.

No Sorry I have a bad Habit of Quoting the wrong person lol.