Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?

[NYcarbineer]

Here it is again...


Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

Ok...here you go.


The 2000 Presidential Election.

Bush.............................Gore
--------------------------------

Montana 3.....................D.C. 2
North Dakota 3...............Vermont 3
South Dakota 3...............Delaware 3
Wyoming 3.....................Rhode Island 4
Alaska 3.........................Maine 4
Idaho 4..........................Hawaii 4
Nevada 4........................New Mexico 5
New Hampshire................Iowa 7
Utah 5...........................Oregon 7
Nebraska 5.....................Connecticut 8
West Virginia 5................Maryland 10
Kansas 6........................Minnesota 10
Arkansas 6......................Wisconsin 11
Alabama 7......................Washington 11
Arizona 8.......................Massachusetts 12
Colorado 8......................New Jersey 15
Oklahoma 8.....................Michigan 18
Kentucky 8.....................Illinois 22
South Carolina 8..............Pennsylvania 23
Mississippi 9....................New York 33
Louisiana 9.....................California 54
Missouri 11
Tennessee 11
Indiana 12
Georgia 13
Virginia 13
North Carolina 14
Ohio 21
Florida 25
Texas 32




Does this help make it more clear?

See how the Bush states are only up to 9 while the Gore states have climbed all the way to 33 and 54 electoral votes...

Gore won the popular vote...but not the electoral college.

Now here is where it come right back to federalism and protecting the small states.

The Electoral College divides electoral votes by the number of U.S. Representatives plus Senators each state is allocated.

538 electoral votes, 100 for each Senator and 435 for the Representatives plus 3 for DC via the 23rd Amendment.


That's how the electoral college protects small less populous states from larger more populous states.[/QUOTE]

Protects the smaller states from what? The electoral college reverses the popular vote outcome once every 100 years.

So what?

 

[Missourian]

In a similar vein, here is another you ignored:

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.

It suppresses turnout because in most states you can figure out who's going to win, and at that point your vote doesn't matter, because the winner takes all and the loser gets nothing.

That has nothing to do with the EC...that' is up to the state government.

States are not required to give all of their electoral votes to one candidate.

They can split them up by percentage of the vote.

For example in California, if the divided their votes, and Obama received 75% of the vote, they COULD choose to pledge Obama 41 of their electoral votes and give his opponent the remaining 14.

Nothing prevents them from doing that.

So, using your example that the EC suppress the vote because people know who is going to win...that is a state issue.

Nebraska and Maine DO split their electoral votes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


We have a federal government system...constitutionally...the sooner you accept that, the happier you'll be.

So what? Argentina has a federal government system and elects its President directly. Who told you a federal government had to have some sort of cockeyed electoral college vote?

 

[Missourian]

Protects the smaller states from what? The electoral college reverses the popular vote outcome once every 100 years.

So what?

F-r-o-m......b-e-i-n-g......o-v-e-r-w-h-e-l-m-e-d......b-y......t-h-e......m-o-s-t......p-o-p-u-l-o-u-s.....s-t-a-t-e-s.

It's useless to argue with someone who not only is incapable of comprehending the answers....but equally unable to understand the questions.

 

[Missourian]

[


We have a federal government system...constitutionally...the sooner you accept that, the happier you'll be.

So what? Argentina has a federal government system and elects its President directly. Who told you a federal government had to have some sort of cockeyed electoral college vote?

The Constitution of the United States.


Article 2, Section 1...

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:




Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
​

.
.
..
.
..
Do you have any other questions that prove beyond a shadow of doubt your absolute and total ignorance of the subject?


Here is a link to the 12th Amendment...educate yourself. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am12.html

 

[dcbl]

Protects the smaller states from what? The electoral college reverses the popular vote outcome once every 100 years.

So what?

Wow. Even your math is wrong.

Presidents have won office FOUR times without winning the popular vote. The USA is LESS THAN 400 years old.

I know that my friends on the left would LOVE to be able to do some hard campaigning in the top ten metropolitan areas & ignore the heartland to win an election. I know they would.

I KNOW that my friends on the left are outraged that the good people of Wyoming essentially have a voice that is 3 times stronger than it would be without the electoral college.

And I also know that the electoral college is the driving force behind why candidates must pay attention to the needs (or at least pay lip service to the needs) of citizens in small population states.

Missourian is right about another thing as well. IF we split electoral votes for each state, the votes that republicans get from CA would MORE than make up for the votes that Dems pick up in a dozen states. So PLEASE Brother Fox, don't throw me in that briar patch...

lastly, unless & until you can get a constitutional amendment passed to eliminate the EC, it's a moot point. And to get that amendment passed, you'd have to get the support of about 9 smaller states that would LOSE power by supporting such an amendment!

So it's a moot point.

Liberal bedwetting & distortion of the facts in:

3

2

1

...

 

[Greenbeard]

Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.

Of course we don't need it anymore. The incoherence of the arguments in favor of it provide ample evidence of that. Electing a representative by popular vote is not "mob rule," nor is it a threat to a republican form of government (it certainly isn't some variant of direct democracy). It's not an "unfair" advantage for a candidate to win more votes in an election. The total acreage of counties or districts in which a candidate wins a plurality of votes cast is irrelevant. Making a small state winner-take-all does not garner it extra attention or a louder voice; in elections where the loser still receives a proportional share of delegates/vote/whatever, it behooves the candidates to compete in all contests--regardless of whether they will lose anyway--instead of simply competing in a smaller number of friendly states (compare the strategies of the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign in the 2008 Democratic primary).

The reality is that Electoral College is an archaic tradition that no longer serves a purpose. There is an argument to be made for citizens voting for small groups of intelligent, independent, well-informed fellow citizens to deliberate on and ultimately choose the President from a group of candidates. Sounds great in the Federalist papers.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.​

There is not, however, an argument to be made for forming two slates of rabid partisans from each of the two major parties and then allowing one of those slates to go to Washington in January based on the popular vote in their state. There is no deliberation by electors involved in that process, and yes it still ultimately comes down solely to majority rule (for those EC proponents who find that idea horrifying).

The difference is that it takes it takes the level of analysis down a notch: a majority vote is still sought, but not a majority of voters, rather a majority of voters in a handful of strategically-chosen states (and, no, they're usually not small). That alters the nature of the campaigns, the nature of the contest, and--in certain very rare situations--the outcome itself. What it doesn't do, however, is a serve a purpose in modern presidential elections. It's simply a tradition that didn't change as the country changed around it, thus leaving it with its form even as its function was lost. But it sure seems to be a feel-good institution for some folks.

 

[dcbl]

OK. I'm a reasonable guy.

If I can be king of the world for long enough to eliminate the EC I will!

BUT, i will require that we go back to ONLY allowing TAXPAYING citizens to vote! See how reasonable i am?

I'm not even pushing for landowners only - let's just make it taxpayers only! (why would anyone be against stopping those that receive benefits from tax $$ from voting for MORE benefits that they don't pay for???)

If the left will agree to that, I'll agree to support eliminating the EC!

And then neither of us will be able to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Ergo, we'll just have to leave it how it is...

 

[kyzr]

I'm amazed that this moronic thread isn't past page-11 by now and sinking. There is ZERO chance that the EC will be changed. ZERO.
Lets focus on saving Medicare and SS....

 

[Missourian]

Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.

Of course we don't need it anymore. The incoherence of the arguments in favor of it provide ample evidence of that. Electing a representative by popular vote is not "mob rule," nor is it a threat to a republican form of government (it certainly isn't some variant of direct democracy). It's not an "unfair" advantage for a candidate to win more votes in an election. The total acreage of counties or districts in which a candidate wins a plurality of votes cast is irrelevant. Making a small state winner-take-all does not garner it extra attention or a louder voice; in elections where the loser still receives a proportional share of delegates/vote/whatever, it behooves the candidates to compete in all contests--regardless of whether they will lose anyway--instead of simply competing in a smaller number of friendly states (compare the strategies of the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign in the 2008 Democratic primary).

The reality is that Electoral College is an archaic tradition that no longer serves a purpose. There is an argument to be made for citizens voting for small groups of intelligent, independent, well-informed fellow citizens to deliberate on and ultimately choose the President from a group of candidates. Sounds great in the Federalist papers.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.​

There is not, however, an argument to be made for forming two slates of rabid partisans from each of the two major parties and then allowing one of those slates to go to Washington in January based on the popular vote in their state. There is no deliberation by electors involved in that process, and yes it still ultimately comes down solely to majority rule (for those EC proponents who find that idea horrifying).

The difference is that it takes it takes the level of analysis down a notch: a majority vote is still sought, but not a majority of voters, rather a majority of voters in a handful of strategically-chosen states (and, no, they're usually not small). That alters the nature of the campaigns, the nature of the contest, and--in certain very rare situations--the outcome itself. What it doesn't do, however, is a serve a purpose in modern presidential elections. It's simply a tradition that didn't change as the country changed around it, thus leaving it with its form even as its function was lost. But it sure seems to be a feel-good institution for some folks.

The liberal has spoken.

 

[TexArcher]

Indy here.

The Electoral College is a joke that is bad for politics in this country, no matter which side you're on.

The most populated states are mostly polarized, no matter who is running on either side. The Repubs will get Texas in 2012. It doesn't even matter how the primaries go. They'll get Texas. And the Dems will get California and NY, no matter how Obama does. That's just how it works.

Until we get a majority national vote, the whole system is a fraud.

 

[freedombecki]

I truly feel for the poor libbies if the EC is eliminated. Because the grassroots is riled by Obama's long unemployment lines and huge budgetary issues that makes us pay so much in interest, we're going to be paying more for interest than government salaries really, really soon. Here's what the libbies will get if you eliminate the EC:

Go Rick Perry! Republicans in 2012!
​

 

[Greenbeard]

Here's what the libbies will get if you eliminate the EC:

​

That's exactly why looking at a winner-take-all doesn't actually tell you anything. If you actually wanted a picture of how people voted county-by-county in 2000, you wouldn't look at a map like yours, you would look at one where the colors show that information (i.e. in which the colors are combined in proportion to vote totals):

Looks a little different, doesn't it?

 

[Missourian]

That's exactly why looking at a winner-take-all doesn't actually tell you anything. If you actually wanted a picture of how people voted county-by-county in 2000, you wouldn't look at a map like yours, you would look at one where the colors show that information (i.e. in which the colors are combined in proportion to vote totals):

Winner-takes-all has nothing to do with the Electoral College, Bluebeard.

The states choose the winner take all system...it is not mandated by the Constitution.

So I would recommend that you take this up with your state, as they are expressly granted the power to administer elections by the Constitution.

I know...liberals don't like to defer to the Constitution on these matters...better to just make it up as you go along...on the fly as it were.

 

[dcbl]

Here's what the libbies will get if you eliminate the EC:

​

That's exactly why looking at a winner-take-all doesn't actually tell you anything. If you actually wanted a picture of how people voted county-by-county in 2000, you wouldn't look at a map like yours, you would look at one where the colors show that information (i.e. in which the colors are combined in proportion to vote totals):

Looks a little different, doesn't it?

still looks mostly red

EXCEPT in the major urban centers

AL? all red except for Bham

GA? all red except for Atl

TN - blue in Memphis & Nashville

center of the country? the heartland? looks like a fire engine...

 

[shintao]

Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.

It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.

California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.

Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?

I am afraid to ask, in your icon I notice that lady carrying a device with two round bowls. What she got those bowls for? And that knife!!

 

[thereisnospoon]

[
The Electoral College protects the minority(small states) by giving each state a voice based on it's population.
.

You imbecile. The popular vote gives each small state a voice based on its population.

The candidate getting the majority of the votes within a state wins that state's electoral votes.
The state is then fairly represented in proportion to the state's population.
Look ,if you want to get into a name calling contest, let's drop the gloves.
Otherwise get back on track.

 

[freedombecki]

Here's what the libbies will get if you eliminate the EC:

​

That's exactly why looking at a winner-take-all doesn't actually tell you anything. If you actually wanted a picture of how people voted county-by-county in 2000, you wouldn't look at a map like yours, you would look at one where the colors show that information (i.e. in which the colors are combined in proportion to vote totals):

Looks a little different, doesn't it?

Wait till you see how upset the sleeping giant is with Barack Obama and Maxine Waters' government takeovers and abscesses on business profitability with scare tactics and higher taxes. Maxine Waters' little pepper-in-the-nose stunt of cursing the Tea Party wasn't the brightest thing she ever did to pull her party down to where she envisioned her adversaries being, but where she in fact will be when the voters shut her big fat lying mouth up.

 

[JoeB131]

In NY the conservative and Liberal parties are usually nothing more than rubber stamps for the Dem and Repub chosen candidates. Hell, they even switch sometimes which ones they support. When they do nominate a third guy/gal they usually do not do very well.

I understand about the going to congress scenario, but my point is that people wanting a viable 3rd party candidate should concentrate on getting a party started at the local level rather than aiming for the highest office in the nation first. If you cant get a city council with one what hope do you really have of getting the presidency?

On the retail level, it's usually a one party system, which is even worse. For instance, Chicago hasn't had a viable Republican candidate for mayor since 1983, I think. Chicago even abadoned primaries, and has an open election with a runoff if no one gets over 50% on the first round.

What is worse is that at one time, you had Republican liberals and Democrat Conservatives, but they are becoming increasingly rare as idealogical parties are less inclined to support aposty. I consider myself a Republican moderate, but I get as much abuse from conservatives when I take middle of the road positions like "Crazy people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns."

This is not healthy for Democracy, in general. A third party would be a reality check for the extremes on both sides, but it won't happen this time.

 

[Article 15]

It's going to be hilarious if Obama squeaks out a win in the EC but loses the popular vote because the South comes out in droves to vote against him.