The question that comes every 4 years.....just the like the olympics, world cup, and leap year. :)
classicman2
09-05-08, 07:09 PM
Once again - no!
DarkestPhoenix
09-05-08, 07:10 PM
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!
General Zod
09-05-08, 07:10 PM
Yes if my person gets the most votes but still loses... otherwise no.
JasonF
09-05-08, 07:18 PM
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Eliminating the Electoral College may not be the worst idea ever, but it's certainly in the top five.
Rockmjd23
09-05-08, 07:20 PM
No, I'm perfectly happy with my vote not mattering.
RoboDad
09-05-08, 07:25 PM
I don't think it should be eliminated, but I would like to hear discussion about eliminating the 'winner-take-all' approach per state, and changing it so each congressional district must cast it's vote individually (leaving two votes to go to the state).
VinVega
09-05-08, 08:01 PM
Once again - no!
What this guy said. :up:
Ron G
09-05-08, 08:24 PM
If this were part of the sweeping changes that would follow my elevation to world dictator, then I have no problem with it.
DVD Polizei
09-05-08, 09:00 PM
All colleges should be laminated.
Duran
09-05-08, 09:10 PM
No. Of course, I also believe the 17th Amendment to have been a mistake.
JasonF
09-05-08, 09:36 PM
I don't think it should be eliminated, but I would like to hear discussion about eliminating the 'winner-take-all' approach per state, and changing it so each congressional district must cast it's vote individually (leaving two votes to go to the state).
I would be receptive to a system like this. But only if every state did it. As a Democrat, I don't want to see California and New York go to this system while Texas and Virginia stay on a winner-take-all system (and I'm sure Republicans feel the same way with the opposite states).
JasonF
09-05-08, 09:38 PM
No. Of course, I also believe the 17th Amendment to have been a mistake.
As I understand it, by the time the 17th Amendment was passed, many (most?) states used a popular vote to select their Senators anyway -- the legislature was just a rubber stamp to the electorate.
In this day and age, I don't think people would stand for not being able to directly elect their Senators.
Duran
09-05-08, 11:26 PM
As I understand it, by the time the 17th Amendment was passed, many (most?) states used a popular vote to select their Senators anyway -- the legislature was just a rubber stamp to the electorate.
That would be the state's choice, however.
In this day and age, I don't think people would stand for not being able to directly elect their Senators.
I think it defeats the purpose of having two houses. It also, along with a variety of other things, lowers the value placed on state elections.
X
09-05-08, 11:38 PM
I've read enough on the internet to remove any opposition I had to the electoral college. I also believe in term limits.
classicman2
09-06-08, 09:13 AM
I can't think of a worse idea than term limits.
Why so many states have adopted them, I'll never know.
I also believe the XXII & XVII Amendments were bad ideas.
WCChiCubsFan
09-06-08, 11:59 AM
I know there have probably been intelligent posts supporting why the Electoral College is such a good idea in previous thread about the subject but since this thread is around why not post them again. I have to ask, why the Electoral College system than a system where the person who receives the most votes wins?
A most votes system would mean that every single vote cast is as important as the next one. Right now if you happen to live in a state that is dominated by the other party your vote is meaningless in determining who the next President is.
This type of system would also mean that candidates would be more likely to visit states they would have avoided in the past. Sure they still wouldn't have a chance to win the state but perhaps they could pick up enough votes to influence the overall result.
So now let’s read some detailed posts as to why the college is so important.
PS: I agree that term limits is one of the worst ideas ever. Why would a person voluntarily relinquish the freedom of choice?
Bandoman
09-06-08, 12:04 PM
I know there have probably been intelligent posts supporting why the Electoral College is such a good idea in previous thread about the subject but since this thread is around why not post them again. I have to ask, why the Electoral College system than a system where the person who receives the most votes wins?
Because then the campaigns would focus only on the most populous states, since the states with fewer people wouldn't matter. Those in office who want to be reelected might look more favorably on spending bills for populous states.
classicman2
09-06-08, 12:09 PM
Of course an intelligent fellow like WCChiCubsFan will repond - 'they already do focus on the larger states.' ;)
JasonF
09-06-08, 02:11 PM
Remember Florida 2000? Imagine going through that every four years in all fifty states. That's what you'd be dealing with if we went to a nationwide popular vote.
Your point about skipping the non-swing states is a good one, but I'd rather see that addressed through some sort of proportional allocation of state delegates (for example, awarding electors by Congressional District, as Maine and Nebraska do). Nationwide popular vote would be a nightmare.
sracer
09-06-08, 02:12 PM
Of course an intelligent fellow like WCChiCubsFan will repond - 'they already do focus on the larger states.' ;)
Why should a vote cast in Arcadia, NE count more than a vote in NYC, NY?
GatorDeb
09-06-08, 02:18 PM
So if I understand correctly...
Each state has a certain # of people in the electoral college, and they may go with the candidate their state chose or not.
If so, why am I even voting when it doesn't really count for anything?
And...
is there a way to find out your state's representative in the EC?
orangecrush18
09-06-08, 02:23 PM
A most votes system would mean that every single vote cast is as important as the next one. Right now if you happen to live in a state that is dominated by the other party your vote is meaningless in determining who the next President is.
To be fair, unless the election is decided by exactly 1 vote, your vote is meaningless in a popular vote election too.
Superboy
09-06-08, 03:17 PM
So if I understand correctly...
Each state has a certain # of people in the electoral college, and they may go with the candidate their state chose or not.
If so, why am I even voting when it doesn't really count for anything?
And...
is there a way to find out your state's representative in the EC?
It does count. Because even though they might hold the state with the electoral college, if the other party doesn't get the popular vote it won't win.
GatorDeb
09-06-08, 03:22 PM
It does count. Because even though they might hold the state with the electoral college, if the other party doesn't get the popular vote it won't win.
The sentence as it's written sounds contradictory...
OldDude
09-06-08, 03:55 PM
So if I understand correctly...
Each state has a certain # of people in the electoral college, and they may go with the candidate their state chose or not.
If so, why am I even voting when it doesn't really count for anything?
And...
is there a way to find out your state's representative in the EC?
You would have to look up your State's law. In many cases, they are bound by the election result. (Even if they aren't legally bound, it has been a LONG time since anyone broke ranks with the election result. This is a red herring.) The number of EC votes is equal to the sum of that state's Senators (2) and House Representatives (variable).
Whether you agree or not, it is a balance between every State is equal regardless of population (Senate) and each State's vote is decided by headcount (House). The effect is little states are still little, just not quite so little and ignored.
The "all or nothing" vote is more controversial, but each State decides this for itself. All or nothing makes a State more important. Proportional vote or vote by district would fragment every States' EC votes, perhaps so proportionally it would diminish importance during the election campaign.
I don't trust politicians as far as I can throw, and I worry about letting them construct Constitutional amendments to change the way the country holds elections. Both parties will be making a power grab and there is NO assurance the new system would be fairer. I don't trust them when they try to draw new districts reflecting the new numbers of House seats after a census.
SkullOrchard
09-06-08, 04:30 PM
No.
al_bundy
09-06-08, 08:30 PM
I know there have probably been intelligent posts supporting why the Electoral College is such a good idea in previous thread about the subject but since this thread is around why not post them again. I have to ask, why the Electoral College system than a system where the person who receives the most votes wins?
A most votes system would mean that every single vote cast is as important as the next one. Right now if you happen to live in a state that is dominated by the other party your vote is meaningless in determining who the next President is.
This type of system would also mean that candidates would be more likely to visit states they would have avoided in the past. Sure they still wouldn't have a chance to win the state but perhaps they could pick up enough votes to influence the overall result.
So now let’s read some detailed posts as to why the college is so important.
PS: I agree that term limits is one of the worst ideas ever. Why would a person voluntarily relinquish the freedom of choice?
EC is a check to fraud
in a popular vote system fraud in one place will affect the entire election, in our system it will be limited to only that state's electoral votes. imagine if this is 1960 and there are a few Mayor Daley's around the country to stuff the ballot boxes.
daniel18
09-09-08, 11:34 AM
It should be eliminated or this will always be a two-party state. Also, if the demographic shift to the Southern states continue as the have been, the chances of the Democratic Party winning will be slimmer and slimmer each election. The Electoral College gurantees us a de-facto one-party state in the future. This is much more worrying to me than smaller states having less voice.
al_bundy
09-09-08, 11:45 AM
so if people move out of the blue areas they will magically start voting republican for no reason?
why is that we have so many democratic legislators from states that solidly vote republican for president?
classicman2
09-09-08, 11:49 AM
It should be eliminated or this will always be a two-party state. Also, if the demographic shift to the Southern states continue as the have been, the chances of the Democratic Party winning will be slimmer and slimmer each election. The Electoral College gurantees us a de-facto one-party state in the future. This is much more worrying to me than smaller states having less voice.
Whether we do away with the EC or not, we will still be a 2-party state - as far as governing is concerned.
wendersfan
09-09-08, 11:55 AM
It should be eliminated or this will always be a two-party state.It's a lot more than just the Electoral College that's keeping us in a two-party system. How would eliminating the EC change the way congressional elections are held? Gubernatorial elections? These all factor into the party system at least as much as the EC.
Also, what's wrong with a two-party system? Multi-party systems have their own problems.
daniel18
09-09-08, 12:03 PM
so if people move out of the blue areas they will magically start voting republican for no reason?
why is that we have so many democratic legislators from states that solidly vote republican for president?
They probably won't change their votes but they will inflate the electoral votes of these states.
I'm talking about the Executive Branch.
kenny79
09-09-08, 12:16 PM
Because then the campaigns would focus only on the most populous states, since the states with fewer people wouldn't matter.
Speaking as a Texan ... they don't. ;)
Red Dog
09-09-08, 12:47 PM
I guess I should have expected this thread at some point.
The answer is no, but go to C.D.M.
Also, what's wrong with a two-party system? Multi-party systems have their own problems.
There's nothing inherently wrong with it. There's nothing inherently good about it either.
.....wait for it.....
wendersfan
09-09-08, 01:33 PM
why is that we have so many democratic legislators from states that solidly vote republican for president?I'd like to know what states you're talking about. In 2004 there were five states that went for Bush yet at the same time sent a majority of Democrats to the House of Representatives:
Arkansas
Mississippi
South Dakota
Tennessee
West Virginia
I wouldn't think five counts as "so many". :shrug:
I suppose you could go back to more election years and find a greater number of examples, but I really don't have that kind of time.
Buy: