Question about the Electoral College

[sandman]

You prove my point. California has one electoral vote for every 615,848-and-a-fraction citizens. Montana has one electoral vote for every 300,732 citizens.

Yeah, I'd say that making the votes of people who are letting the course of human history pass them by more than twice as important as metropolitan voters is kowtowing.

Having a minimum representation is completely an hetical to having proportional representation unless the number of total representatives is variable.

What was the point of the argument again? That a popular vote is better than the Electoral College? And how many times in the 230 years of our existence as a country have the two indices not been consistent with each other?

That's right, it has only occurred three times in 230 years, and once in the last 118 years. The process is not broke. Your liberal knickers are twisted simply because the only exception since the Civil War was Bush.

I can promise you that you would not be ranting about how "broke" the Electoral College is had Gore been the beneficiary of that variance.

And for those of you who talk about voter turnout would be better in states dominated by one party in the Electoral process if we went to a popular vote, please remember that the 2000 elections had 86% of registered voters turn out to vote, which was higher than the previous two Presidential elections. Voter apathy was not an issue in this particular election.

[Yonivore]

And for those of you who talk about voter turnout would be better in states dominated by one party in the Electoral process if we went to a popular vote, please remember that the 2000 elections had 86% of registered voters turn out to vote, which was higher than the previous two Presidential elections. Voter apathy was not an issue in this particular election.

That actually raises a very good point. One, I concede, is an argument for the other side.

In States where the outcome of the electoral vote is fairly certain -- either Republican or Democrat -- voter turnout is lower than in States where the outcome is less certain. If you went to a pure popular election for President, it would certainly induce a high turnout in States where the outcome is all but certain because, then, their vote would be counted toward the country's total.

But, on the obverse, had this been the case, I doubt the three instances to which you referred would have ever occurred. Just using the 2000 election as an example; there were more States that were solidly on the Republican side than were on the Democrat side. Had those states had some concern that their votes would have more of a bearing than just on their own State's electors, then they would have come out, in force, to raise the overall vote total nationwide. And, considering the difference between the popular vote received by Gore vs. Bush, it would have probably been enough to tip the scales.

For instance, I don't think there was any doubt Bush would win the electoral votes in Texas in 2000. Therefore, some Republicans had less of an incentive to actually make it to the poll that day. Why? They were fairly confident, Bush was carry Texas without their vote.

I would be willing to bet that in the states where the margins were wider between Bush and Gore, the turnout was lower than in states where the margin was narrow.

That's one school of thought.

[Bob Lanier]

What was the point of the argument again? You must be a "liberal". I know what you're thinking. You loved Al Gore.

The point of my argument is that as a matter of procedure and of policy, it would be preferable for a more precise and equitable instrument to determine the will of the voting public than to stick with a 200-year-old political compromise that currently does nothing but prop up the existence of economically unfeasible lifestyles.

What the was the point of yours?

Without at least a vocal representation in the federal government or Congress, some states with extremely valuable natural assets to the country become marginalized and national office holders become less and less knowledgable about, and therefore sensitive to, maintaining an economic viability in some of our wealthiest (in terms of resources - natural and economic), yet least populated, States.

I say the rural welfare queens.

[Yonivore]

I say the rural welfare queens.

They say grow your own beef, weave your own cotton, and produce your own aluminum foil then.

[PixelPusher]

They say grow your own beef, weave your own cotton, and produce your own aluminum foil then.

Yoni supports socialized agriculture.

[sandman]

The point of my argument is that as a matter of procedure and of policy, it would be preferable for a more precise and equitable instrument to determine the will of the voting public than to stick with a 200-year-old political compromise that currently does nothing but prop up the existence of economically unfeasible lifestyles.

What the was the point of yours?


I say the rural welfare queens.

What economically unfeasible lyfestyles? Empirical data please.

LMAO @ rural welfare queens. Only a liberal would ignore the blights of South Central LA, Detroit and Harlem to call a TPTer a welfare queen.

[boutons_]

"Empirical data please"

25K cotton farmers avg $1M/year in subsidies, then milk support, grain support, etc, etc, etc. aka "rural welfare queens"

[xrayzebra]

What economically unfeasible lyfestyles?

LMAO @ rural welfare queens. Only a liberal would ignore the blights of South Central LA, Detroit and Harlem to call a TPTer a welfare queen.

Yeah, that is what I was wondering. How does one link to the other.
Sheeeesh, talk about a stretch. Electoral college equals economically
unfeasible lifestyles!

[sandman]

"Empirical data please"

25K cotton farmers avg $1M/year in subsidies, then milk support, grain support, etc, etc, etc. aka "rural welfare queens"

And all of these farmers vote Republican or only receive subsidies when Republicans are in power? Do you really think the Democrats are going to cut them off now that they are the majority, or if they capture the WH in '08?

Wake up and welcome to the world of politics.

[xrayzebra]

I believe that it was the dimm-o-craps who started the farm programs when
they were "the" party in power. In the olden days you could get your butt
kicked for even thinking about voting Republican in Texas. And that was when
it was all rural. President Roosevelt was the "man".

[sandman]

I believe that it was the dimm-o-craps who started the farm programs when
they were "the" party in power. In the olden days you could get your butt
kicked for even thinking about voting Republican in Texas. And that was when
it was all rural. President Roosevelt was the "man".

Ray, don't you know that all of the social and economic ills that we are faced with today are directly and proportionately related to the last 6 years of Republican power? 1992-2000 were Nirvana when the lion and the lamb laid down together, religion and government peacefully existed in exclusivity of each other, unjustified rural social programs were terminated and our world presence was one of a loved-by-all benevolent uncle who passes out candy at the family reunions.

[Yonivore]

1992-2000 were Nirvana when the lion and the lamb laid down together, religion and government peacefully existed in exclusivity of each other, unjustified rural social programs were terminated and our world presence was one of a loved-by-all benevolent uncle who passes out candy at the family reunions.

KUM-BAH-YAH Baby!

[xrayzebra]

^^Yeah, I keep forgetting that. Chalk it up to old age.

[velik_m]

I don't think economy of USA would crash if the president was voted in by popular vote.