Reply With Quote
Or just get rid of Electoral college, have a direct vote. There is no need to keep an 18th century voting system in 21st century.
Does anyone think it would be fair to change the way the electoral votes are tallied? There are many states in every Presidential election that go 51% 49% however the victor gets all of votes. I say let's allow for the losing party to get 49% of the electoral votes. If we to change the way the votes are alloted then every state comes into play.. Any thoughts?
Or just get rid of Electoral college, have a direct vote. There is no need to keep an 18th century voting system in 21st century.
Well I'm not ready to go to the popular vote but I think this needs to be looked at.
I've always been in favor of that model or something similar. That way, even a Texas Democrat's vote counts for something.
"Well I'm not ready to go to the popular vote"
why? city/county/district/senator/state elections are straight votes, as are nearly all elections in all advanced democratic countries (btw, who have typically much higher voter turnouts than the The Cradle of Democracy). States are administrative fictions that have no role to play in national elections.
Last edited by boutons_; 12-08-2006 at 11:42 AM.
I've wondered for years why the electoral college couldn't be transformed to reflect popular votes in various parts of states, rather than on a state-wide basis.
The electoral votes in any state are allocated based on the number of representatives to which the state is en led, plus 2 for each senator. I think you could end up with an electoral vote that doesn't discourage voting if you allocated a State's electoral votes by House district. Whichever candidate wins a particular House district gets that district's electoral vote. The additional two votes could be given to whichever candidate carries the popular majority statewide.
I'm not really sure that it's a practical approach -- I honestly haven't given it that much thought. I also can see where each party would run the risk of losing some electoral hegemony. The Democrats likely couldn't carry all of the electoral votes available in California or New York; the Republicans would lose parts of states like Texas and big chunks of the south.
Still, I wonder if that isn't at least a simplistic first look at trying to diminish the sense of practical disenfrancisement.
I see both parties gaining and losing votes. I'm tired of my vote not counting in Texas just like a Republican's vote in California..
The electoral voting system has served this country well since it's inception.
I say leave it alone. It does reflect the majority of the voters in any given
state, while not letting the highly populated states decide who is going to be
President. GGA says he is tired of his vote not counting, well two things. How
would you like to live in say Montana and never having your vote count. And
secondly, your candidate in any local statewide election has never lost. And
by the way my vote never really counts either in a congressional election since
I have had a dimm-o-crap congressmen since they put me in Henry B's district
and his son inherited the congressional seat.
In 2000, over 25% of the registered voters that actually voted resided in 5 states: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts and Illinios.
Al Gore carried the popular vote in those traditionally Blue 5 states by almost 5 million votes.
Considering that the final popular vote margin was right at 500K votes, that would mean that the remaining 75% of the country voted overwhelmingly by 4 million votes for Bush, including the others states that Gore carried.
The will of 27 million voters in 5 highly urbanized states = Gore
That is the only reason that Gore won the popular vote. Even in Blue states like Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Washington that Gore carried, the margins were fairly close and no where near the disparity shown in the other 5 states.
And Bush? He only carried one high population state with that kind of disparity: Texas
If we are going to be intellectually honest, the reality of the situation is that the voters of Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Chicago, Boston and NYC with its burroughs and NJ footprint dictated the popular vote. But of course that would explain why liberals want a popular vote, because they are embedded in the highly urban areas through a strong dependence on government programs. They would essentially be granted control of the government in perpetuity.
Sandman, think maybe the founding fathers may have seen this. I do. Hence
our present sit-up.
"75% of the country voted overwhelmingly by 4 million votes for Bush, including the others states that Gore carried."
typical right wing bull and disinformation.
Are you related to Yonivore or Whott?
Gore won the 2000 vote by 600K, and lost the election.
Why use geography and population density to penalize populous states and favor rural states?
America has been an urban/suburban country since before WWII, and the trend continues.
Have a straight popular vote for national offices, and abandon the disenfranchsing electroral college.
Funny that you consider the other states rural. 4 million voters in Michigan, 3 million voters in North Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin, 2.5 million voters in Georgia, Indiana and a few other states.
You cannot deny the facts of the vote: Gore built his popular vote count in those 5 states and proceeded to lose the rest of the country.
Why am I not surprised that you would be in favor of highly urbanized areas controlling the election process. That would take care of your Christianity, Conservative and Republican vendettas in one action.
"Gore built his popular vote count in those 5 states"
they ALL campaign/spend most vigorously in swing states and even swing districts, while ignoring the decided areas.
How does electoral vs popular vote change that? it doesn't.
Like it's unfair for dubya to show up in SA while not visiting d'Hanis.
One of the reasons the Electoral College is the way it is, is specifically to limit the electoral power of urban areas. It is intentionally weighted in favor of rural areas.
exactly, it was a ruse to seduce under-populated non-states in the West to join the Union which was East and heavily urban, meaning the empty states would have power beyond what their population merited.
The ruse worked, kill the ruse, it's an anachronism.
one man, one vote, straight up and down, no non-democratic distortions and ruses.
Um, that made no sense.
Some non-BS issues that led to the current setup were the insistence by Southern states that they have equal footing with the North despite lower population,* and the lionizing of the Jeffersonian ideal of a nation of enlightened farmers. Also, at the beginning, America was perceived as a Union of autonomous States, rather than the centralized nation with 50 administrative districts, so the states rather than the people were electing the President. The popular vote was irrelevant.
But wouldn't the vote in Montana then count the same as a vote of a man in NY? What's wrong with having the president that majority of voters support? Why should the vote be weighted based on where you live?
Has anyone ever told you that your critical thinking can be very astute, but gets muddled by the activist rhetoric?
I hope I can respond without getting flamed by ChumpDumper but, here goes.
I believe the office of President was never intended to be a representative of the people. The Electoral College was ins uted in order to insure that all states had a proportional stake in the selection of the federal executive.
You'll note the Cons ution give the states the freedom to designate the manner in which they choose their presidential electors...they don't even have to consult the electorate if they don't want. In fact, there was a time when the office of the president didn't appear on the ballot at your local voting booth.
The President and the executive was intended to be the federal government's representative to those with home the country would deal collectively -- foreign governments. Therefore, the executive's selection would be decided by the states' leaders, not the people...and particularly not the people as a whole, where the populations of a few populous states could completely trump those of smaller states.
It wasn't a ruse, as I saw a boutons quote intimate. It was a means to insure the smallest of the colonies was as committed to the republic and well represented in the republic as was the largest of the colonies.
Similar to how the 17th amendment took the States' right of selecting their representative in Congress away from them and placed it in the hands of the public thereby subjecting the Senate to the whims of an electorate that historically and consistently refuses to be politically educated and can be swayed by whomever has the more clever tagline or pander, doing so with the election of our President would complete the destruction of States rights.
The 17th amendment, in effect, negates the purpose of a bicameral Congress in that it places the election of both houses under an easily pursuaded group. Us.
Doing that to the executive branch as well, by abolishing the Electoral College, would complete the process of destroying State's rights. California, New York and Illinois can pretty much force the rest of the country to do whatever the they want.I'm okay with that method so long as it is the States' legislatures that choose it and not some federal mandate or law.
What? The votes of people in uninhabited states like Montana currently count for much more than those of people who live near other people.
It's well past time that your country stopped kowtowing to its peasantry.
Nonsense. Electoral votes are proportionate to the state population, with a minimum of three votes per state regardless of size.
California has 55 and Montana has 3.
That is definitely kowtowing...
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.with a minimum of three votes per state regardless of size.
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.
It's not about population but what each individual state brings to the union and making sure their individual contributions aren't discounted.
Whatever Montana's economic base is founded on could be undermined if you don't mitigate for the impact concentrations of people have on political decisions.
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.
If you turn the elections over to the most populated states, you will elect people who less and less appreciate the value and importance to our national economy of farming, ranching, and mining...as well as other industries that can only be conducted in sparsely populated locations.
I really wish people would quit monkeying with the brilliance of the Cons ution.
@Yoni Won't the free market fix that?
Yeah, you put control of this country into the hands of the residents of the most populated states, you'll kill that too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
