|
|
| Should we have electoral college reform? |
| Yes- get rid of it completely and only have popular vote |
|
34% |
[ 19 ] |
| Keep it, but it could use some reforms |
|
12% |
[ 7 ] |
| No- keep it the way it is |
|
52% |
[ 29 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 55 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Ashley
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 907
Location: Amfek.org
|
 Posted: 11/03/04 - 23:18 Post subject: Electoral College
|
|
|
Ok, now that its not a democrat vs republican thing with the election, should we abolish the electoral college?
Personally I think we should- the outcome would be the same in this election so there isnt an immediate controversy. Is it time for a change?
If Kerry had won Ohio (yea right), and Bush had won the popular vote, shouldnt Bush still be president just based on the voting numbers alone? A Montana residents' vote is weighed more heavily than a Pennsylvania or Florida residents' vote since they have fewer voters per electoral college point.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 23:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
Not time for a change. I dont want the tri state area (NY, NJ, CT), and the west coast electing the president every 4 years.
People who think there is even a remote chance to get rid of the EC system are dreaming:)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Yabden
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 2485
Location: Ohio
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 23:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I like it because states like mine (Ohio) matter more than places like Nebraska. Therefore making me more important than them.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Scrabler
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2660
Location: Mobile, AL
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 23:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
No, the reasons for it's creation are still in politics today.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 23:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Scrabler wrote: | | No, the reasons for it's creation are still in politics today. |
Perfect.
No better way to say it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 00:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | Not time for a change. I dont want the tri state area (NY, NJ, CT), and the west coast electing the president every 4 years. |
Because the the 25 million voters in CA, WA, OR, NY, NJ, and CT can somehow decide elections with their 20% share of the vote.
| Quote: | | People who think there is even a remote chance to get rid of the EC system are dreaming:) |
Unfortunately, I think you're right.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Jinu
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2396
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 00:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I can see a system like Congress where partial decision is based on the electoral college and partially based on the popular vote.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 00:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, the founding fathers had the forsight to make amending the constitution beyond the reach of foolish 18 year-old socialist scumbags!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 00:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Fortunately, the founding fathers had the forsight to make amending the constitution beyond the reach of foolish 18 year-old socialist scumbags! |
Can I have an AMEN?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 00:39 Post subject: Re: Electoral College
|
|
|
| Ashley wrote: | | If Kerry had won Ohio (yea right), and Bush had won the popular vote, shouldnt Bush still be president just based on the voting numbers alone? A Montana residents' vote is weighed more heavily than a Pennsylvania or Florida residents' vote since they have fewer voters per electoral college point. |
No- the candidates ran their campaign based on the demands of the electoral college system. Its like playing a football game, and then saying that the team that got the least points should win because they got more touchdowns. Even if a candidate wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote, they should be president because those are the rules.
Its funny, I've always seen the electoral college as something benefiting Republicans, since they get lots of small states- but it was only 100k votes preventing Kerry from winning the election (in Ohio), despite the fact he still would have lost the popular vote by 3 million. Now I just think its arbitrary.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 00:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Yes, it needs to be abolished. As it is now my vote in California doesn't matter because the state will go dem no matter what. This is the single biggest factor in creating LOW VOTER TURNOUT. If every vote actually counted guess what? people would actually get off of their fat asses and go vote.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 00:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
Here's a much better system.
still giving each state the same number of votes it currently has
but splitting those votes based off of % won instead of just winning the state.
meaning two things.
Michigan/Ohio/Illinois/wisconsin/etc taxpayers can stop spending shitloads of money protecting f**s running for president that other states dont have to do.
Much more realistic to popular vote while still representing people and states fairly.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 00:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | Here's a much better system.
still giving each state the same number of votes it currently has
but splitting those votes based off of % won instead of just winning the state.
meaning two things.
Michigan/Ohio/Illinois/wisconsin/etc taxpayers can stop spending shitloads of money protecting f**s running for president that other states dont have to do.
Much more realistic to popular vote while still representing people and states fairly. |
everyone is represented equally as ONE VOTE!!! how is it unfair if each person is one vote?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 00:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
because in cali, that's 1/10th of the country. between NY and Cali they'd basically decide the president every election. And that's not equal representation.
I do not want my president decided on by 15 million mexican and 5 million asain transplants
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 01:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
You're all idiots. The electoral college isn't about equal representation of people. It's about appropriately proportional representation of states. The name of our country is the "Unites States of America". That's because America is a country that is actually a collection of smaller governments that more accurately represent their constituencies. Those smaller governments are states. The federal government is a coalition of state governments. God damn you f*****g idiots. God damn you all to a Hell of Ignorance.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 01:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | Here's a much better system.
still giving each state the same number of votes it currently has
but splitting those votes based off of % won instead of just winning the state.
meaning two things.
Michigan/Ohio/Illinois/wisconsin/etc taxpayers can stop spending shitloads of money protecting f**s running for president that other states dont have to do.
Much more realistic to popular vote while still representing people and states fairly. |
Bad idea. Firstly, in big states like California and New York, third party candidates will likely get a couple of electoral votes. That makes it more likely that neither candidate gets 270 votes (if NM and Iowa go for Kerry, this is another election that the winner gets only a few more electoral votes then necessary) and we have an election decided by the house. That system would have thrown every election since 1992 into the house.
Also, this would have to be done nationally, by changing the constitution, which is hard. No individual state has an incentive to change their winner take all system to a proportional system. Take Colorado, which defeated a ballot initiative to do this. They're not extreme GOP or Democrat, so its likely that presidental elections in that state would be around 55-45, that means its all but certain that the distribution will be 5-4. Instead of fighting for 9 electoral votes, candidates would fight for 1- why lower your state's influence like that?
In addition, the relevance of a small state would be dependent on if it has a odd or even number of electoral college votes, which doesn't make much sense. NH- has four electoral votes. Unless a candidate gets 75% of the vote, not likely to happen, those votes would split 2-2 every time. Small states with even number of electoral votes are completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Someone
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 01 Apr 2004
Posts: 929
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 01:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Not until a much, much greater percent of the population is expected to, and does vote every election term. At that point, the electoral college may still be a better representive body.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Domination
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 565
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 01:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | You're all idiots. The electoral college isn't about equal representation of people. It's about appropriately proportional representation of states. The name of our country is the "Unites States of America". That's because America is a country that is actually a collection of smaller governments that more accurately represent their constituencies. Those smaller governments are states. The federal government is a coalition of state governments. God damn you f*****g idiots. God damn you all to a Hell of Ignorance. |
lol, rightly said. One day i will have to buy you a beer.
The Electoral college allows the majority to have their say while giving the minority a say as well (states wise which is how our government is built).
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 01:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
| quotison wrote: |
Bad idea. Firstly, in big states like California and New York, third party candidates will likely get a couple of electoral votes. That makes it more likely that neither candidate gets 270 votes (if NM and Iowa go for Kerry, this is another election that the winner gets only a few more electoral votes then necessary) and we have an election decided by the house. That system would have thrown every election since 1992 into the house.
|
correct me if i'm wrong, but this entire paragraph is saying "3rd parties will take votes and therefore all elections since 1992 would have had to have gone to the house to decide" That's entirely stupid, so i know you arent saying that.
| Quote: |
Also, this would have to be done nationally, by changing the constitution, which is hard. No individual state has an incentive to change their winner take all system to a proportional system. Take Colorado, which defeated a ballot initiative to do this. They're not extreme GOP or Democrat, so its likely that presidental elections in that state would be around 55-45, that means its all but certain that the distribution will be 5-4. Instead of fighting for 9 electoral votes, candidates would fight for 1- why lower your state's influence like that?
|
as it sits right now, there's maybe 8 states that matter. I'm going to repeat that. as it sits right now, there's 8 states that matter. very easily seen where the candidates spent all year at. and the current way makes colorado about as important as, well, Rhode Island.
| Quote: |
In addition, the relevance of a small state would be dependent on if it has a odd or even number of electoral college votes, which doesn't make much sense. NH- has four electoral votes. Unless a candidate gets 75% of the vote, not likely to happen, those votes would split 2-2 every time. Small states with even number of electoral votes are completely irrelevant. |
You are arguing for the current system, which sucks. Unless you like the fact that very few states decide your president. then I guess that it rocks. swing states. gotta love it
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 01:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
Now while I realize that candidates have more support in some states then they do in others, I think Perot would have taken a significant number of electoral votes away from Clinton and Bush/Dole in 1992 and 1996. Clinton got 42 and 49% of the popular vote in those elections, if that translates into 42 and 49% of electoral college vote, (less then 270), then those elections go into the house.
2000 would have defintely gone into the house, I've done the numbers myself- Nader would have gotten about 12 electoral votes nationwide with Bush and Gore getting about 263 each.
As for your second point, I agree. Only about 8 states mattered in this election, the rest were safe bets for one party or another. But the fact is, if in a few elections, Colorado becomes more Democratic, then their proposed amendment would hurt them. Instead of being in play for 9 electoral votes, they're in play for just one. They have no reason to move towards a proportional system as an individual state.
I am not arguing for the current system at all. I think we should go by popular vote. My point is that these 'reforms' of the electoral college don't fix it. Two of my concerns (which are, albeit theoretical) with the electoral college are faithless voters deciding an election, and the House deciding an election, in state delegations (One wyoming congressman representing 500k people has the same weight as 53 california congressmen representing 30 million). Your proportional system doesn't fix those. The only fair reform of the electoral college is its elimination.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 02:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | because in cali, that's 1/10th of the country. between NY and Cali they'd basically decide the president every election. And that's not equal representation.
I do not want my president decided on by 15 million mexican and 5 million asain transplants |
umm they have MORE power with the electoral college. there are not only minorities in california, look at the #'s.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 02:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
no, they have less, I read a really good article on this the other day, you all should go read it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3736580.stm
| Quote: |
California, has 12.03% of the US population but its 55 Electoral College votes represent only 10.22% of the College total. Wyoming, a sparsely populated state, has 0.18% of the US population but its three seats in the Electoral College give it 0.56% of the College votes.
|
I think the only reform the system needs is to abolish the winner take all states.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Someone
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 01 Apr 2004
Posts: 929
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 02:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Just curious Khrath, if you happen to know, do they count Illegal Aliens and other factors such as convicts in that 12.03% of the population?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 02:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
no idea, i just grabbed it out of the article, and they didn't say in the article.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
merdocc
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2038
Location: Pasadena Ca
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 02:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
The EC will never go away since it is yet another built in way to make states matter.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brael
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2122
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 03:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Anything included in the census is counted.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 07:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | You're all idiots. The electoral college isn't about equal representation of people. It's about appropriately proportional representation of states. The name of our country is the "Unites States of America". That's because America is a country that is actually a collection of smaller governments that more accurately represent their constituencies. Those smaller governments are states. The federal government is a coalition of state governments. God damn you f*****g idiots. God damn you all to a Hell of Ignorance. |
LOL
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 07:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | You're all idiots. The electoral college isn't about equal representation of people. It's about appropriately proportional representation of states. The name of our country is the "Unites States of America". That's because America is a country that is actually a collection of smaller governments that more accurately represent their constituencies. Those smaller governments are states. The federal government is a coalition of state governments. God damn you f*****g idiots. God damn you all to a Hell of Ignorance. |
LOL |
Daily poll, how many paragraphs can confused write up describing the formation of his own countries government, without ever once saying the correct word.
We're a republic you asshat
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 11:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Khrath wrote: | | Kbarr wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | You're all idiots. The electoral college isn't about equal representation of people. It's about appropriately proportional representation of states. The name of our country is the "Unites States of America". That's because America is a country that is actually a collection of smaller governments that more accurately represent their constituencies. Those smaller governments are states. The federal government is a coalition of state governments. God damn you f*****g idiots. God damn you all to a Hell of Ignorance. |
LOL |
Daily poll, how many paragraphs can confused write up describing the formation of his own countries government, without ever once saying the correct word.
We're a republic you asshat |
I actually types "Republic", but then deleted it because the idiots obviously need it described.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 12:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
using big words usually baffles stupid people into submission though.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
