Bigfatbillsfan Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 There's some talk right now that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college. Just wondering what most of you guys thought about the electoral college. I understand it's importance in the early days of the nation, but does it make sense anymore?
We Come In Peace Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 There's some talk right now that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college. Just wondering what most of you guys thought about the electoral college. I understand it's importance in the early days of the nation, but does it make sense anymore? It's more important now than ever.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted November 7, 2012 Author Posted November 7, 2012 It's more important now than ever. Why is that? If more Americans voted for Romney why should he not be president?
sodbuster Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 There's some talk right now that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college. Just wondering what most of you guys thought about the electoral college. I understand it's importance in the early days of the nation, but does it make sense anymore? Since each state decides its own voting rules, yes. It standardizes the vote in a way.
We Come In Peace Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Why is that? If more Americans voted for Romney why should he not be president? Because it's a Republic, not a democracy.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted November 7, 2012 Author Posted November 7, 2012 Because it's a Republic, not a democracy. I don't understand what that has to do with anything when it comes to the election. Can you elaborate a little bit what you mean?
sodbuster Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Because it's a Republic, not a democracy. Republic just means we elect representatives to make our laws instead of voting on every single law in a referendum. Not sure if you're trolling...
B-Large Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Screw the EC... I am a fan of Central Planning
We Come In Peace Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Screw the EC... I am a fan of Central Planning Come to Butthead...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted November 7, 2012 Author Posted November 7, 2012 See this is what I'm talking about. As of right now Mitt has the popular vote but CNN is calling the election for Obama. I know this going against the grain since I'm a Democrat and a left leaner. But I don't know if I like the idea that a person can have more people vote them and still not win the election.
B-Man Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 See this is what I'm talking about. As of right now Mitt has the popular vote but CNN is calling the election for Obama. I know this going against the grain since I'm a Democrat and a left leaner. But I don't know if I like the idea that a person can have more people vote them and still not win the election. See, I'm in the exact opposite boat BF, I wanted Romney to win, but I still support the EC
whateverdude Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 One problem with doing away with the electoral college is that it would undermine the role and power of states having smaller populations in the election of the President. That means all the fly over states in the middle would be dictated to by the larger populace states on the east and west coasts. It would truly be tyranny of the majority. You would have states and whole areas of the country disenfranchised. California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania would be the only states that matter in a presidential election. We are too large of a country with vast geographical and cultural differences to vote directly.
ofiba Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 One problem with doing away with the electoral college is that it would undermine the role and power of states having smaller populations in the election of the President. That means all the fly over states in the middle would be dictated to by the larger populace states on the east and west coasts. It would truly be tyranny of the majority. You would have states and whole areas of the country disenfranchised. California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania would be the only states that matter in a presidential election. We are too large of a country with vast geographical and cultural differences to vote directly. Doesn't that already happen now with the Electoral College? Only a few battleground states matter.
OCinBuffalo Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Doesn't that already happen now with the Electoral College? Only a few battleground states matter. Not really. The fact that lots of small sates are Rs, is inconvenient for Ds, but, it doesn't mean they always will be. There was a time when the entire South was D. Now it is R. And, have you considered the alternative to the EC? It would be about even fewer states. The R would campaign in New York, etc...in hopes of driving down the margins there, and the D would campaign there to drive them up. The only real change: both would campaign in Texas. We'd go from 10 battlegrounds to what? 6? States like IA, NH, WI, and even OH would probably never see another campaign stop ever again. EDIT: in the general election. Edited November 7, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
BRAWNDO Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 What about making every EC Vote up for grabs based on congressional district? The winner of the popular vote per state gets the two EC votes representing each state's senators. That would put every state in play while preserving the rights of small states. The District of Columbia would get a single EC Vote as well.
blzrul Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 There's some talk right now that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college. Just wondering what most of you guys thought about the electoral college. I understand it's importance in the early days of the nation, but does it make sense anymore? Well with the benefit of hindsight Romney lost the popular vote. And in 2000 the Electoral College sucked. Today it's ok. I am not crazy about it - I wish the College could/would split votes - but when you think about it, it works. It does provide some modicum of leveling the playing ground relative to states with a small population that would otherwise get completely lost in the process. There's more of course... Popular vote would be my preference, but this stupid county can't hold a damned election. We'd have to bring ALL polling / voting places and methods into at least the 20th century.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 What's the popular vote total now? Oh, I though so.
The Poojer Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 This is my question too...all but 2 states are all or nothing...why don't we have split(among states) electoral votes? What about making every EC Vote up for grabs based on congressional district? The winner of the popular vote per state gets the two EC votes representing each state's senators. That would put every state in play while preserving the rights of small states. The District of Columbia would get a single EC Vote as well.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) This is my question too...all but 2 states are all or nothing...why don't we have split(among states) electoral votes? States' rights. Maybe human nature. All or nothing. ?? Still, electoral vote in those two states is proportional to density. Would it matter in the end game? Edited November 7, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois
The Poojer Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 I don't know...it'd be interesting to see what the effect would be if congressional districts could allocate ec votes on their own States' rights. Maybe human nature. All or nothing. ?? Still, electoral vote in those two states is proportional to density. Would it matter in the end game?
Recommended Posts