Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 This post was originally intended to reply to Alaska Darin, but I found it to be so very important, that I posted it with its own topic. The Electoral College system needs to be replaced, for the benefit of all. And I don't want to be held hostage by a majority of one party in ONE STATE who can swing an election, and give us the crap we have had over the past 4 years. I DOUBT the urban areas have ANYTHING to do with it; in fact a LOT of urban areas contain the biggest lobbyists for big business! You are generalizing an entire metropolis, when there are just as many advocates for bigger government in rural areas as well. Example: How do you explain cities like Houston, or Nashville, or Denver?? These are urban areas who don't follow that example... the whole electoral college was created to make sure that the LARGER STATES didn't have too much influence, when we were 13 colonies! Now it has backfired like a previous poster said... HERE are the election results by state for 2000: 2000 Results Note that the 2+ million votes for Bush in NY did not count because the 4+ million votes cast for Gore wiped them away. Those voters had no chance. Urban wins. Note that the approx. 738,000 votes for Gore in CO were wiped away by the approx. 883,000 votes for Bush. Those votes had no chance. Rural wins. BOTH sides of this are clear... EACH side gets screwed in this deal. Isn't it time that EVERY VOTE COUNTED? Hell yes. By this idea, your third party candidates may actually have a chance!
RkFast Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 There are a myriad of reasons why the Electoral College was created and why its still relevant today, the primary one being so that every vote DOES count and so that candidates are forced to pay attention to not just NY, FL the more populated states. Read up on the subject and then get back to us.
OGTEleven Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 And I don't want to be held hostage by a majority of one party in ONE STATE who can swing an election, and give us the crap we have had over the past 4 years. 42595[/snapback] What is the name of our country? BTW anyone, what happened to the last thread on this? I can't find it.
JimBob2232 Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 I take the opposite opinion here. I think the electoral college is a good and necessary part of our electoral process. What does need to be changed, is to eliminate the human portion of the electoral college, and require by law that all electors vote for the candidate chosen by the electorate. The first thing you have to remember about the electoral college, it is highly unlikely that a person will win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college UNLESS the election is very close (as it was in 2000). What the electoral college offers is a clear and decicive way to pick a winner of the election, should the race become extremely tight. People point to the mess in florida in 2000 as a reason to eliminate the electoral college. In fact the exact opposite is true. Without the electoral college process, there would have been recounts not only in Florida, but in every state and county in the union. It would have been complete chaos. Moreso, there have been 53 elections since George Washington was elected. Only 3 times has there been a discrepancy between the electoral college and the popular vote. The electoral college provided a clear winner. On at least 12 other occasions, the popular vote was close enough to have the election contested, and a nationwide recound, such as we saw in florida, would persue. And I don't want to be held hostage by a majority of one party in ONE STATE who can swing an election, and give us the crap we have had over the past 4 years. If gore won Tennesee, he would be president, If he won Missouri he would have been president. Same with Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, washington and many other states. Its not ONE STATE that won this election for bush, but rather 50 states.
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 This post was originally intended to reply to Alaska Darin, but I found it to be so very important, that I posted it with its own topic. The Electoral College system needs to be replaced, for the benefit of all. And I don't want to be held hostage by a majority of one party in ONE STATE who can swing an election, and give us the crap we have had over the past 4 years. I DOUBT the urban areas have ANYTHING to do with it; in fact a LOT of urban areas contain the biggest lobbyists for big business! You are generalizing an entire metropolis, when there are just as many advocates for bigger government in rural areas as well. Example: How do you explain cities like Houston, or Nashville, or Denver?? These are urban areas who don't follow that example... the whole electoral college was created to make sure that the LARGER STATES didn't have too much influence, when we were 13 colonies! Now it has backfired like a previous poster said... HERE are the election results by state for 2000: 2000 Results Note that the 2+ million votes for Bush in NY did not count because the 4+ million votes cast for Gore wiped them away. Those voters had no chance. Urban wins. Note that the approx. 738,000 votes for Gore in CO were wiped away by the approx. 883,000 votes for Bush. Those votes had no chance. Rural wins. BOTH sides of this are clear... EACH side gets screwed in this deal. Isn't it time that EVERY VOTE COUNTED? Hell yes. By this idea, your third party candidates may actually have a chance! 42595[/snapback] So one election doesn't go your way and now we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater? HOTPOCKETS! Every vote counts.
KD in CA Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 the whole electoral college was created to make sure that the LARGER STATES didn't have too much influence, when we were 13 colonies! Now it has backfired like a previous poster said... And how exactly has that concept changed from then until now? Doesn't the EC still ensure that the larger states don't have too much influence? And how exactly has it "backfired", other than the fact that the guy you voted for last time lost? (btw, I'm sure you'd be posting this if Gore had won the EC and lost the pop vote).
Mickey Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 I take the opposite opinion here. I think the electoral college is a good and necessary part of our electoral process. What does need to be changed, is to eliminate the human portion of the electoral college, and require by law that all electors vote for the candidate chosen by the electorate. The first thing you have to remember about the electoral college, it is highly unlikely that a person will win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college UNLESS the election is very close (as it was in 2000). What the electoral college offers is a clear and decicive way to pick a winner of the election, should the race become extremely tight. People point to the mess in florida in 2000 as a reason to eliminate the electoral college. In fact the exact opposite is true. Without the electoral college process, there would have been recounts not only in Florida, but in every state and county in the union. It would have been complete chaos. Moreso, there have been 53 elections since George Washington was elected. Only 3 times has there been a discrepancy between the electoral college and the popular vote. The electoral college provided a clear winner. On at least 12 other occasions, the popular vote was close enough to have the election contested, and a nationwide recound, such as we saw in florida, would persue. If gore won Tennesee, he would be president, If he won Missouri he would have been president. Same with Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, washington and many other states. Its not ONE STATE that won this election for bush, but rather 50 states. 42752[/snapback] Actually, the EC doesn't provide, necessarily, a "clear and decisive way to pick a winner" when the election is close. Depending on how the numbers and the votes come out, a tie in the EC is not impossible at all. Such an election would obviously be a close one. Further, it is possible, again depending on the numbers, for a candidate to get pretty well pasted in the popular vote and still win in the EC. A candidate could win big in a bunch of small states and lose by a handful in some large states (Florida would be a good example) and end up with a substantial lead in the general vote and yet lose handily in the EC. I know, it seems unlikely but the whole situation faced in Florida in 2000 was thought to be pretty unlikey too before it happened. What is mathematically possible is possible. There are scenarios where the EC would seem to reinforce democratic principles but there are also scenarios where it could and would operate in derogation of those principles. State interests have receded and when it comes to national elections, people vote not based on their state loyalties or addresses but by their politics, conservative or liberal. The current winner-take-all rules in most states means that significant minorities in those states have their votes pretty much ignored. The EC itself dilutes the votes of those living in larger states and inflates those in smaller states. These are not just numbers, there is a real effect on people's lives. Republicans in NY are not numerous enough apparently to put the state in play in presidential elections even though I am sure there are way more Republicans in NY than in, say, Arkansas or Nevada. If you are George Bush and you have to decide between shutting down a base in NY or one in a swing state like Arkansas or Nevada, who do you think is going to keep their base and who is going to lose theirs? If you have a choice on where to put a large government project such as a research facility or maybe a super-collider, where are you going to put it? NY or Nevada? This isn't just a large state/small state issue. If you are a small state and you aren't a swing state, you are even more shafted than NY. If you are a large state and a swing state to boot, you get the best of both worlds, ie Florida and once upon a time, Texas. The idea that small states will get run over by large states is more paranoia based on American society circa 1863 than on present day concerns. Any democratic government that consistently permits a minority to hold sway over a majority is a system that contains the seeds of its own destruction. The fact of whether winner-takes-all rules or the EC is good, bad or indifferent really may not matter in the long run. The reality is that they virtually disenfranchise such a large number of people that eventually, those people are just not going to take it anymore. One man, one vote, one election, one tally, one nation, indivisible.
erynthered Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Any democratic government that consistently permits a minority to hold sway over a majority is a system that contains the seeds of its own destruction. Interesting Mick, I agree with that.
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 This post was originally intended to reply to Alaska Darin, but I found it to be so very important, that I posted it with its own topic. The Electoral College system needs to be replaced, for the benefit of all. And I don't want to be held hostage by a majority of one party in ONE STATE who can swing an election, and give us the crap we have had over the past 4 years. I DOUBT the urban areas have ANYTHING to do with it; in fact a LOT of urban areas contain the biggest lobbyists for big business! You are generalizing an entire metropolis, when there are just as many advocates for bigger government in rural areas as well. Example: How do you explain cities like Houston, or Nashville, or Denver?? These are urban areas who don't follow that example... the whole electoral college was created to make sure that the LARGER STATES didn't have too much influence, when we were 13 colonies! Now it has backfired like a previous poster said... HERE are the election results by state for 2000: 2000 Results Note that the 2+ million votes for Bush in NY did not count because the 4+ million votes cast for Gore wiped them away. Those voters had no chance. Urban wins. Note that the approx. 738,000 votes for Gore in CO were wiped away by the approx. 883,000 votes for Bush. Those votes had no chance. Rural wins. BOTH sides of this are clear... EACH side gets screwed in this deal. Isn't it time that EVERY VOTE COUNTED? Hell yes. By this idea, your third party candidates may actually have a chance! 42595[/snapback] Respectfully, I disagree. The whole purpose of the United States is the union of states, not the people. Direct representation of the people at the executive branch at the federal level is not embodied in the Constitution, nor was it ever intended to be, and doing away with the EC is the equivalent with suggesting the abolishment of congress in favor of a legislative system based on direct voting by the electorate: doing away with an "undemocratic" layer of government on the mistaken belief that we actually live in a democracy where the government's answerable to the people. We don't, and it's not. We live in a democratic republic where the government is answerable to the states through the chosen representatives of the people, be it Congress or the Electoral College. Before we can even argue about the appropriateness of the EC, we'd first have to argue whether our democratic-republic form of government is acceptable or not. In a pure democracy, the EC would be arrant stevestojan. But within the framework of a democratic republic, the EC is a perfectly valid and workable electoral process.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 I think the EC should stay. Nothing says that the delegates in a state have to go the way that is picked? Am I right? I think some states can switch their vote/ split the vote. Some states can't. The thing to do is to make all the EC voting uniform to were you can defect from your "given" vote. I think New Hampshire and Nebraska have rules in place like this? Does anybody know if Florida was an "all or nothing" state? What I would like to see, and I have said it before, is to return to where the loser becomes the VP... Yet, the tweeking should be that this should only happen in a "upside down" election (ie:2000... and what were the 2 or three previous?). I think it would force bi-partisanship. In our most recent case, would have cut the head off of the "war-beast". Just my $.02.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Another $.02... Term for prez. should be 6 years... Nothing happens in 4 years anymore . I know you can't believe that! It would give Bush 2 more years to clean this mess up (or least make sense out of it)... Not that I think he will (too polarizing at home AND IN THE WORLD). Do you think if GWB was heading a company and just lost his company 130 billion when others would have willfully payed and helped out... Would he still be head of that company? Or would he be let go when the shareholders became outraged? Let him go, bring in fresh meat!
VABills Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Another $.02... Term for prez. should be 6 years... Nothing happens in 4 years anymore . I know you can't believe that! It would give Bush 2 more years to clean this mess up (or least make sense out of it)... Not that I think he will (too polarizing at home AND IN THE WORLD). Do you think if GWB was heading a company and just lost his company 130 billion when others would have willfully payed and helped out... Would he still be head of that company? Or would he be let go when the shareholders became outraged? Let him go, bring in fresh meat! 42986[/snapback] If you want to compare it to a company, then 130 billion with revenues of what 5 Trillion, isn't a whole lot to invest when the chances for huge payback down the road may happen. BTW, yes a lot happens in 4 years, but the effects of what happens may not be felt until a few years later. So while 6 years may allow a president to feel the effects of changes during his first or second year in office doesn't mean he isn't working with Congress to get some long term changes in. That is the difference between me and a lot of other people. I am a little more patient and willing to give things a while before I call it a bust. Go look at the main board, 2 weeks into the season and people are jumping off the roof. Well, if you knew how the government works, change comes slowly and doesn't trickle through agencies for several years. Most Presidents know this and are trying to build a more long term legacy for themselves. The presidents who make you feel good now, are the ones you gotta watch out for. It like car salesmen, sure you like that new SUV, but 45 days from now when you have a car payment, it doesn't look as nice. Well I would rather have a president who is working to ensure we are doing the right things that not only can I live with today, but 20 years from now, when he isn't around to hold my hand anymore and I am dealing with the service manager when I have issue (the next president in case you didn't catch the leap there).
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 If you want to compare it to a company, then 130 billion with revenues of what 5 Trillion, isn't a whole lot to invest when the chances for huge payback down the road may happen. BTW, yes a lot happens in 4 years, but the effects of what happens may not be felt until a few years later. So while 6 years may allow a president to feel the effects of changes during his first or second year in office doesn't mean he isn't working with Congress to get some long term changes in. That is the difference between me and a lot of other people. I am a little more patient and willing to give things a while before I call it a bust. Go look at the main board, 2 weeks into the season and people are jumping off the roof. Well, if you knew how the government works, change comes slowly and doesn't trickle through agencies for several years. Most Presidents know this and are trying to build a more long term legacy for themselves. The presidents who make you feel good now, are the ones you gotta watch out for. It like car salesmen, sure you like that new SUV, but 45 days from now when you have a car payment, it doesn't look as nice. Well I would rather have a president who is working to ensure we are doing the right things that not only can I live with today, but 20 years from now, when he isn't around to hold my hand anymore and I am dealing with the service manager when I have issue (the next president in case you didn't catch the leap there). 43000[/snapback] Fine if you are paying cash for the car. Not, if we are going into major hock. With the Bills, MOST likely the season is a wash...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 There are a myriad of reasons why the Electoral College was created and why its still relevant today, the primary one being so that every vote DOES count and so that candidates are forced to pay attention to not just NY, FL the more populated states. Read up on the subject and then get back to us. 42643[/snapback] I think you are wrong!! When was the last time either candidate was in Montana, or Alaska, or Hawaii, or Idaho, or North Dakota more than once, or even at all?? You are just substituting the 'electoral value' argument with a 'population value' argument!!! In the population idea, EVERY VOTE counts towards the overall total, making whoever has the largest popular vote the President, plain and simple. The rural, smaller states, when combined, match the more populated states in their power. In the electoral idea, only those votes who are with the winning candidate in that state only count, making every other vote moot, for it is only added to the STATE total. Note that the states with the huge electoral votes get a lot of the stops and special treatment, so obviously that reason washes out. A Democratic vote in Virginia does NOT count, like a Republican vote in New York does not count. The only way they do is if hundreds of thousands of people stop voting, which that idea is ludicrous. 'Read up on the subject and get back to us?' Who is US?? I KNOW WHY it was created, how it came about, and why we still have it, but it doesn't make it right in my opinion, and no amount of 'read up on the subject' or 'hotpocket' will change that; only lucid, common-sense points will change my mind.
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 only lucid, common-sense points will change my mind. 43057[/snapback] Good thing you posted it here, then...
Mickey Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Interesting Mick, I agree with that. 42970[/snapback] A good point to remember while we try to nurse secular democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq where the vast majority of the people are not interested in either a secular government or democracy.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Good thing you posted it here, then... 43072[/snapback] Hey, I try!!! We would have really been sucking if Edison had given up on his filament search for the light bulb... but I'm no Edison, and this board isn't THAT world-changing... JUST KIDDING!
RkFast Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 I think you are wrong!! When was the last time either candidate was in Montana, or Alaska, or Hawaii, or Idaho, or North Dakota more than once, or even at all?? You are just substituting the 'electoral value' argument with a 'population value' argument!!! In the population idea, EVERY VOTE counts towards the overall total, making whoever has the largest popular vote the President, plain and simple. The rural, smaller states, when combined, match the more populated states in their power. In the electoral idea, only those votes who are with the winning candidate in that state only count, making every other vote moot, for it is only added to the STATE total. Note that the states with the huge electoral votes get a lot of the stops and special treatment, so obviously that reason washes out. A Democratic vote in Virginia does NOT count, like a Republican vote in New York does not count. The only way they do is if hundreds of thousands of people stop voting, which that idea is ludicrous. 'Read up on the subject and get back to us?' Who is US?? I KNOW WHY it was created, how it came about, and why we still have it, but it doesn't make it right in my opinion, and no amount of 'read up on the subject' or 'hotpocket' will change that; only lucid, common-sense points will change my mind. Why the hell you giving ME a hard time? All Im saying is that the EC is relevant and needed. But since you seem you want to challenge me, Im all for it. Ive looked at the road schedules for both candidates, and while I see your point that they dont spend as much time in the less populated areas, they HARLDY concentrate on just the so-called "big" states. Its pretty clear that the campaigns are attempting to broaden their reach as much as possible, but...they DO focus on the more populated areas. And if the EC was done away with, that would not change. As Tom stated, the USA is NOT a direct democracy and was never intended to be. Is that "common sense" enough for you?
stuckincincy Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Without the Electoral College, eight or nine states would call the shots. A Presidential election would eventually consist of candidates telling the citizenry of those States how much money they would extract from citizens of the other states, if only they vote for me. The Union would break up.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Why the hell you giving ME a hard time? All Im saying is that the EC is relevant and needed. But since you seem you want to challenge me, Im all for it. Ive looked at the road schedules for both candidates, and while I see your point that they dont spend as much time in the less populated areas, they HARLDY concentrate on just the so-called "big" states. Its pretty clear that the campaigns are attempting to broaden their reach as much as possible, but...they DO focus on the more populated areas. And if the EC was done away with, that would not change. As Tom stated, the USA is NOT a direct democracy and was never intended to be. Is that "common sense" enough for you? 43319[/snapback] Ohh I just got upset with the last line... 'reading up'??? We aren't a direct democracy ANYWAY; we are represented by elected officials who MAKE the laws, which is not a direct democracy! I know it would not change, but the votes would count nevertheless, and that IS the important change.
Recommended Posts