swede316 Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 If you went by popular vote...Cali, Texas, FL and NY would be the only states that mattered.
Buftex Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 If you went by popular vote...Cali, Texas, FL and NY would be the only staes that mattered. 104309[/snapback] You mean they're not?
Tux of Borg Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 I'd like to see a swimsuit competition with the daughters.
Campy Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 I expect some interesting responses! 104308[/snapback] Afraid mine's boring. I'm not quite ready to deviate from the Constitution on something as critical to the welfare of this country as voting.
Adam Posted November 6, 2004 Author Posted November 6, 2004 If you went by popular vote...Cali, Texas, FL and NY would be the only states that mattered. 104309[/snapback] I disagree- every region would matter- we have statewide elections for Congress- the President should represent the whole country, not all of the states- although that does happen the majority of the time. (SHould happen EVERY time!)
swede316 Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 President should represent the whole country, not all of the states- All of the states represent the whole country...What makes Alaska worth any less than NY or Rhode Island less than California. Let me put it this way...would an attack on Alaska or Rhode Island not be an attack on us all?
Campy Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 All of the states represent the whole country...What makes Alaska worth any less than NY or Rhode Island less than California. Let me put it this way...would an attack on Alaska or Rhode Island not be an attack on us all? 104316[/snapback] Obviously Alaska is every bit the US as Kentucky, New York, or any other state. But what makes them "worth less" is that they have fewer electoral college votes because of the relativel small population. Without looking it up, I believe they have 3, as opposed to CA, who has 55. So from that standpoint, California is much more important than Alaska.
SilverNRed Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 the President should represent the whole country, not all of the states- 104314[/snapback] Don't want to pile on, but the name of our country is "United STATES of America". I mean, we didn't just name the thing America. I'm alright with the way things are.
swede316 Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Obviously Alaska is every bit the US as Kentucky, New York, or any other state. But what makes them "worth less" is that they have fewer electoral college votes because of the relativel small population. Without looking it up, I believe they have 3, as opposed to CA, who has 55. So from that standpoint, California is much more important than Alaska. I pose a curious question.....Should it be? My point is what if each state had the same amount of votes lets say 1 state 1 vote..Would it be better? .In a states such as California and NY with a high immigrant/illegial immigrant population...Is it fair? Not trying to racist or anything close but staes with high immigration represent a high burden on the respective states... Thus those people will vote beneficiary to themselves. One only has to look to NYC.
/dev/null Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 i like what maine does 2 electoral votes for winner of state and award the rest by who won congressional districts
JimBob2232 Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 "Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it." The electoral college is a good and necessary evil in our society. The election in 2000 proved once again, how valuable a commodity the electoral college is. Opponents to the college point to Florida as a reason to abolish the EC. The exact opposite is true. The first thing that is important to remember, is that it is extremely unlikely that there will be a split in the EC and PV when the margin of victory in the Popular vote is wide. Therefore it stands to reason, that the only time we are in this position is when the popular vote is very close. When the popular vote is very close, the framers of our constitution gave us a clear and decisive way to decide the election...the Electoral College. Remeber Florida 2000. Remember the never ending chaos? Remember hanging chads and lawyers around every corner? The endless recounts and press conferences. Now imagine if we had no electoral college, that scene would play out in every polling place in every county and city in the entire united states. It is precicely BECAUSE of the electoral college that our focus was in FL and FL alone. In 1888 there was a presidential election between grover clevelend and Bengimin Harrison. Grover cleveland ran on a message of reducing tarrifs, an issue extremely important to southern states. As a result, southern states voted him as their presidential choice with an overwhelming 2/3 majority. The problem was, these few states provided a large chunk of the popular vote, but the majority of states did not benefit from the tarrif reduction, and voted for Harrison. As a result, the electoral college did EXACTLY what is was intended to do, it prevented a candidate from winning the white house on the basis of one regions support, at the expense of the rest of the country. This could still happen (and almost did happen this week) today. President Bush has a Huge support in the center of this country. The purpose of the electoral college is to ensure broad support across the country. Two more quick things to remember. 1) The EC is not inherently unfair. It is not unfair that tiny Vermont has as many senators as Huge California. Its not unfair that the winner of the world series is the one to win 4 games, not the one who scores the most runs. Such is the system we have, and it is in place for a very good reason. 2) The EC is here to stay. Debate it all you want, it takes 2/3 of the states to ratify a constitutional ammendment, and Small states like vermont and Rhode Island will not vote in favor, since it basically takes them out of the entire electoral process. One bit of reform that does make sense however, is to do away with the "physical" electoral college. As it stands today, many states do not require their electors to vote for the candidate chosen by their state. There have been a few faithless electors in the past, and the day will arrive where a faithless elector will decide an election, and that is just wrong. Either eliminate the actual elector process, or require them to vote for the candidate chosen by their state.
Campy Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 I pose a curious question.....Should it be? My point is what if each state had the same amount of votes lets say 1 state 1 vote..Would it be better? .In a states such as California and NY with a high immigrant/illegial immigrant population...Is it fair? Not trying to racist or anything close but staes with high immigration represent a high burden on the respective states... Thus those people will vote beneficiary to themselves. One only has to look to NYC. 104326[/snapback] No, IMO it wouldn't be fair. The president represents all American citizens equally, therefore, the states with the largest population receive a larger say in who the next president will be. Illegal immigrants aren't counted in the census, and therefore, aren't factored into assigning the number of electoral votes. The burdens they may or may not represent shouldn't have a bearing on how American citizens choose their president.
swede316 Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Illegal immigrants aren't counted in the census, and therefore, aren't factored into assigning the number of electoral votes. The burdens they may or may not represent shouldn't have a bearing on how American citizens choose their president. Ok...My point is though that states with the highest populations are the states with the highest immigration...Texas, NY, Cali, and FL....Those states tend to have the highest burden for their citizens, especially NY.
Campy Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 When the popular vote is very close, the framers of our constitution gave us a clear and decisive way to decide the election...the Electoral College. 104346[/snapback] They did, but it's more the result of compromise. Congress is the only branch of government which can levy taxes. Since one of the rallying cries of the Revolutionary Was was "Taxation with Representation," they designed the lower house of Congress (House of Representatives) to be representatives directly elected by the citizenry. The heavier poplulated states like NY, MA, and VA thought they should have a larger voice than the small states like RI and DE. As a result, they resolved to assign a number of representatives to the lower house from each state based on that state's population, hence, the census was born. The upper house (Senate)was originally elected by members of the lower, and tended to be more aristocratic, and each state was allowed to have two of them. An ammendment was passed, and today we directly elect those legislators too. The founding fathers did not want a democracy because they rightfully believed that the common illiterate man of the day was incapable of choosing what was best for the country. So they instead formed a republic, where the citizenry votes, not technically for the president, but to show the electoral college who they should vote for. Each representative of Congress selects an elector who casts a ballot for the man the people wanted to be president. To this day, that's how it works. It wasn't born out of some lofty desire to protect the integrity of the vote, it was born out of a compromise, as was the majority of articles in the Constitution.
KD in CA Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 i like what maine does2 electoral votes for winner of state and award the rest by who won congressional districts 104336[/snapback] I could go for that. Would make it harder for the candidates to focus on specific states like they did this year.
Lori Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 i like what maine does2 electoral votes for winner of state and award the rest by who won congressional districts 104336[/snapback] I've considered that myself. Drives me nuts that even though Bush outpolled Kerry by over 70,000 votes in my congressional district, the masses in downtown Philly and Pittsburgh decided "we" should give Kerry the electoral vote that corresponds to our district. Talk about 'disenfranchised' - as I mentioned before, nobody from either campaign ever came closer than a two-hour drive to where I live; they just stayed in the major cities to duke it out. (Heck - I think the last President to visit McKean county might have been Ike, and that was only because he had friends with a hunting/fishing camp over by Kane...) That's one thing I have to give Rendell credit for. When he was running for governor he at least made the attempt to come up north, even though he knew the registration numbers up this way skew solidly Republican. Might've changed a few people's votes by doing that, too. There are problems with doing it district-by-district, though - if you thought waiting for 50 separate states to compile their results was bad, can you just imagine waiting for every single district to do so? Still, though, it would be nice to not feel so blatantly ignored by the national parties here in 'fly-over country'.
swede316 Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 There are problems with doing it district-by-district, though - if you thought waiting for 50 separate states to compile their results was bad, can you just imagine waiting for every single district to do so? Still, though, it would be nice to not feel so blatantly ignored by the national parties here in 'fly-over country'. Hmmmm...Each state has counties...why not 1 vote per county...whoever wins the county gets that vote........Seems fair. lets say NY has 50 counties...Kerry only won 11......bush wins 39.....It offsets High immigration areas like NYC. ...each state would be fair. County wide. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...P/00/index.html
Campy Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Hmmmm...Each state has counties...why not 1 vote per county...whoever wins the county gets that vote........Seems fair. lets say NY has 50 counties...Kerry only won 11......bush wins 39.....It offsets High immigration areas like NYC. ...each state would be fair. County wide. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...P/00/index.html 104394[/snapback] Nope. Goes back to direct representation, and each individual county is not represented in the House. Besides, counties are irrelevant. The president governs people, not land. And again, unless the immigrants are US citizens, they can't vote anyway, so they are a moot point in a non-partisan discussion of the electoral college. This discussion is non-partisan, isn't it?
erynthered Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Nope. Goes back to direct representation, and each county is not represented in the House. And again, unless the immigrants are US citizens, they can't vote anyway, so they are a moot point in a non-partisan discussion of the electoral college. This discussion is non-partisan, isn't it? 104399[/snapback] As long as you keep your Kilt in place.
Recommended Posts