GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Time To Get Rid Of The Electoral College?

kane · 10-12-2004, 09:16 PM

I think it's outdated.

First off there are a lot of people saying that the electoral college gives the smaller, less populated, states a voice and includes them in the process. Well, that is only true if they are battleground states but otherwise they are pretty much ignored. The amount of electoral votes a state has is directly tied to it's population so the states with more people and bigger cities still rule.

Second, It also doesn't make every vote equal. For example if a cadidate wins my state Oregon by 1 vote they get all 7 of our electoral votes. If a cadidate wins California by 1 vote they get all 55 votes. So that one vote in california is worth 48 more votes. That's not an equal voice.

Last. The fact is the big cities do rule this country most of the time. If you live in nebraska and grow corn or wheat for a living where to you think most of it goes? If you raise sheep for the wool or grow cotton that is used to make clothes where does most of it go? To the big cities and large population hubs. Where are the entertainment hubs of this country? What about the educational centers? All of these things are in big cities. There are some exceptions with colleges in small towns or other things of that nature but for the most part it is the big cities that rule this country.

Sombody said that removing it would take away any power that the small states have. Not true. If kerry wins the election and several small, conservative states don't like that they can always elect conservative/replican senators and representatives to keep him in check.

I would favor a system that divided the electoral votes by percentage. So if you were talking about oregon and kerry gets 59% of the vote and Bush gets 40% and nader gets 1% then give kerry 4.13 electoral votes, give bush 2.8 and give nader .07 that way at least every vote in every state would have equal value.

10-12-2004, 09:16 PM
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	I think it's outdated. First off there are a lot of people saying that the electoral college gives the smaller, less populated, states a voice and includes them in the process. Well, that is only true if they are battleground states but otherwise they are pretty much ignored. The amount of electoral votes a state has is directly tied to it's population so the states with more people and bigger cities still rule. Second, It also doesn't make every vote equal. For example if a cadidate wins my state Oregon by 1 vote they get all 7 of our electoral votes. If a cadidate wins California by 1 vote they get all 55 votes. So that one vote in california is worth 48 more votes. That's not an equal voice. Last. The fact is the big cities do rule this country most of the time. If you live in nebraska and grow corn or wheat for a living where to you think most of it goes? If you raise sheep for the wool or grow cotton that is used to make clothes where does most of it go? To the big cities and large population hubs. Where are the entertainment hubs of this country? What about the educational centers? All of these things are in big cities. There are some exceptions with colleges in small towns or other things of that nature but for the most part it is the big cities that rule this country. Sombody said that removing it would take away any power that the small states have. Not true. If kerry wins the election and several small, conservative states don't like that they can always elect conservative/replican senators and representatives to keep him in check. I would favor a system that divided the electoral votes by percentage. So if you were talking about oregon and kerry gets 59% of the vote and Bush gets 40% and nader gets 1% then give kerry 4.13 electoral votes, give bush 2.8 and give nader .07 that way at least every vote in every state would have equal value.