it's a relic of the past - popular vote should decide a presidential election. looks like there's a good chance Kerry could win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college.
-
I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly! -
look up approval voting.
By far the superior way to conduct elections.
http://www.approvalvoting.org/
Check out an example of sample ballots....
http://www.approvalvoting.org/ballots.html
(i think that radio button Vs. checkbox thing was a great example
)
Last edited by goBigtime; 10-12-2004, 09:07 AM. -
One thing that's true about the electoral vote is that it doesn't motivate people to go out and vote.
HIGHEST PAYOUTS FOR NO-CONSOLE TOURS IN THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY!
THIS SIG CAN BE YOURS FOR $200 - ICQ: 78881543Comment
-
It definitely takes away a lot of the motivation for people to go the polls when they've already been shown maps on TV that their state is totally going either red or blue and 100% of the votes are going to that candidate. What's the point?Comment
-
Not a fan of Bush but the electoral college is there fore a good reason, to make sure that the people in high population areas do not get to decide who is President for the entire country.
Again, not a fan of the chimp at all but even though he "won" the last election because of the electoral college I still think it is a good idea.Comment
-
Yeah the electoral college is a brialliant idea and it does the job.
US is a federal system. If you had a direct vote smaller states would not count. For the same reason you will never get a consitutional ammendment to change it - small states won't vote themselves out of power.I have no signatureComment
-
I also believe this disadvantage outweighs any advantage that it may have.Originally posted by sickkittens
One thing that's true about the electoral vote is that it doesn't motivate people to go out and vote.
;-)!;-)!;-)!;-)!;-)!;-)!;-)!;-)!;-)!;-)!;-)Comment
-
Why we dont have this in Canada?Originally posted by goBigtime
look up approval voting.
By far the superior way to conduct elections.
http://www.approvalvoting.org/
UUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress!
Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 ! 
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheSaint
Yeah the electoral college is a brialliant idea and it does the job.
US is a federal system. If you had a direct vote smaller states would not count. For the same reason you will never get a consitutional ammendment to change it - small states won't vote themselves out of power.
people can never seem to understand this rational
Comment
-
truly amazing, isn't it?Originally posted by 80smetal
people can never seem to understand this rational
Comment
-
I chalk it up to immaturity 9 times out of 10Originally posted by baddog
truly amazing, isn't it?Comment
-
If their guy wins they are fine with the electoral college, but if their guy loses suddenly the constitution should be changed.Originally posted by 80smetal
people can never seem to understand this rational
Comment
-
I don't know if it is immaturity or not, because they taught us about it in grade school, and it made sense to me then as wellOriginally posted by 80smetal
I chalk it up to immaturity 9 times out of 10Comment
-
WHAT? what the hell are you talking about. if there is a direct vote smaller states wouldn't count? HUH!!! if there is a direct vote then it doesn't matter what state you're in the majority votes of the US voter winsOriginally posted by TheSaint
Yeah the electoral college is a brialliant idea and it does the job.
US is a federal system. If you had a direct vote smaller states would not count. For the same reason you will never get a consitutional ammendment to change it - small states won't vote themselves out of power.Comment
-
The candidates would have absolutely no reason to campaign in Montana, Wyoming, SD, ND, Alaska, Vermont, Delaware. They would not have to care if they took care of the needs of those states at all since there are cities that have higher populationsOriginally posted by acctman
WHAT? what the hell are you talking about. if there is a direct vote smaller states wouldn't count? HUH!!! if there is a direct vote then it doesn't matter what state you're in the majority votes of the US voter winsComment
-
isn't that what they do now with the current electoral system states like montana with only 3 votes no one goes too.Originally posted by baddog
The candidates would have absolutely no reason to campaign in Montana, Wyoming, SD, ND, Alaska, Vermont, Delaware. They would not have to care if they took care of the needs of those states at all since there are cities that have higher populationsComment
-
They dont really campaign here in AK anyway. It does suck to watch the East coast polls when people are still voting here and know it doest matter!Comment
-
The sound byte from Butte, Montana may not make national news, but they do have someone appear on their behalf. For instance, Kerry's sister hit the Crow Indian reservation, and I think it is pretty safe to say that Cheney has made an appearance or two in Wyoming.Originally posted by acctman
isn't that what they do now with the current electoral system states like montana with only 3 votes no one goes too.Comment
-
There have been many elections where the west coast did not matter since the results had been determined long before our polls closed.Originally posted by MissEve
They dont really campaign here in AK anyway. It does suck to watch the East coast polls when people are still voting here and know it doest matter!Comment
-
I live in Texas and I'm voting for Kerry. I'm a silly dreamer. I know that there's a 99.9% probability Bush will carry the state. Still, I'll vote for Kerry.
And yet, in spite of the odds, I believe in the electoral college. I agree that states with smaller populations must have an equitable voice in Federal elections.
I also have hope in the possibility that my state will be completely fed up with that transplant from Maine who pretends to be a cowboy. Because if they are as fed up as a Texan should be, the majority of the state will vote for Kerry. Then all 34 electoral votes go to the better candidate.
I've seen elections turn around. I know it ain't over till it's over. Voter registration is at an all-time high, even in Texas.
Things change.
I still love everybodyComment
-
Winner take all concept state by state is mis representing the American Will.
NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo!
| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily
| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 |ICQ: 78943384 |Comment
-
I understand what you are saying, but I think the concept is that if say Kerry wins California by 51/49% Calif is electing Kerry as their President.Originally posted by AlienQ
Winner take all concept state by state is mis representing the American Will.
However, I do believe that the winner take all concept is a states decision, and not all states use that format. At least they didn't use to be like that.Comment
-
majority rules, or it doesn't...
pretty simple really...Investor with 5m - 15m USD to invest. Do you have a site or network of sites earning 50k - 200k a month income? Email your contact and preliminary data to: domain.cashventures (at) gmail.com....Please...no tire kickers...serious offers and inquiries only.Comment
-
People have argued this for years, the electoral college is outdatedComment
-
it's up to the state:Originally posted by baddog
However, I do believe that the winner take all concept is a states decision, and not all states use that format. At least they didn't use to be like that.
http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...lege/laws.htmlI still love everybodyComment
-
thought so . . . so, those of you that don't like it, talk to your state repsOriginally posted by titmowse
it's up to the state:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...lege/laws.htmlComment
-
Usually you will find that the only people who want to get rid of the electoral college either live in CA or NY or they simply do not understand itMike South
It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.Comment
-
'States' are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
People vote. Count all peoples votes equally.
In case anyone doubts that the Electoral College has its problems, and that those problems tend to favor Republicans in the current political climate, I would like to point out a few statistics that I uncovered while researching this topic over the weekend to prove a point to Becky's brother, Casey.
First off, take a look at the 11 "red states" that make up the heart of the solid Republican Mountain West and Great Plains: Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma. Combined, they have a population of 18,671,566.
Now take a look at New York state. It has a population of 18,976,457. Almost identical -- actually just over 300,000 more.
Well, guess what, folks? New York has 33 electoral votes. Those eleven states have a combined total of 52.670,000 peoples votes = 167,000 other peoples votes.Q . Which state is most over-represented in the Electoral College?
The answer is Wyoming, whose 3 electoral votes cover just over 500,000 people, or about 167,000 per person. California, with over 35 million people and 53 electoral votes, has a ratio of one EV to nearly 670,000 people.
They're not the most screwed in terms of Congressional representation, though. That dubious honor falls on Montana, whose population of 917,000 is nearly double Wyoming's, but they both have one solitary member in the House. Delaware, South Dakota, Utah, and Mississippi all have over 700,000 people per representative as of the 2000 reallocation.
That's too fucked up for words.Comment
-
Well for one, even though it was hundreds of years ago, our founding fathers were very intelligent about this process.
They knew that large cities (like LA and NYC) would sway in only one direction. So big cities would literally dictate the election, and the ordinary non-city folks would get left out. They knew that people living in these huge cities would be out of touch with the ordinary person in the Midwest, for example.... If we didn't have the electoral college, every president would go democrat by default, because of the immigration situation in California, Etc.... So many reasons to have Electoral College in the U.S., only reason not to is because you would want the democrats to always win...sorry but that is unfair.Comment
-
Originally posted by Mutt
it's a relic of the past - popular vote should decide a presidential election. looks like there's a good chance Kerry could win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college.
I agree with 200%Comment
-
It has its ups and downs, I haven't really made up my mind about it.
On one hand Gore won the popular vote and Bush is in the white house which sucks.
However, if we didn't have the electoral college then the candidates would spend all of their time in NY, CA, and a few other states and never visit or really care about rural america.
As for being "motivated" to vote because you know which candidate your state is going to vote for....that's total bullshit.
Voting is your civic responsibility period......lots of people died so we could have the right to vote and I take that seriously.
Not to mention there's lots of other things on the ballot besides the presidential race that are important to your community.
sig too bigComment
-
hmmmI post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do,
I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.Comment
-
Yep. Maine and Nebraska already have provisions for it to not be winner take all. And Colorado has something on the ballot I think.Originally posted by titmowse
it's up to the state:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...lege/laws.html
One good effect to Electoral College is each state has a certain number of Electoral Votes no matter how many ballots are cast...
So you don't have to worry as much about Bush's people stuffing in an extra 2 million bogus ballots into Texas or Kerry's people making voters rise from the dead in Chicago like they did for Kerry.
And all this Hurricane shit in Florida makes you really not want elections decided based on which state had good weather or bad weather that day to get a better turnout.
Comment
-
No doubt about it it's a flawed system but with that said it's the system we have and it has worked so far... I just have a problem with the fact these people can be bought off real easy...Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Originally posted by CamChicks
'States' are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
People vote. Count all peoples votes equally.
670,000 peoples votes = 167,000 other peoples votes.
That's too fucked up for words.
very well said...
shocking how many people try to convince themselves that shit is a good setup...
1 man [woman, etc]
1 voteInvestor with 5m - 15m USD to invest. Do you have a site or network of sites earning 50k - 200k a month income? Email your contact and preliminary data to: domain.cashventures (at) gmail.com....Please...no tire kickers...serious offers and inquiries only.Comment
-
Or better yet, give your smaller parties a voice with preferential voting:
http://www.australianpolitics.com/vo...erential.shtmlComment
-
in all this talk of national elections, people are forgetting something more important: local elections
you will generally be effected more by local policies than national policies anyways...also, by working locally, you can start to change your state.....
so, don't forget there are more things to be informed of on your ballot than Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum....
I, personally, would like to see more states splitting electoral votes to improve the process, but see no real problem with the current Electoral College...sure last election, the man who got the popular vote lost the election, but that was the exception rather than the rule...Comment
-
Where are you from? And who taught you that majority rules? Maybe you are another student from the failed public education system. If you knew a little about the Constitution of the United States then you'd realize that "majority rules" has nothing to do with our form of national government in the executive branch. Article II of the Constituion covers this very clearly, perhaps you should go read it one day.Originally posted by TheJimmy
majority rules, or it doesn't...
pretty simple really...
America is not a democracy... it is a democratic republic.Comment
-
That's too fucked up for words. Even for youOriginally posted by CamChicks
'States' are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
Comment
-
Why don't you read the Constitution of the United States of America ??Originally posted by acctman
WHAT? what the hell are you talking about. if there is a direct vote smaller states wouldn't count? HUH!!! if there is a direct vote then it doesn't matter what state you're in the majority votes of the US voter winsComment
-
Colorado is voting on it this November:Originally posted by SykkBoy2
I, personally, would like to see more states splitting electoral votes to improve the process, but see no real problem with the current Electoral College...sure last election, the man who got the popular vote lost the election, but that was the exception rather than the rule...
"Colorado Constitutional Amendment 36 proposes a split of electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote each candidate receives."
linkI still love everybodyComment
-
I know, I'd just like to see more states follow suitOriginally posted by titmowse
Colorado is voting on it this November:
"Colorado Constitutional Amendment 36 proposes a split of electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote each candidate receives."
linkComment
-
I kind of do as well. The Colorado one takes effect on election day if it's passed. That's sorta exciting.Originally posted by SykkBoy2
I know, I'd just like to see more states follow suitI still love everybodyComment
Comment