So, why is there a vote if it comes down to electoral college anyway?

DX · 11-02-2004, 02:33 PM

You've had 4 years to learn about this....

**GatorB** · 11-02-2004, 02:34 PM

Because the electoral college votes are determined by the popular vote in each state.

**GatorB** · 11-02-2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by DX
You've had 4 years to learn about this....

more like 200.

**baddog** · 11-02-2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by GatorB
Because the electoral college votes are determined by the popular vote in each state.

**StuartD** · 11-02-2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by DX
You've had 4 years to learn about this....

I have, and I know this... but, well, as I learned 4 years ago... the people's votes doesn't really matter, particularly in certain areas. If I lived in a low population vote, would it even be worth voting?

**webair** · 11-02-2004, 02:38 PM

just vote

**Veterans Day** · 11-02-2004, 02:38 PM

Oh boy, I thought most people had this electoral college thing covered by now.

**broke** · 11-02-2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by MaskedMan
I have, and I know this... but, well, as I learned 4 years ago... the people's votes doesn't really matter, particularly in certain areas. If I lived in a low population vote, would it even be worth voting?

Are you serious? What is a 'liv(ing) in a low population vote'?

**StuartD** · 11-02-2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by broke
Are you serious? What is a 'low population vote'?

Pardon me.. I meant a low population state. Was typing ahead of myself.

**broke** · 11-02-2004, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by MaskedMan
Pardon me.. I meant a low population state. Was typing ahead of myself.

The EC gives low population states a voice in government.

Without it -- 6 million people in LA would decide what's important to a low population state.

**broke** · 11-02-2004, 02:43 PM

Sorry for being rude.

**GatorB** · 11-02-2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by MaskedMan
Pardon me.. I meant a low population state. Was typing ahead of myself.

Well if Gore had won NH in 2000( he lost by 4000 ) which has 4 electoral votes he would be running for re-election now.

**Cory W** · 11-02-2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by broke
The EC gives low population states a voice in government.

Without it -- 6 million people in LA would decide what's important to a low population state.

You have a good point, but I still think the EC needs an examination and probably should move towards the popular vote scale.

**broke** · 11-02-2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by WEG Cory
You have a good point, but I still think the EC needs an examination and probably should move towards the popular vote scale.

Be careful what you wish for...

True democracy (i.e. a popular vote) is tantamount to mob rule.

**ADL Colin** · 11-02-2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by WEG Cory
You have a good point, but I still think the EC needs an examination and probably should move towards the popular vote scale.

That would be difficult. The Senators from the small states will oppose it because they are from small states and some of the others would oppose it because it would be a fundamental change to the Constitution.

**Techie Media** · 11-02-2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by WEG Cory
You have a good point, but I still think the EC needs an examination and probably should move towards the popular vote scale.

I have to agree with you on this, unfortunately I don't think this will happen.

**GatorB** · 11-02-2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by WEG Cory
You have a good point, but I still think the EC needs an examination and probably should move towards the popular vote scale.

They shuld do it like they do in Main and Nebraska. poular vote winner gets 2 EV and the resta re detrmined by congressional district. If a candidate wins a distric he gets that EV. Seems fair. MY distrcit in 2000 OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Gore( almost 60% ) yet all the EV went to Bush.

**Doctor Dre** · 11-02-2004, 02:58 PM

It makes a difference when the votes are close ... popular vote still matters

**Cory W** · 11-02-2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by broke
Be careful what you wish for...

True democracy (i.e. a popular vote) is tantamount to mob rule.

Originally posted by ColinThat would be difficult. The Senators from the small states will opposite it because they are from small states and some of the others would oppose it because it would be a fundamental change to the Constitution.

I think the real issue is voter turnout. You can chant "rock the vote" rhetoric as much as you like, but until popular vote becomes the reality, right wingers in California and left-wingers in Texas have no point in voting other than executing a right.

They would help society more by donating blood on that day.

Colorado now proposes splitting its votes; rewind this concept and Bush is not in office. How about the faithless electors strategy that occurs at times (88 and 76); although this has never carried an election, it is still a strange loophole in a system molded in tradition, rather than logic.

All my opinion of course.

**broke** · 11-02-2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by WEG Cory
Colorado now proposes splitting its votes; rewind this concept and Bush is not in office. How about the faithless electors strategy that occurs at times (88 and 76); although this has never carried an election, it is still a strange loophole in a system molded in tradition, rather than logic.

All my opinion of course.

Rewind to the populous vote and blacks are still going to 'separate but equal' drinking fountains, schools, and lunch counters.

So, why is there a vote if it comes down to electoral college anyway?

So, why is there a vote if it comes down to electoral college anyway?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment