Time To Get Rid Of The Electoral College? - GoFuckYourself.com

Mutt · 10-12-2004, 10:04 AM

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.

goBigtime · 10-12-2004, 10:06 AM

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

)

sickkittens · 10-12-2004, 10:08 AM

One thing that's true about the electoral vote is that it doesn't motivate people to go out and vote.

ItBurnsWhenIpee · 10-12-2004, 10:30 AM

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?

Gynecologist · 10-12-2004, 01:03 PM

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.

TheSaint · 10-12-2004, 01:08 PM

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.

M_M · 10-12-2004, 01:10 PM

Quote:

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.

I also believe this disadvantage outweighs any advantage that it may have.

Basic_man · 10-12-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime
look up approval voting.

By far the superior way to conduct elections.

http://www.approvalvoting.org/

Why we dont have this in Canada?

80smetal · 10-12-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

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

baddog · 10-12-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 80smetal
people can never seem to understand this rational

truly amazing, isn't it?

80smetal · 10-12-2004, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
truly amazing, isn't it?

I chalk it up to immaturity 9 times out of 10

Mr Dickovitch · 10-12-2004, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 80smetal
people can never seem to understand this rational

If their guy wins they are fine with the electoral college, but if their guy loses suddenly the constitution should be changed.

baddog · 10-12-2004, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 80smetal
I chalk it up to immaturity 9 times out of 10

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 well

acctman · 10-12-2004, 01:37 PM

Quote:

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.

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 wins

baddog · 10-12-2004, 01:45 PM

Quote:

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 wins

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 populations

acctman · 10-12-2004, 01:48 PM

Quote:

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 populations

isn't that what they do now with the current electoral system states like montana with only 3 votes no one goes too.

MissEve · 10-12-2004, 01:53 PM

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!

baddog · 10-12-2004, 02:00 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

baddog · 10-12-2004, 02:02 PM

Quote:

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!

There have been many elections where the west coast did not matter since the results had been determined long before our polls closed.

titmowse · 10-12-2004, 02:18 PM

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.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 10-12-2004, 02:21 PM

Winner take all concept state by state is mis representing the American Will.

baddog · 10-12-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AlienQ
Winner take all concept state by state is mis representing the American Will.

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.

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.

TheJimmy · 10-12-2004, 03:21 PM

majority rules, or it doesn't...

pretty simple really...

wdsguy · 10-12-2004, 03:27 PM

People have argued this for years, the electoral college is outdated

titmowse · 10-12-2004, 03:44 PM

Quote:

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.

it's up to the state:

http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...lege/laws.html

baddog · 10-12-2004, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by titmowse
it's up to the state:

http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...lege/laws.html

thought so . . . so, those of you that don't like it, talk to your state reps

mikesouth · 10-12-2004, 05:27 PM

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 it

CamChicks · 10-12-2004, 05:30 PM

'States' are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
People vote. Count all peoples votes equally.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

670,000 peoples votes = 167,000 other peoples votes.
That's too fucked up for words.

crowkid · 10-12-2004, 05:36 PM

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.

NichePay_Manny · 10-12-2004, 05:38 PM

Quote:

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%

Snake Doctor · 10-12-2004, 05:49 PM

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.

BRISK · 10-12-2004, 06:25 PM

NoHassleSteve · 10-12-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by titmowse
it's up to the state:

http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...lege/laws.html

Yep. Maine and Nebraska already have provisions for it to not be winner take all. And Colorado has something on the ballot I think.

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.

xclusive · 10-12-2004, 08:12 PM

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...

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.

TheJimmy · 10-12-2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

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 vote

Joe Citizen · 10-12-2004, 10:30 PM

Or better yet, give your smaller parties a voice with preferential voting:

http://www.australianpolitics.com/vo...erential.shtml

SykkBoy · 10-12-2004, 10:35 PM

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...

Fire · 10-12-2004, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheJimmy
majority rules, or it doesn't...

pretty simple really...

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.

America is not a democracy... it is a democratic republic.

baddog · 10-12-2004, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
'States' are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map.

That's too fucked up for words. Even for you

Fire · 10-12-2004, 11:01 PM

Quote:

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 wins

Why don't you read the Constitution of the United States of America ??

titmowse · 10-13-2004, 01:58 AM

Quote:

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 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."

link

SykkBoy · 10-13-2004, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally 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."

link

I know, I'd just like to see more states follow suit

titmowse · 10-13-2004, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SykkBoy2
I know, I'd just like to see more states follow suit

I kind of do as well. The Colorado one takes effect on election day if it's passed. That's sorta exciting.

10-12-2004, 10:04 AM	#1
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	Time To Get Rid Of The Electoral College? 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!

10-12-2004, 10:06 AM	#2
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	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 at 10:07 AM..

10-12-2004, 10:08 AM	#3
sickkittens I am a meat popsicle. Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,100	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: 78881543

10-12-2004, 01:08 PM	#6
TheSaint Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Everywhere at once Posts: 991	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 signature

10-12-2004, 02:18 PM	#20
titmowse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: TEXAS Posts: 5,320	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 everybody

10-12-2004, 10:30 AM	#4
ItBurnsWhenIpee Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The Beach, SoCal Posts: 1,288	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?

10-12-2004, 01:03 PM	#5
Gynecologist Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,184	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.

10-12-2004, 01:53 PM	#17
MissEve Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Anchorage, AK Posts: 583	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!

10-12-2004, 02:21 PM	#21
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	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 \|

10-12-2004, 03:21 PM	#23
TheJimmy ICQ- five seven 0 2 5 5 0 Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 10,747	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.

10-12-2004, 03:27 PM	#24
wdsguy Ryde or Die Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: California-Shanghai Posts: 19,568	People have argued this for years, the electoral college is outdated

10-12-2004, 05:27 PM	#27
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	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 it __________________ Mike 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.

10-12-2004, 05:36 PM	#29
crowkid o.g. spammer Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 1,240	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.

10-12-2004, 05:49 PM	#31
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	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 big

10-12-2004, 06:25 PM	#32
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	hmmm __________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

10-12-2004, 08:12 PM	#34
xclusive Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 35,218	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... __________________ I support MediumPimpin.com / Shemp's Outlawtgp.com /

10-12-2004, 09:16 PM	#35
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.

10-12-2004, 10:30 PM	#37
Joe Citizen Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 4,552	Or better yet, give your smaller parties a voice with preferential voting: http://www.australianpolitics.com/vo...erential.shtml

10-12-2004, 10:35 PM	#38
SykkBoy Jesus loves bacon Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sin City, Motherfucker Posts: 19,969	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... __________________ Support my new movie “The Second Coming”