Can someone explain to me why we need the Electoral College - GoFuckYourself.com

Alex · 10-29-2004, 09:24 PM

If we have 295 million people in the US.

And roughly 190 million vote. And overall.

100 million vote Bush. 80 Million vote kerry. 10 Million other.

Then technically Bush wins right.

So whats the need for the electoral college.

BoNgHiTtA · 10-29-2004, 09:25 PM

Because our founding fathers didn't agree that the population could make informed decisions.

They must have taken a time machine forward, and hung out in the midwest for awhile.

drctfiesta · 10-29-2004, 09:28 PM

Very simple reason.
If it wasn't for the electoral college, only very large urban area such as New York, SoCal, SoFla, NoCal, Chicago would really have a voice, candidate would concentrate on the above area as they carry most vote and ignore smaller rural areas.

kane · 10-29-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kaliboy2g
If we have 295 million people in the US.

And roughly 190 million vote. And overall.

100 million vote Bush. 80 Million vote kerry. 10 Million other.

Then technically Bush wins right.

So whats the need for the electoral college.

the basic idea was to give every state a voice so that even the smallest state has a say in the election and the candidates would have to pay attention to them. The problem is that has we have grown as a country some states have gotten huge (population wise ) while others have remained pretty small so the difference in electoral votes is pretty big. So now instead of the cadidates focusing on all states to get eveyones votes, they only focus on the ones they can win or the ones that have the most votes. It was designed to make everyones vote equal, but now that is far from true. I think, in the modern age, it's a flawed system but for the time being it is the system we have.

Alex · 10-29-2004, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by drctfiesta
Very simple reason.
If it wasn't for the electoral college, only very large urban area such as New York, SoCal, SoFla, NoCal, Chicago would really have a voice, candidate would concentrate on the above area as they carry most vote and ignore smaller rural areas.

Well even so. The combined population of those four states does not equal that of the rest of the 46 or so states.

By the way.

Has any candidate every campaigned in hawaii or alsaska

nick050183 · 10-29-2004, 09:33 PM

It has its advantages and disadvantages.

The advantages deal more with the problems we had in the past. Such as the ones that caused the civil war. IF it was purely population based the South wouldnt have a voice... etc But even today it has its bearing, places like North Dakota would be completely ignored by the candidates. The electoral college forces the candidates to take a more state by state approach. Instead of focusing only on national media.

The disadvantages ofcourse come from the fact that large populous states such as Florida and California can have an extremely close race (such as the one in 2004) but still give all their electoral votes to the winner of the state. This system is being revised by the districting system. Now the candidate will have to win the majority of the district not the state. This could call for "battleground districts"

Anyway the system has worked so far so there was no need to change it. But after the last election and possibly this one it might be time for a change.

tootie · 10-29-2004, 09:33 PM

I believe I read that another reason the system was developed was because of the lack of a system to transport the results of the elections to a central location in order to determine the winner in a reasonable amount of time, and also a way to get the news to the people as to who had won.

I think we have adequate means to do all of that now. Electronic voting, computers, internet, television, radio, telephone. Yep. All taken care of.

nick050183 · 10-29-2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kaliboy2g
Well even so. The combined population of those four states does not equal that of the rest of the 46 or so states.

By the way.

Has any candidate every campaigned in hawaii or alsaska

Cheney was in Hawaii today. Its actually considered a battleground state beleive it or not.

drctfiesta · 10-29-2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kaliboy2g
Well even so. The combined population of those four states does not equal that of the rest of the 46 or so states.

By the way.

Has any candidate every campaigned in hawaii or alsaska

California has over 35 Millions people
New York has over 20 Million people
Florida has over 18 Million people
Iliinois has over 12 million people

During the time of the Forefathers, population was centered in urban areas. There were also less cities than today.

kane · 10-29-2004, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by drctfiesta
Very simple reason.
If it wasn't for the electoral college, only very large urban area such as New York, SoCal, SoFla, NoCal, Chicago would really have a voice, candidate would concentrate on the above area as they carry most vote and ignore smaller rural areas.

they still do that. the amount of electoral votes a state has is directly connected to how many people it has. So the more populated states, and the state with the big cities, have large numbers of electoral votes and get all the attention. Look at a state like ohio. It has 20 EV's and is deadlocked so the candidates have been there so much they might as well rent an apartment. But look are my state oregon. It is going to be a kerry state, but up until about 3 weeks ago it was considered in play. But since we only have 7 EV's the candiates have hardly even been here. If I remeber correctly both bush and kerry have been here once and then cheney and edwards also have been here once. The population centers still rule this country.

nick050183 · 10-29-2004, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tootie
I believe I read that another reason the system was developed was because of the lack of a system to transport the results of the elections to a central location in order to determine the winner in a reasonable amount of time, and also a way to get the news to the people as to who had won.

I think we have adequate means to do all of that now. Electronic voting, computers, internet, television, radio, telephone. Yep. All taken care of.

The reason that issue hasnt been forced till recently is because the system did what it was designed to do. But now with the 2000 election its starting to get questioned. Its a "dont fix it if it aint broke" deal. Based on what happens this year we could see a bigger move for reforms.

baddog · 10-29-2004, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by drctfiesta
Very simple reason.
If it wasn't for the electoral college, only very large urban area such as New York, SoCal, SoFla, NoCal, Chicago would really have a voice, candidate would concentrate on the above area as they carry most vote and ignore smaller rural areas.

simple but fairly accurate

Alex · 10-29-2004, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nick050183
Cheney was in Hawaii today. Its actually considered a battleground state beleive it or not.

Really. I find that hard to believe but il take your word on it.

kane · 10-29-2004, 09:39 PM

yeah they sent cheney and kerry has taken out 200K in ads in hawaii starting today. It was very pro kerry but has slipped back into play.

Hey You . . . I Know You! · 10-29-2004, 09:39 PM

Pro?s:

Requires a distribution of popular support to be elected president- the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern.

Strengthens the status of minority groups- the votes of small minorities within a state may make the difference between winning all of a state?s electoral votes or none of them.

Enhances the political stability of the nation by promoting a two-party system- protects that presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements and forces the major parties to absorb the interests of minorities.

Maintains the federal system of government and representation.

2HousePlague · 10-29-2004, 09:41 PM

The Answer

Centurion · 10-29-2004, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nick050183

Anyway the system has worked so far so there was no need to change it. But after the last election and possibly this one it might be time for a change.

Umm..no it hasn't. It was a MISERABLE FAILURE in 2000!

Centurion · 10-29-2004, 09:47 PM

There is absolutely no sane reason to keep the Electoral College.

We are the only "democracy" in the western world that doesn't use the principle of one man/woman, one vote, whoever gets the most votes this way wins.

Even IRAQ won't have the Electoral College. Don't you find that a bit ironic?

Doctor Dre · 10-29-2004, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BoNgHiTtA
Because our founding fathers didn't agree that the population could make informed decisions.

They must have taken a time machine forward, and hung out in the midwest for awhile.

word up :P

CamChicks · 10-29-2004, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Wyoming's 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.

This should make any fan of democracy furious.

1 person casting a vote in Wyoming counts as much as 4 people in California.
1 Bush vote cancels out 4 Kerry votes.
1 vote = 4 votes. Understand? It's fucked.

Would it be ok for white peoples votes to count 4 times as much as a black persons vote?
Would it be ok for a mans vote to be worth 400% more than a womans vote?
Then why would it be acceptable to discriminate based on where you live?
We all pay the same federal taxes and federal law applies to us all equally;
so we should all have an equal voice.

Those who try to justify the electoral college with the "pay more attention to us" arguement are just trying to maintain their unfair undemocratic redneck advantage. This is not what our forefathers intended. The system was put into place because of the size of this country and practical voting/transportation issues that modern technology has since resolved. Hundreds of years later it's completely reasonable to bring out government into the 21st century with 1person/1vote + a more representative party system. There's no reason why we can't have similar reforms that other fairer, more modern, democracies have achieved.

1 person, 1 vote, should all count the same.
I don't care where you live; that's the basic foundation of democracy worldwide.

2HousePlague · 10-29-2004, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
This should make any fan of democracy furious.

1 person casting a vote in Wyoming counts as much as 4 people in California.
1 Bush vote cancels out 4 Kerry votes.
1 vote = 4 votes. Understand? It's fucked.

Would it be ok for white peoples votes to count 4 times as much as a black persons vote?
Would it be ok for a mans vote to be worth 400% more than a womans vote?
Then why would it be acceptable to discriminate based on where you live?
We all pay the same federal taxes and federal law applies to us all equally;
so we should all have an equal voice.

Those who try to justify the electoral college with the "pay more attention to us" arguement are just trying to maintain their unfair undemocratic redneck advantage. This is not what our forefathers intended. The system was put into place because of the size of this country and practical voting/transportation issues that modern technology has since resolved. Hundreds of years later it's completely reasonable to bring out government into the 21st century with 1person/1vote + a more representative party system. There's no reason why we can't have similar reforms that other fairer, more modern, democracies have achieved.

1 person, 1 vote, should all count the same.
I don't care where you live; that's the basic foundation of democracy worldwide.

The basis for this is the idea that some places have a lower density of population, but are, nevertheless, deserving of a comparable representation to places where many are packed together very closely.

Hard to understand?

It means LAND is the measurement of voice, the 1,000 acre owner in Montana is the equivalent of a brownstone on the Upper East Side.

j-

CamChicks · 10-29-2004, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2HousePlague

It means LAND is the measurement of voice, the 1,000 acre owner in Montana is the equivalent of a brownstone on the Upper East Side.

Land is lifeless and cannot vote. Land doesn't have desires or personal hardships. Land will never need recognition of its civil rights. Land will never need an abortion, or a marriage recognized, or face the death penalty, or be sent to war.

Owning 1000 acres of desert doesn't make anyones opinion matter more.

2HousePlague · 10-29-2004, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
Land is lifeless and cannot vote. Land doesn't have desires or personal hardships. Land will never need recognition of its civil rights. Land will never need an abortion, or a marriage recognized, or face the death penalty, or be sent to war.

Owning 1000 acres of desert doesn't make anyones opinion matter more.

I agree with you 1,000% -- hence my great sadness.

j-

DX · 10-29-2004, 11:38 PM

just pray theres never an electoral college tie.

Kard63 · 10-29-2004, 11:57 PM

The electoral college was created to give little states a little extra weight. Then that made sense because they invisioned a good degree of independance between states and of course over 200 years that has changed, most are just alike. People never talk about the country not originally menat to be this tight but people are retarded. Now the electoral college exists to deter people from voting. Republicans like it because they have a fair chance and Democrats allow it because they had rather lose than allow the possibility of a 3rd part existing.

Libertine · 10-30-2004, 09:17 AM

Why the system is ridiculous right now:
http://supak.com/election_2000/#count%20the%20votes

benc · 10-30-2004, 09:23 AM

Do away with it and this country gets very close to Civil War. If a handful of urban cities decide the election, why would some souther states and western states want to remain in this government when they have no say?

bringer · 10-30-2004, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
This should make any fan of democracy furious.

1 person casting a vote in Wyoming counts as much as 4 people in California.
1 Bush vote cancels out 4 Kerry votes.
1 vote = 4 votes. Understand? It's fucked.

Would it be ok for white peoples votes to count 4 times as much as a black persons vote?
Would it be ok for a mans vote to be worth 400% more than a womans vote?
Then why would it be acceptable to discriminate based on where you live?
We all pay the same federal taxes and federal law applies to us all equally;
so we should all have an equal voice.

Those who try to justify the electoral college with the "pay more attention to us" arguement are just trying to maintain their unfair undemocratic redneck advantage. This is not what our forefathers intended. The system was put into place because of the size of this country and practical voting/transportation issues that modern technology has since resolved. Hundreds of years later it's completely reasonable to bring out government into the 21st century with 1person/1vote + a more representative party system. There's no reason why we can't have similar reforms that other fairer, more modern, democracies have achieved.

1 person, 1 vote, should all count the same.
I don't care where you live; that's the basic foundation of democracy worldwide.

blah blah blah
democrats always carry california so who fucking cares?
aslong as california is full of mexicans looking for a handout, democrats will always win

bringer · 10-30-2004, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
Land is lifeless and cannot vote. Land doesn't have desires or personal hardships. Land will never need recognition of its civil rights. Land will never need an abortion, or a marriage recognized, or face the death penalty, or be sent to war.

Owning 1000 acres of desert doesn't make anyones opinion matter more.

yeah, you're right. we should all live in highly populated areas so we can benefit the pandering of elected officals who want the large city to give them their vote. fuck everyone else who gets nothing because they chose not to live in LA or NY

mardigras · 10-30-2004, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DX
just pray theres never an electoral college tie.

I don't know about current statistics but a couple days ago an analyst on CNN said there were 11 possible outcomes that could lead to a tie.

Centurion · 10-30-2004, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by benc
Do away with it and this country gets very close to Civil War. If a handful of urban cities decide the election, why would some souther states and western states want to remain in this government when they have no say?

Thanks for your post. I needed a mid-day chuckle.

Dead13 · 10-30-2004, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DX
just pray theres never an electoral college tie.

Better go back and reread your history books. There has already been a tie.

Gynecologist · 10-30-2004, 02:47 PM

To keep the people in the large popluation centers from having more voting power than the rest of the country.

NoHassleSteve · 10-30-2004, 03:12 PM

America is a Federal Republic.

The President is chosen by the STATES.

In fact, vote to choose your state's electors.. it is because your state has chosen to let you.
Same for the "winner-take-all"... Except for Nebraska, Maine, and (maybe soon) Colorado... The other 47/48 states use winner-take-all because they CHOOSE to.

That's because the Electoral College is the way the STATES choose the President. That's why the Presidential election is run in each state according to that state's rules for getting on the ballot, registering to vote, etc.

A nice outcome from it ??
It means that no matter how bad the weather is in one state... or how much corrupt ballot stuffing occurs in another... That state's effect on the outcome is already "set".

i.e. no EC and Bush's people in Texas or Kerry's people in Chicago or Boston could make an extra 10 million votes "appear".
With the EC, there's nothing to be gained from that. Instead, the candidates have to go to other areas and get support.

A lot of the problems with the EC are because of the "winner take all" approach that most states choose. If that changed... It wouldn't seem so out-of-date.

doornx · 10-30-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
This should make any fan of democracy furious.

1 person casting a vote in Wyoming counts as much as 4 people in California.
1 Bush vote cancels out 4 Kerry votes.
1 vote = 4 votes. Understand? It's fucked.

Would it be ok for white peoples votes to count 4 times as much as a black persons vote?
Would it be ok for a mans vote to be worth 400% more than a womans vote?
Then why would it be acceptable to discriminate based on where you live?
We all pay the same federal taxes and federal law applies to us all equally;
so we should all have an equal voice.

Those who try to justify the electoral college with the "pay more attention to us" arguement are just trying to maintain their unfair undemocratic redneck advantage. This is not what our forefathers intended. The system was put into place because of the size of this country and practical voting/transportation issues that modern technology has since resolved. Hundreds of years later it's completely reasonable to bring out government into the 21st century with 1person/1vote + a more representative party system. There's no reason why we can't have similar reforms that other fairer, more modern, democracies have achieved.

1 person, 1 vote, should all count the same.
I don't care where you live; that's the basic foundation of democracy worldwide.

very well put

couldn't agree more

Gynecologist · 10-30-2004, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoHassleSteve
America is a Federal Republic.

The President is chosen by the STATES.

In fact, vote to choose your state's electors.. it is because your state has chosen to let you.
Same for the "winner-take-all"... Except for Nebraska, Maine, and (maybe soon) Colorado... The other 47/48 states use winner-take-all because they CHOOSE to.

That's because the Electoral College is the way the STATES choose the President. That's why the Presidential election is run in each state according to that state's rules for getting on the ballot, registering to vote, etc.

A nice outcome from it ??
It means that no matter how bad the weather is in one state... or how much corrupt ballot stuffing occurs in another... That state's effect on the outcome is already "set".

i.e. no EC and Bush's people in Texas or Kerry's people in Chicago or Boston could make an extra 10 million votes "appear".
With the EC, there's nothing to be gained from that. Instead, the candidates have to go to other areas and get support.

A lot of the problems with the EC are because of the "winner take all" approach that most states choose. If that changed... It wouldn't seem so out-of-date.

You could preach this logic to people 24/7 365 days a year and it still would not sink in unless it somehow helps the candidate they want to win.

Dead13 · 10-30-2004, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoHassleSteve
A lot of the problems with the EC are because of the "winner take all" approach that most states choose. If that changed... It wouldn't seem so out-of-date.

If each state gave a percentage of votes to each candidate then 3rd party candidates would also be entitled to get their fair share wherever they gain a good percentage.

The problem with this is in a close race it prevents one of the other canidates from reaching 270 needed and the race goes from the hands of American voters into the hands of the Congress.

Then Congress gets to choose from all 3, or more.

The only way to make the EC work is to get rid fo the fucking thing and allow EACH AND EVERY vote to count.

10-29-2004, 09:24 PM	#1
Alex So Fucking Banned (YEA!!) Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 10,963	Can someone explain to me why we need the Electoral College If we have 295 million people in the US. And roughly 190 million vote. And overall. 100 million vote Bush. 80 Million vote kerry. 10 Million other. Then technically Bush wins right. So whats the need for the electoral college. __________________ Care about me? Who? Me! Who?

10-29-2004, 09:25 PM	#2
BoNgHiTtA Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Seattle Posts: 2,176	Because our founding fathers didn't agree that the population could make informed decisions. They must have taken a time machine forward, and hung out in the midwest for awhile. __________________ Wanna see how Adult Site Traffic Scammed me? Click Here:

10-29-2004, 09:28 PM	#3
drctfiesta Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Kingdom of Darkness Posts: 1,821	Very simple reason. If it wasn't for the electoral college, only very large urban area such as New York, SoCal, SoFla, NoCal, Chicago would really have a voice, candidate would concentrate on the above area as they carry most vote and ignore smaller rural areas. __________________ *

10-29-2004, 09:33 PM	#7
tootie Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Planet Earp Posts: 6,041	I believe I read that another reason the system was developed was because of the lack of a system to transport the results of the elections to a central location in order to determine the winner in a reasonable amount of time, and also a way to get the news to the people as to who had won. I think we have adequate means to do all of that now. Electronic voting, computers, internet, television, radio, telephone. Yep. All taken care of. __________________

10-29-2004, 09:41 PM	#16
2HousePlague CURATOR Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: the attic Posts: 14,572	The Answer __________________ tada!

10-29-2004, 09:33 PM	#6
nick050183 So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Savannah Georgia Posts: 190	It has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages deal more with the problems we had in the past. Such as the ones that caused the civil war. IF it was purely population based the South wouldnt have a voice... etc But even today it has its bearing, places like North Dakota would be completely ignored by the candidates. The electoral college forces the candidates to take a more state by state approach. Instead of focusing only on national media. The disadvantages ofcourse come from the fact that large populous states such as Florida and California can have an extremely close race (such as the one in 2004) but still give all their electoral votes to the winner of the state. This system is being revised by the districting system. Now the candidate will have to win the majority of the district not the state. This could call for "battleground districts" Anyway the system has worked so far so there was no need to change it. But after the last election and possibly this one it might be time for a change.

10-29-2004, 09:39 PM	#14
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	yeah they sent cheney and kerry has taken out 200K in ads in hawaii starting today. It was very pro kerry but has slipped back into play.

10-29-2004, 09:39 PM	#15
Hey You . . . I Know You! Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 1,908	Pro?s: Requires a distribution of popular support to be elected president- the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern. Strengthens the status of minority groups- the votes of small minorities within a state may make the difference between winning all of a state?s electoral votes or none of them. Enhances the political stability of the nation by promoting a two-party system- protects that presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements and forces the major parties to absorb the interests of minorities. Maintains the federal system of government and representation.

10-29-2004, 09:47 PM	#18
Centurion Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: SeATtle Posts: 6,033	There is absolutely no sane reason to keep the Electoral College. We are the only "democracy" in the western world that doesn't use the principle of one man/woman, one vote, whoever gets the most votes this way wins. Even IRAQ won't have the Electoral College. Don't you find that a bit ironic? __________________

10-29-2004, 11:38 PM	#24
DX Feed me coffee. Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Massafuckingchusetts Posts: 1,128	just pray theres never an electoral college tie. Last edited by DX; 10-29-2004 at 11:40 PM..

10-29-2004, 11:57 PM	#25
Kard63 Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: 237 619 975 Posts: 8,944	The electoral college was created to give little states a little extra weight. Then that made sense because they invisioned a good degree of independance between states and of course over 200 years that has changed, most are just alike. People never talk about the country not originally menat to be this tight but people are retarded. Now the electoral college exists to deter people from voting. Republicans like it because they have a fair chance and Democrats allow it because they had rather lose than allow the possibility of a 3rd part existing. __________________

10-30-2004, 09:17 AM	#26
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	Why the system is ridiculous right now: http://supak.com/election_2000/#count%20the%20votes __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

10-30-2004, 09:23 AM	#27
benc Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 788	Do away with it and this country gets very close to Civil War. If a handful of urban cities decide the election, why would some souther states and western states want to remain in this government when they have no say? __________________ Numerous Adult and Non Adult Domains For Sale Such as SlutVideos.com, FitWomen.com Listed on Sedo or can do direct sale

10-30-2004, 02:47 PM	#33
Gynecologist Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,184	To keep the people in the large popluation centers from having more voting power than the rest of the country.

10-30-2004, 03:12 PM	#34
NoHassleSteve Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: South Florida Posts: 450	America is a Federal Republic. The President is chosen by the STATES. In fact, vote to choose your state's electors.. it is because your state has chosen to let you. Same for the "winner-take-all"... Except for Nebraska, Maine, and (maybe soon) Colorado... The other 47/48 states use winner-take-all because they CHOOSE to. That's because the Electoral College is the way the STATES choose the President. That's why the Presidential election is run in each state according to that state's rules for getting on the ballot, registering to vote, etc. A nice outcome from it ?? It means that no matter how bad the weather is in one state... or how much corrupt ballot stuffing occurs in another... That state's effect on the outcome is already "set". i.e. no EC and Bush's people in Texas or Kerry's people in Chicago or Boston could make an extra 10 million votes "appear". With the EC, there's nothing to be gained from that. Instead, the candidates have to go to other areas and get support. A lot of the problems with the EC are because of the "winner take all" approach that most states choose. If that changed... It wouldn't seem so out-of-date.