Does anyone think the Electoral College still makes sense?
 

The Electoral College was created so that smaller states would have a disproportionately large amount of votes, and presidential candidates would campaign everywhere. Now elections are won and lost on TV.

3/4ths of the states almost always give all their votes to the same party each time. If you're in California, like I am for example, voting for the Republican candidate is throwing your vote away, because it will have ZERO impact on who is elected. 100.0% of your vote will go to the Democratic candidate.

I've heard this upcoming election will be decided by 5% of the population.

I always figured the next time someone got elected with less of the popular vote, that this retarded, archaic system would be eliminated in the future. It happened last time, yet I've heard no talks of eliminating it. What the fuck is the holdup?

your on the wrong board buddy

my guess is that this gets no more posts

The electoral college has been described many times as "affirmative action" for small poor states.

Once Kerry wins this year and Bush is gone, maybe the right wingers will agree to consider getting rid of it. Right now they can't even talk about it because it makes Bush look stupid.

Here is a great related idea from the extreme right wing "democratic" Senator who supports Bush:

Zell Miller, Georgia's maverick Democratic senator, says the nation ought to return to having senators appointed by legislatures rather than elected by voters.

http://www.athensnewspapers.com/stor...40429066.shtml

:1orglaugh

I hope you did not pay for that education.

The Electoral College was created in order for all states to be able to report their election results.

It would be impossible for the election to be decided by 5% of the population if people would go out and vote. But they are lazy, so anything is possible.

However, if it was not for the Electoral College there would be no campaigning anywhere other than NY, PA, FL, TX, CA, and IL. No one would waste their time campaining in OK, NV, NE, UT, SD, ND or any other small assed, no population state. Just hit the top 7 states and you will have it covered.

Do you think it's right for each vote in Idaho to be worth two votes in New York?

Electoral vote is what invalidates your vote.
Bottom line.

You said my education was wrong but then basically agreed with me that it serves the purpose of making them campaign in the smaller states. My question is why a person should have twice as much voting power as I do, simply because they live in a small state with nothing going on.

People in small states have TV, radio, newspaper...do you really need to go visit a rally to decide who to vote for? If anything, that's the worst way to decide. Just getting caught up in the hype instead of reading about the issues and watching the NATIONALLY TELEVISED debates.

You have 2700 posts and haven't noticed GFY is only industry related business 10% of the time?

It doesn't matter if it makes sense. You can just go changing the longest standing constitution in the world because you disagree with it.

Of course it matters if it makes sense! One of the greatest things about the constitution is that it is written that things should be changed as the times change. You still want all the old laws in place even if they don't make sense any more? You want black people to have to ride in the back of the bus, and have sodomy be illegal? Evolving with the times is very important. Elections are no longer won based on who has been to a campaign rally.

touche

Do you believe that you should be able to vote for Senators in your state?

Have you ever heard of the 17th Amendment?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment17/

By your logic I'm guessing you would say 'No. We shouldn't even have a senate. It's unfair to the big states.'.

Who care about all that shit? :helpme

what are you talking about? NY gets a lot more electoral votes than Idaho

I questioned your education because you said:

a. The Electoral College was created so that smaller states would have a disproportionately large amount of votes, and presidential candidates would campaign everywhere. . . . .

b. I've heard this upcoming election will be decided by 5% of the population.

Both are incorrect