I wonder what the anti Electoral College people are saying now
 

I think most of those that are against the Electoral College were pro-Kerry, so what do you think now?

Kerry isn't that far away (9 EV's), but he has only won 13 states compared to Bush's 22.

Still think the EC is a bad thing?

The electoral college makes sense when you break it down. I've found that people who don't agree with it don't quite understand how, and most importantly, why it works.

The anti-electoral people don't want it to be decided on a state by state basis, just overall/popular votes. Bush wins more states, yes. But those states aren't as densly populated as the ones Kerry wins. :2 cents:

exactly...

why do you think the electoral numbers are distributed the way they are...

Please, explain to me what I don't understand if I find this weird:
http://supak.com/election_2000/#count%20the%20votes

Here's a nice little selection of some states, their amount of electoral votes and votes cast in the 2000 elections:

MI 18.00 1,168,266.00
VA 13.00 1,437,490.00
MA 12.00 1,616,487.00

Whats not to understand?

The origional purpose was about states rights, so the small states could have decent representation in the government.

In the modern world, it basically means that if your vote counts less if you are from a densely populated state.

Doesn't it make you feel good that your vote counts less than some hick?

Son, I know exactly why they are distributed the way they are.

My argument is, and always has been that you need the EC so that the rest of the country gets some attention without CA and NY Kerry would not stand a chance, and while Kerry won ALL the EV's, he did not exactly kick Bush's ass.

WTF do you mean he wouldn't stand a chance? If you got rid of the EC, and all the tiny hick states didnt' have their advantage votes, NY and CA wouldn't matter at all!

The advantage of the EC is clearly towards the religious right.

Why is the EC needed so the rest of the country gets attention? When every vote counts (like when going by the popular vote), wannabe-presidents are forced to get votes wherever they can.

The one big difference when going by the popular vote would be that republicans in California, New York etc. would actually have a good reason to go vote, just like democrats in Texas, Utah, etc. Right now there's very little campaigning in strong dem or rep states, and you can bet your ass that a lot of people don't vote because their vote doesn't make a difference anyway.

I agree and also think that baddog is a closet-flaming homo ( not that I have anything against homosexuals )

You do realize Bush is leading by 4 million popular votes, right? Kerry could pull it off if he took Ohio (which he won't, but if he did) and not have the popular vote.

Please pay attention.

Like you have a fucking clue about our political system.

The EC is stupid. All votes should be equal. A vote in SD is 3 times more valuable than one on California. Is that fair? A conservative in New York or a liberal in Texas might as well stay home on elction day. Thier votes don't count.

If you are going to have the EC then do it like Maine and Nebrska which is by congressional district. The winner of the popular vote gets 2 EC votes and the rest are determined by whether thte candidate won that district.

Bush still has a commanding 4 million vote lead, you thing the EC is helping him tonight?

Then Bush would have won the state of Washington.

It's not about who wins, it's about whether the system's a good one or not.

The valid question is what is the population of the states not what percentage of their population decided to vote.

no one knows if the system worked properly
if kerry was ahead everyone would be saying how great its working but because he's not they are saying it massive fraud. you all should run for office, anything that helps you is good and legit, anything that hurts you is fraud and evil. call the lawyers

us has a fucked up voting system if you ask me.

It's the United STATES not the United Populace.

Why? Why should people's votes represent everyone in their state? Why does someone's vote need to be worth more simply because he happens to live in a state with low voter turnout?
And why is that better than using the popular vote to determine the president?

I'll have to disagree with that. I'll always disagree with a system that is intrinsically wrong, even if the system is helping me or my standpoints.

States have Senators, and a fair amount of autonomy. Why should the president not represent all Americans equally?

Going back to the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers the great political debate in the US has been about federalism. Whether it is the right amount or not begs the fundamental question of what the United States actually is. The Constitution answers that question and the electoral system is the voting system that results. Is there any reason to change what the United States is and the relation between states, their population and the federal government? I don't think so myself.

You might ask "why not one person, one vote?" Another might ask "why not one state, one vote"? Of course, the electoral system is a compromise between those two schools of thought.

There are many mixed voting systems in the world. It's completely normal. Consider Canada's system where each district chooses an MP and then the party with the majority chooses the government and prime minister. No, I don't think just because other nations use a mixed voting system the US should but it's amusing that many of the
same people who complain about the US electoral system live in a country with a similar one.

What you fail to address is the problem that the EC works on a "winner takes all" basis for the individual states. Autonomy for the individual states most certainly does not hold that minority positions in states get no vote.

Aside from that, the fact that you value the individual states does not mean that you can't base their influence on their population. In fact, that is even being done right now, but with a completely useless added 2 EV's per state, plus a minimum of 1 EV.

Even if you look at it from your the "state" point of view, the current system makes no sense. It's an outdated system, that may have made sense a long time ago but simply isn't logical anymore these days.

Now wait a minute. I didn't say I value the individual states more than the population, PW. Truth is, I don't find either to be important. As such, I think a mixed system is just fine.

The 2 EVs are not just added to each state for no reason at all. It was decided that each state needed to have minimum representation and that representation was set as equal to the number of senators for each state. It is not "useless". There is a reason behind it and that is so small states would not be completely subsidiary to the interests of larger states. i.e. Rhode Island vs. Virginia in the language of the day. Now you could argue, "why not 1 or 3 or 4?". That, however, is like arguing whether the drinking age should be 19, 20, or 21. The problem was defined and the number was set at something that people could agree on.

The current system is a result of a compromise at the constitutional convention between those who thought states should decide the president and those who thought people should.

It is neither one nor the other.

What makes it outdated? What has changed? There are such systems all over the world. Canada and the UK, for example. The US is still the United States of America. The constitution defines what that means.

Your statement that you don't find the population to be important somewhat scares me. Isn't the one main thing a nation exists for, and is ultimately subordinate to, its population? If not, dictatorship would be just as valid a form of government as democracy...

Now, as for what makes the EC outdated, I think the main thing is the "winner takes all" principle. In a rural society with states that had relatively low populations, the argument that a single vote could represent a state's overall position fairly well may have been somewhat valid. However, with states the size of California that simply isn't the case anymore.
Aside from that, the "winner takes all" principle adds a huge influence of random luck to the electoral process. As we've seen in 2000, a few hundred or a few thousand votes can determine the outcome. Those can literally be changed by a small breeze or a small amount of rain. This is also true if you use the popular vote or a proportionate distribution of electoral votes, but to a much lesser degree.

Now, as for the minimum representation, that is based on a society where the states had much smaller population differences and where mobility between states was much smaller.
However, these days there is no good reason anymore why someone from Wyoming should have 3 times as much to say about who becomes president as someone from California.

"Your statement that you don't find the population to be important somewhat scares me". Quote me, PW. I have no idea what you are even talking about. I didn't say anything like that at all.

The population does matter. It matters a lot - on a state by state basis. It matters pretty much like it does in the UK or Canada.

The EC isn't supposed to approximate a state's population. It never was. It was created just so it isn't proportional to each state's population.
The United States is a Republic.

You keep discussing this like this is the United Peoples of America. It's not. iIt's the United STATES of America. Akin in someways to the way the EU has started though it has evolved to be much more federal. Originally, there were the Articles of Confederation. This was found to be too weak of a central government. They then created the constitution intending to strengthen the central government but not to go too far.

The population differences at the founding of the Republic were very large indeed. Virginia was ten times larger than Rhode Island. Hell, Virginia had more people in 1790 than Vermont has today.