Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1.    #1  
    I'm not sure I like this. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040912_784.html It isn't so much the structure (it seems fair).

    Here's the rub:
    You are campaigning for president, but you don't even know how the votes are going to be counted until after all the votes are cast! Doesn't seem right to me.
  2. #2  
    why even have an electoral vote if it's not winner take all. If you split them, it's just another way of making it a popular vote.
  3. #3  
    i definatley dont like that
    <a href="http://www.intarweb-master.blogspot.com"target="blank">My Blog</a>
  4. #4  
    i, for one, feel that the electoral college needs to be put to bed, but if it is, to be killed everywhere. we have the technology now to count every vote, so, we need to make the popular vote the whole vote.
    <a href="http://www.intarweb-master.blogspot.com"target="blank">My Blog</a>
  5.    #5  
    Here's a big issue: if you have a close election and direct voting, and need to recount, you need to do so all over the country, in every county, with the associated court battles and whatnot. And of course you would have to have so-called "instant runoff" elections because it is quite feasible that no one wins a majority (In six postwar elections -- 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996 and 2000 -- no candidate had a popular majority).

    For a few more interesting comments, the WSJ editorial board spoke of this last week. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...cle-outset-box
  6. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
    #6  
    I'm not a constitutional scholar, but this quote at the end of the article seems pretty darn bogus:

    "The electoral college, for all of its flaws, is a necessary check and balance for ensuring that the president is elected from a dispersed geographical portion of the United States," he said. "The organizational plan of the founding fathers was to make sure we didn't have a system where a president could be elected simply based on popular votes from population centers."

    I thought the electroal college was best technology at the time for getting a popular vote.

    My thoughts:

    Electoral college should be dumped. We have the senate for state representation w/o respect to population. The president should be elected by the country.

    As a resident of Colorado, will I vote for it? Probably not. Unilateral action in this case will make Colorado less of a player on the national stage. It needs to be changed nationwide.
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  7. #7  
    The Electoral College provides a means to ensure that bullying power (good or bad) is not the key to winning an election. Further, it helps to ensure that each STATE within the UNITED STATES has a voice in the federal electoral process.

    For example, a person who carries the popular vote in the 10 most populous states could win an election, even if the reminaing 40 states are opposed to that person's candidacy.

    We are a democratic replublic, not a democracy.
  8. #8  
    i personally like the electoral system but I don't like the voting piece of it. My thought is that if you win the popular vote in a state you automatically get the votes. Get rid of the voting piece of it. It just causes too problems.
  9. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Here's a big issue: if you have a close election and direct voting, and need to recount, you need to do so all over the country, in every county, with the associated court battles and whatnot. And of course you would have to have so-called "instant runoff" elections because it is quite feasible that no one wins a majority (In six postwar elections -- 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996 and 2000 -- no candidate had a popular majority).
    So you have a runoff election. Wouldn't the country feel a little more like there's a clear winner?

    Choosing a president if important. This is not the place I'd go first to save money.
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  10. #10  
    this is a very interesting discussion, id love to hear what a constitution expert would say. im planning to bring this up in my constitutional law class as soon as i get better.. i hate being sick
    <a href="http://www.intarweb-master.blogspot.com"target="blank">My Blog</a>
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by santa
    So you have a runoff election. Wouldn't the country feel a little more like there's a clear winner?

    Choosing a president if important. This is not the place I'd go first to save money.
    I hate the electoral college. For as long as I've been alive, NC has voted for Republican presidents. And by a wide margin. Talk about not having your vote count...

    Nareau
  12. #12  
    essentially, thats exactly what the electoral college does. it stops the minority vote from being heard, which im sure is not what the framers of the constitution wanted.
    <a href="http://www.intarweb-master.blogspot.com"target="blank">My Blog</a>
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by nareau
    I hate the electoral college. For as long as I've been alive, NC has voted for Republican presidents. And by a wide margin. Talk about not having your vote count...

    Nareau
    it sounds like you're a democrat in an a republican state but that's not the electoral college's fault.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    And regarding your last comment, winning the 10 top Electoral College states would probably result in a similar outcome as top 10 in population.
    Probably so. But then that validates the electoral college system. Generally, the electoral college reflects the popular vote.

    Incidentally, this page has the current distribution of votes: http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

    It would take winning all electoral votes from the top 11 states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina) to secure the election.
  15.    #15  
    If we were all to move toward the system now on the ballot in CO, it would be similar in effect to the parliamentary system where each elected MP votes for the head of the gov't.

    As for the argument that being in the minority means your vote doesn't count, that won't change if we use popular voting. After all, up to 50% of the people can still be overruled!
  16. #16  
    It occurs to me I should have used a smaller number in my example. Getting a huge majority in all of California, NY, Texas and Florida might be enough to secure the national election. Whereas, per my calculations above, you would need to have that overwhelming victory in at least 11 states to secure the victory.

    Thus candidates have to persuade more of the nation, not just like-minded people in a few places.

Posting Permissions