bry623

From another thread:

This made me think to my self: "Self, what is wrong with the electoral college?"

I like it. I think it gives us a greater representation of the country. Sure, Kerry owned the big cities, but the USA is made up of 50 states each made up of various counties.

And don't even get me started on the idiotic notion that electoral votes of each state should be split along the percentage of votes received.

Nik00117

Ok, several times in america history the losing opponent had 51% or 52% of the popular vote and lost.

51% OF AMERICANS WANTED THEM AS PRESIDENT yet 49% got their wish.

I'm sorry, i'm not too good at math here but even that seems fishy.

I believe the reason why the electoral college was put into place at first was because it was VERY difficult to count and keep track of all those votes on a national level.

Its not so difficult nowadays. In fact its fairly easy.

Yustr was basically saying his vote in this election doesn't country becaue he lives in a Demo state who can easily be 60% of the vote therefore the remaining 40% option on the president has NO IMPACT.

Every vote counts, not every electoral college vote.

RedScott

You mean 51% of VOTERS wanted them as president. Most likely less than a quarter of Americans wanted them to be president.

Nik00117

Well, if a person doesn't vote them in my eyes they are giving their vote to someone else in a sense.

bry623

Wrong. Once. 1876 Samuel Tilden.

So what you are saying is that a state that is less populous has no say so in the over all election? State equality has been a part of the political and legal processes forever. The electoral college will never go away, so accept it.

cstr20cstr

I'm all for the electoral college.

In the 2000 election, I was all for Gore's first 2 recounts of Florida as a whole, I would have too. But after that, Gore's party attempted to steal the election by hand-picking individual counties and guessing how people "really" voted, that's B.S. And then, some liberals had the nerve to say GWB "stole" the election.

I can just see it now, if they eliminated the electoral college, in future presidential elections the dems would be hand-picking counties across the country to conjure up votes.

yustr

Here's what's wrong with it: in 2004 Bush got 3 million more votes than Kerry (62,040,610 to 59,028,111). But, if only 60,00 people in Ohio had switched to Kerry (Bush won by 118,775) Kerry would be president. So 60K people would have nullified 2,940,000 voters. How can that happen in a democratic republic?

You can bet if it had happened, the Republicans would be all over this issue...

Nik00117

Thats like saying in the 1940s sergeration will never end so we might as well accept it.

I applaud you for giving in so soon.

And I agree 60k poeple can nullify 2,940,000 voters?

Thats a bit exterme.

And if you don't vote then your counting on someone else to vote for you in a sense as simple as that.

Wozer

the electoral college was created in a different time for reasons which where valid then, but certainly not now...

originally the system was intended as a way to deal with getting votes to a central place in a time when there were no trains...i.e. transfer of data was very slow...

a secondary reason for its creation was that the educated felt that the general populace was ignorant and this system would help prevent the people from electing a person not fit for the job...

in today's high technology world there is no reason to not go straight to a pure # of votes system....any claims of 'ignorance' could be directed at the lying politicians themselves...its rather hard to be informed when the people are constantly being fed a line of cr@p...

cstr20cstr

I doubt it, a number of times within my lifetime (and even the Nixon - Kennedy election) republicans could have tried stealing close elections like the dems did in Florida 2000, but did NOT. Instead the republicans graciously bowed out rather than creating a fiasco.

Nik00117

THe fact of the matter is that the popular opinion of the american public has a chance to nto be heard for its election of its commander in cheif, the large majority of the american public voters must win, the minority does not win thats how life is.

Did you see no agruement over the 2004 election because it was very clear who won that.

However the 2000 wasn't so clear the vote was so close, we have had popular vote lose in a election before, and granted its nto common but it happens and the point of the matter is that it MUST BE REMOVED. It is a uselss system.

RedScott

You do realize, I hope, that the president is not the commander in chief of the American public.

Chode

Bry, Electoral College votes are tied to State populations. Here's the breakdown: http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

So, as a Texan, my State carries 34 electoral votes, while Wyoming gets 3. So, clearly, your argument that the Electoral College gives individual states an equality of vote is wrong. The fact that Electoral College votes are tied to population is the best indicator that Presidential elections are intended to represent the popular vote; not a vote by States. In other words, the Electoral College is an institution that has outlived its purpose and needs to go.

Nik00117

The president is the head of the Military, he is the commander in cheif of the military therefore he is the commander in cheif for the american public.

Yes I know that the electoral college is based on numbers, however those numbers are not always even. In math we saw this very clearly sometimes a state would have one rep more or less even though its population was higher or lower then what it was supposed to be. This means that some poelpe are getting more say then they should.

Also why have a extra layer of smelly BS inbetween votes and presiceny?