View Poll Results: do away with the electoral college?

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    29 46.77%
  • no

    29 46.77%
  • other

    4 6.45%
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 116

Thread: the electoral college

  1. #51
    Guru
    USA_1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    BANNED
    Last Seen
    04-16-11 @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: the electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    I think the electoral college is one of the hidden geniuses of the American constitution. It creates 50 individual state elections within the single presidential election. As such, the unique issues of each state must be addressed by each candidate if they wish to compete in that state. Consistent with American ideal, the rights / issues of the few are not trampled on my the issues of the majority. This concept is also consistent with the concept of states rights and the republic.

    OTH, without an electoral college, presidential elections can be won by only appealing to the majority. Do you really want a president that is elected only addressing the issues of major media markets? whose agenda and solutions affect only those in major urban/suburban areas?

    ).
    You have pointed out the reason we have pork.
    "This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."" GWB

  2. #52
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: the electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    I think the electoral college is one of the hidden geniuses of the American constitution. It creates 50 individual state elections within the single presidential election. As such, the unique issues of each state must be addressed by each candidate if they wish to compete in that state. Consistent with American ideal, the rights / issues of the few are not trampled on my the issues of the majority. This concept is also consistent with the concept of states rights and the republic.

    OTH, without an electoral college, presidential elections can be won by only appealing to the majority. Do you really want a president that is elected only addressing the issues of major media markets? whose agenda and solutions affect only those in major urban/suburban areas?

    Then there is the practical issue: a re-count in a single state is not that big a deal; a national recount is a disaster. Our elections are generally decided within 4 percentage points. It would be very easy to have an election decided within 1/2 of 1%, which is re-count territory. Contested elections are never decisive.... even the 2000 election was not exactly decisive (a large % of the population did not agree that the winner actually won).
    You guys seem to be living in some alternate America.

    The Presidential candidates ignore the small and rural areas NOW. The small rural states are almost all red states and both candidates ignore them, since we already know which way they will vote.

    Your argument might make some sense if we saw candidates campaigning in these places, but they're NOT. You're making some idealized argument that isn't rooted in reality here.

    On the other hand, if every single damn vote counted no matter where it was, they WOULD be going there. A blue vote in a red state (and vice versa) will count and may make the difference in the final tally. It would be foolish NOT to try to get every vote, whether urban or rural.

    Republicans wouldn't ignore the blue states and Democrats wouldn't ignore the red states if every vote counted. Instead, under our current system, only 10 states really are courted by the candidates.

    Stop arguing some pie-in-the-sky idealized view of the electoral college and talk about what really happens.

  3. #53
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: the electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    You guys seem to be living in some alternate America.

    The Presidential candidates ignore the small and rural areas NOW. The small rural states are almost all red states and both candidates ignore them, since we already know which way they will vote.

    Your argument might make some sense if we saw candidates campaigning in these places, but they're NOT. You're making some idealized argument that isn't rooted in reality here.

    On the other hand, if every single damn vote counted no matter where it was, they WOULD be going there. A blue vote in a red state (and vice versa) will count and may make the difference in the final tally. It would be foolish NOT to try to get every vote, whether urban or rural.

    Republicans wouldn't ignore the blue states and Democrats wouldn't ignore the red states if every vote counted. Instead, under our current system, only 10 states really are courted by the candidates.

    Stop arguing some pie-in-the-sky idealized view of the electoral college and talk about what really happens.
    But the issue is that urban voters in red states will have similar interests to urban voters in rural states. Therefore, the issues of urban conservatives and urban liberals will receive more importance than issues of rural conservatives and rural liberals.

    That's why I'd prefer the Congressional District Method, also known as the Maine-Nebraska Method. Electoral votes of a state won't go to whoever wins the state-wide plurality but rather the electoral vote of a district will go to whoever wins that district's plurality, and whoever wins the plurality of the statewide vote will get the two electoral votes from Senators. This would allow the popular vote to count more and will require less reform since all that would be needed is a change to state law rather than a Constitutional amendment.

  4. #54
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,136

    Re: the electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    You have pointed out the reason we have pork.
    That is a legislative issue. That won't go away unless congress goes away.

  5. #55
    Guru
    USA_1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    BANNED
    Last Seen
    04-16-11 @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: the electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    That is a legislative issue. That won't go away unless congress goes away.
    States should not get preferential treatment from the federal government. The electoral college ensures they do.
    "This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."" GWB

  6. #56
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,136

    Re: the electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    You guys seem to be living in some alternate America.

    The Presidential candidates ignore the small and rural areas NOW. The small rural states are almost all red states and both candidates ignore them, since we already know which way they will vote.

    Your argument might make some sense if we saw candidates campaigning in these places, but they're NOT. You're making some idealized argument that isn't rooted in reality here.

    On the other hand, if every single damn vote counted no matter where it was, they WOULD be going there. A blue vote in a red state (and vice versa) will count and may make the difference in the final tally. It would be foolish NOT to try to get every vote, whether urban or rural.

    Republicans wouldn't ignore the blue states and Democrats wouldn't ignore the red states if every vote counted. Instead, under our current system, only 10 states really are courted by the candidates.

    Stop arguing some pie-in-the-sky idealized view of the electoral college and talk about what really happens.
    I disagree. Last election Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia and Missouri received a ton more attention than New York, Massachusetts, Texas or California. Without an electoral college many of these states get NO attention. As a Coloradoan, we have some unique issues (water rights, alternative energy, oil shale development v environment) that otherwise get ignored.

    I love the electoral college (except the part where actual people have to travel to DC to cast votes),

  7. #57
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: the electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    I disagree. Last election Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia and Missouri received a ton more attention than New York, Massachusetts, Texas or California. Without an electoral college many of these states get NO attention. As a Coloradoan, we have some unique issues (water rights, alternative energy, oil shale development v environment) that otherwise get ignored.

    I love the electoral college (except the part where actual people have to travel to DC to cast votes),
    What do you think about the Maine-Nebraska Method for the electoral college?

  8. #58
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: the electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    States should not get preferential treatment from the federal government. The electoral college ensures they do.
    It's not about states getting preferential treatment from the federal government. It's about less populous areas being heard along with more populous areas.

    And this isn't that far off. After all, the Senate was made as a balance to the House of Representatives to offset the advantage more populous states have to less populous states. So since we do that with regards to the federal legislature, why shouldn't we do it with regards to the federal executive?

  9. #59
    Guru
    USA_1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    BANNED
    Last Seen
    04-16-11 @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: the electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    It's not about states getting preferential treatment from the federal government. It's about less populous areas being heard along with more populous areas.

    And this isn't that far off. After all, the Senate was made as a balance to the House of Representatives to offset the advantage more populous states have to less populous states. So since we do that with regards to the federal legislature, why shouldn't we do it with regards to the federal executive?
    Why shouldn't more populous states get the advantage?

    "At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it."
    "This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."" GWB

  10. #60
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: the electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    Why shouldn't more populous states get the advantage?

    "At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it."
    They have the advantage in the house and in the number of electoral votes.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •