Do you like the electoral college voting system?

haymarket said:

But really - so what? Why should the vote of one American be any different in weight than the vote of another American regardless of what state they may reside in? People do not vote for a presidential candidate because they live in a certain state. Why should one EC vote in Wyoming be worth three and a half times what one EC vote from California is worth?

Click to expand...

Have you gotten over two Senators per state or is that your next windmill?

ernst barkmann said:

reason, remember that word.

it was to prevent the senators from, being self serving on their own, meaning stops them from being lobbied by entities.

people are complaining that our politicians are bought off, WELL, their is the problem, senators listen to lobbyist, rich and powerful corporations, and anyone who has money.

before the 17th, the senate had to vote the way the state wanted him to vote, he could not listen to lobbyist, because the state had power of the senator, so as to protect the interest of the state.

after the 17th , you see, senators being bought by outside groups of special interest, and you start seeing senators serving for long periods of time.

senators like Robert Byrd, of 51 years, woulds have never been reappointed to the senate that long by a state legislative body, these were built in term limits.

states have no protection from the federal government anymore, and the government is imposing things on them, they have to pay for....obamacare.

because people are selfish , they when voting for their senator today, vote for what is good for them, and not the state......this kind of thinking is popular government, and that kind of government will destroy itself in time.

Click to expand...

Do you remember what happened when the Gov of Illinois had to appoint a Senator in 2008 because Obama was elected President?

Now picture that happening 100 times nationwide every 6 years. Does that sound like something Thomas Jefferson would have favored? They were smart enough to realize that times change, which is why we can amend the Constitution. If they were people who believed that things should never change, the East Coast would still be sining "God Save the Queen" and California would still be part of New Spain.

AliHajiSheik said:

Have you gotten over two Senators per state or is that your next windmill?

Click to expand...

I have not mentioned it nor do I plan to. However, apparently it is indeed your next strawman.

obvious Child said:

What do you mean "how?"

Click to expand...

What do you mean "what do you mean"? It's a question. Don't you know what a question is? You wanna be a smart-ass, ok. Why don't you drop the bull**** and stick to the topic. I hope you don't vote, or even drive, you don't even know what a question is. It's amazing what passes for a high-school graduate these days.

obvious Child said:

Proportional allocation changes how ECs are allocated. Rather than all 55 of California's votes goes towards a Democrat due to the winner take all, only a portion of it does.

Click to expand...

That....is "how". That's all you had to say. Now I know what you're talking about.

First one must understand the principles of federalism. If we were one nation with a unitary government, and one that had a very homogeneous culture, demographics, etc etc. Then maybe a national vote would make sense. But we are a very diverse and large nation. Each state has unique challenges, demographics, needs, geo-political concerns, cultures, economic realities, etc. The electoral college, in part, was implemented so that the most populated states wouldn't run rough shod over the smaller states in electing the president, and that all these diverse and unique states would have a say in who gets elected.

We need the electoral college, however, it does need some modification. I know that states are to have jurisdiction on how voting is carried out, how the electoral votes are given, and how the counting of votes is tallied. One thing that needs to be done is to get away from the "winner take all" systems for electoral votes. We should utilize a system like that of the 'Congressional District Method', that of a 'Proportional Method'. Unfortunately, we'd need a Constitutional Amendment to make this a reality, one which I think we need very badly.

In the 'Congressional District Method' whichever candidate wins the majority vote for a given congressional district they get that electoral vote. For the two senate electoral votes, they would be given to who wins the state overall.

A 'Proportional Method' would just give a candidate the number of electoral votes relative to the percentage of the overall votes they got within a state. Ex: In a state that has 10 electoral college votes, a candidate with 60% of the state's votes would get 6 electoral votes; very simplistic.

With any system, neither are perfect, but either method would be infinitely better than the winner-take-all system that 48 states use. I think it would give third party candidates a real chance to break the 2 party dominance; more importantly it would be much close to what the people really want at a more localized, grass roots level. Because those who live in a party dominated state but are on the opposite side will likely never have their vote be relevant in the presidential elections. For Ex.: I live in MN, a Blue state, my vote concerning president is a near waste of time. The last time MN went 'red' was in 1972. If you look at a break down by county or by congressional district in many states, it flies in the face of who actually got their electoral votes.

I think most people dislike the electoral college because they do not understand it, nor the history of its implementation. It would do people a lot of good to research and learn about the electoral college, its historical reasoning and implementation, and federalism; regardless if they like it or not, or if they know it well or if they are completely uninformed about it. In fact, I'm going to refresh my knowledge of it here shortly!

Dudeman612 said:

We need the electoral college, however, it does need some modification. I know that states are to have jurisdiction on how voting is carried out, how the electoral votes are given, and how the counting of votes is tallied. One thing that needs to be done is to get away from the "winner take all" systems for electoral votes. We should utilize a system like that of the 'Congressional District Method', that of a 'Proportional Method'. Unfortunately, we'd need a Constitutional Amendment to make this a reality, one which I think we need very badly.

Click to expand...

Sure, the problem is that a Constitutional Amendment would automatically nationalize the system, which is exactly what you said you don't want. Right now, how the votes are allocated is determined by each state. 48 of the 50 states (and DC) use a winner take all allocation. Maine and Nebraska are the only two that aren't, but both have their own allocation system. I believe of Maine's 4 electoral votes, 3 go to the winner of the state, and 1 is allocated in some other way.

So it's either nationalize it, or pass 49 different laws.

rocket88 said:

Do you remember what happened when the Gov of Illinois had to appoint a Senator in 2008 because Obama was elected President?

Now picture that happening 100 times nationwide every 6 years. Does that sound like something Thomas Jefferson would have favored? They were smart enough to realize that times change, which is why we can amend the Constitution. If they were people who believed that things should never change, the East Coast would still be sining "God Save the Queen" and California would still be part of New Spain.

Click to expand...

This very problem used to be rampant and is why the method was changed in the first place.

rocket88 said:

Do you remember what happened when the Gov of Illinois had to appoint a Senator in 2008 because Obama was elected President?

Now picture that happening 100 times nationwide every 6 years. Does that sound like something Thomas Jefferson would have favored? They were smart enough to realize that times change, which is why we can amend the Constitution. If they were people who believed that things should never change, the East Coast would still be sining "God Save the Queen" and California would still be part of New Spain.

Click to expand...

well the gov did not appoint the senators, it was the state legislative .....body.

by appointing a senators, they must do as that legislative body says, and this protects the state from federal over reach of power.

senators were appointed because government was structured that way on propose in the constitution, it was part of the check and balances, and to prevent democracy.

Jerry said:

What do you mean "what do you mean"? It's a question. Don't you know what a question is? You wanna be a smart-ass, ok. Why don't you drop the bull**** and stick to the topic. I hope you don't vote, or even drive, you don't even know what a question is. It's amazing what passes for a high-school graduate these days.

Click to expand...

I kind of figured that Proportional allocation in the EC was self explanatory based on the definitions of the words. I guess you were unable to figure it out based on the what proportional or allocation meant.

That....is "how". That's all you had to say. Now I know what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

You should have been able to figure it out based on the words given.

On the whole, I fully favor the Electoral College system as it exists.

I think it well reflects the manner in which this nations' founders intended representation to be allocated among the states; giving each state the same amount of representation in electing the President that it has in the two houses of Congress.

In more practical terms, it has the effect, at times, of turning what would have been a tie, into a meaningful result. The 2000 election was a perfect example. For all intents and purposes, the popular vote was a dead tie between Bush and Gore. The way the Electoral system worked, it got down to one state, that would decide the result, and in which the vote was very, very close. Remember all the fuss that happened in Florida, with recounting the votes over and over again, every which way, and all the controversies over “hanging chads” and other ambiguities? If the election were to be decided by the national popular vote, this same fuss would have had to happen on a national scale. We wouldn't just have had to examine Florida's ballots to that level of detail; we would have had to examine all of the ballots, cast in the entire nation, at that level, to determine a result. If it had come to that, I very much doubt we would have been able to reliably determine the result before the term to which the President was to be elected had ended.

I would like to see more states, especially large, diverse states like California, allocate their electors in a manner that is more in proportion to how their populations vote, instead of the winner-takes-all system that most states now use. I do think that the manner in which this is done should be left to each state.

ernst barkmann said:

well the gov did not appoint the senators, it was the state legislative .....body.

by appointing a senators, they must do as that legislative body says, and this protects the state from federal over reach of power.

senators were appointed because government was structured that way on propose in the constitution, it was part of the check and balances, and to prevent democracy.

Click to expand...

Federal overreach would happen anyway. The two party systemis so entrenched that if one party wanted the overreach their people would vote fot it. I don't know that the Founders saw how much power the 2 party system would have. They assumed that people would always appoint the best person, but it always comes down to party.

rocket88 said:

Federal overreach would happen anyway. The two party systemis so entrenched that if one party wanted the overreach their people would vote fot it. I don't know that the Founders saw how much power the 2 party system would have. They assumed that people would always appoint the best person, but it always comes down to party.

Click to expand...

i agree, parties hurt america ,its people, because they divide the people, ...Washington said we should never have parties.

the founders so much wanted the people to be educated and civic minded, but constructed a government to prevent the worst in man, from becoming to powerful, but unfortunately, those checks and balances have been removed, and it will be our demise.

The electoral college has removed a vast amount of the power of my vote, even rendering it virtually meaningless. Needless to say I am against the electoral college.

shlunka said:

The electoral college has removed a vast amount of the power of my vote, even rendering it virtually meaningless. Needless to say I am against the electoral college.

Click to expand...

how has it done that?

the electoral college is an indirect vote by you, not a direct vote, that is the way the founders created it, so NOT to give us popular government.

the electoral college is states voting for the president, not people, per the way the founders designed it.....this give the union representation...not people.

but it has turned into more of a popular vote, because government is outside of the constitution, and brides people for their voting by offering them something.

this is what has destroyed the electoral college...and made it useless.

haymarket said:

I have not mentioned it nor do I plan to. However, apparently it is indeed your next strawman.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I had assumed you were for absolute democratic vote where everyone's vote is equal. If you consider that a strawman, fine. I judge it differently.

If I vote, and it is not the popular vote for my state, my vote is useless. If the elections were decided by popular consensus, the worth of my vote would be invariably one.

Abolish the electoral college. One person, one vote. Let's shift the setup so that the same four or five states are not the only ones that matter. With a direct popular vote, any swing voter in any state from Massachusetts to Utah can have a significant impact on the final outcome.

If that is too much, then I like the compromise of allocating electoral votes proportionately to that state's popular vote.

Phys251 said:

Abolish the electoral college. One person, one vote. Let's shift the setup so that the same four or five states are not the only ones that matter. With a direct popular vote, any swing voter in any state from Massachusetts to Utah can have a significant impact on the final outcome.

If that is too much, then I like the compromise of allocating electoral votes proportionately to that state's popular vote.

Click to expand...

if popular vote is ever created for the president, when he and the opposition, will never go the many states during the campaign....states like wy, nd,sd, mt,

so those people will get no representation, and have a right to not pay any taxes.

ernst barkmann said:

if popular vote is ever created for the president, when he and the opposition, will never go the many states during the campaign....states like wy, nd,sd, mt,

so those people will get no representation, and have a right to not pay any taxes.

Click to expand...

What makes you think it is any different now in terms of campaign stops and visits?

You should read up on the 1960 presidential campaign. Nixon made a promise at the GOP Convention to personally campaign in every state in the union. And God bless him - he kept his word. And when Nixon was in Minot appearing before 600 people, JFK was in Florida speaking before tens of thousands and getting local media play before millions. When Nixon was in Casper talking to a small hall of business people, JFK was in Houston appearing before tens of thousands and the resulting media blitz.

Get the picture?

And on election day, quite a few of those little places voted for Nixon while Kennedy had to settle for the bigger states.

JFK won.

OH - and they had the electoral college then too.

rocket88 said:

I wouldn't go so far as to go by each county having one vote. The population centers should have more say because there's more people.

What I would support is to do it by Congressional district (which are supposed to be roughly equal in population) with the statewide winner getting the 2 remaining votes.

Unfortunately, none of how the vote is actually split is in the Constitution. That's all by state. So we'd need 51 different laws changing it. I don't see that happening, as both parties benefit from winner take all, or at least have benefited from it. So they're likely to keep it as is.

Click to expand...

And who draws the boundaries of the congressional districts?

ernst barkmann said:

if popular vote is ever created for the president, when he and the opposition, will never go the many states during the campaign....states like wy, nd,sd, mt,

so those people will get no representation, and have a right to not pay any taxes.

Click to expand...

Brilliant logical deduction. So since neither political candidate managed to visit my state during the campaign, I'm not required to pay any taxes?

Maybe that makes sense to the Waffen SS guy, but not to most rational human beings.

Wiggen said:

Brilliant logical deduction. So since neither political candidate managed to visit my state during the campaign, I'm not required to pay any taxes?

Maybe that makes sense to the Waffen SS guy, but not to most rational human beings.

Click to expand...

if the college is gone, then why would anyone campaign in state like i mentioned.

all the candidates will do is visit the large cities of america, for the the popular vote, there would be no reason to go in the the heartland of America.

since the president or the other man running for president, would show no effort to seek my vote, and what i believe in.

then i am getting representation, why do i pay taxes, since they don't care about me?

as far as the last line, no wonder no one takes you seriously, a very angry man you are

haymarket said:

What makes you think it is any different now in terms of campaign stops and visits?

You should read up on the 1960 presidential campaign. Nixon made a promise at the GOP Convention to personally campaign in every state in the union. And God bless him - he kept his word. And when Nixon was in Minot appearing before 600 people, JFK was in Florida speaking before tens of thousands and getting local media play before millions. When Nixon was in Casper talking to a small hall of business people, JFK was in Houston appearing before tens of thousands and the resulting media blitz.

Get the picture?

And on election day, quite a few of those little places voted for Nixon while Kennedy had to settle for the bigger states.

JFK won.

OH - and they had the electoral college then too.

Click to expand...

because the president will only stay in highly populated areas.

so i am giving you the simple reason why.....people running for president are not going to spend big money traveling, to the small towns of america.

ernst barkmann said:

if the college is gone, then why would anyone campaign in state like i mentioned.

all the candidates will do is visit the large cities of america, for the the popular vote, there would be no reason to go in the the heartland of America.

since the president or the other man running for president, would show no effort to seek my vote, and what i believe in.

then i am not getting representation, why do i pay taxes, since they don't care and me?

as far as the last, line, no wonder no one takes you seriously.

Click to expand...

You do have a point, but you're missing how much keeping it hurts other people even more. Right now, if you're a democrat in Texas, a republican in california or new york, you have no vote whatsoever. You might as well not even go.

How is not having your vote count at all worse than not having the president pander to your state specifically?

ernst barkmann said:

because the president will only stay in highly populated areas.

so i am giving you the simple reason why.....people running for president are not going to spend big money traveling, to the small towns of america.

Click to expand...

Are you harboring the belief that they do now?