The Electoral College

[fatsheep]

What do you guys think of the electoral college (United States)? Should it be changed or gotten rid of? If so, how should it be modified or what provisions should replace it?

[antaeus]

i think its a democratic process thats open to problematic results, as we have seen in previous elections, as its not a direct proportional system based on actual votes.

but then there are far worse systems out there..

[Senno]

Constitutional amendments are hard to get passed.

Getting rid of the system was attempted before, and was fillibustered in the Senate.

I don't see it getting past the Senate if it's ever taken up again. Small states like their power per capita.

[danzig]

Its fine as it is despite some people (dont mean you fatsheep) who want to throw the whole system in the garbage because they still cant accept Al Gore lost.

[The King Of Peasants]

Its needed for small states to give equal representation to all if you don't understand it study it. Its so there can't just be a majority rule on everything.

[antaeus]

Its needed for small states to give equal representation to all if you don't understand it study it.

its not that hard to understand. in theory it gives equal representation, however, like we have seen, it can be open to both abuse, and not totally true representations of the people's vote (as opposed to the state's vote)..

national votes such as for the president should be done on a national scale.. state representative votes should be done on a state wide scale. anything else is not a true representative of the peoples votes.

its a flawed process... but most are. and i dont think there's going to be any change soon, as a truly proportional vote that produces a truly democratic result would wipe the states powers out of the presidential election

Its fine as it is despite some people (dont mean you fatsheep) who want to throw the whole system in the garbage because they still cant accept Al Gore lost.

i am sure al gore and his nobel prize are better off.

[General Dissaray]

What ever hapend to one person one vote? So just beacouse you live in a small state you need to have a step stool so your vote is the same as mine? That dosen't make any sence, not to me at least. An extra step like this seems dumb. When you add extra steps there is just that much more that can go wrong, as in the Bush v Gore election. I don't cair what side of that argument you fall on but the fact that some old guys in black dresses had to decide who wone the election isn't good, you must admit.

[danzig]

What ever hapend to one person one vote? So just beacouse you live in a small state you need to have a step stool so your vote is the same as mine? That dosen't make any sence, not to me at least. An extra step like this seems dumb. When you add extra steps there is just that much more that can go wrong, as in the Bush v Gore election. I don't cair what side of that argument you fall on but the fact that some old guys in black dresses had to decide who wone the election isn't good, you must admit.

Um you make it sound like the electoral college is something new, its done just fine for quite some time. As far as the old guys in black dresses thing well gee it wouldnt have gone that far if Gore had actually played by the rules of the game and accepted defeat. Perhaps he should have taken a page out of Nixon's book when he got "screwed" by JFK in 1960.

[General Dissaray]

It is true, Gore could have avoided that whole mess. But there was some strong evidence that the votes had been tampered with, they didn't even come close to the exit polls. Now I know you are going to say that exit polls are unreliable, and they are, but they are allways unreliable by the same amount (give or take). So it can be argued that that Gore had a good reason to persue this avinue. All things being what they are dosen't change the fact that the votes, as cast, didn't decide the election the Supreem Court did. Last I checked it is the people, that would be folk like you and me, that are suposed to decide these things.

I know the EC has been around for a long while now, I am not your average internet half-wit, but I still pose the question; what ever hapend to one person one vote? A vote is a vote, why complicate things? I vote for my guy, you vote for your guy and we count them all up and you have a winner. It matters not where you are when you vote, it matters that you vote.

[fatsheep]

Its needed for small states to give equal representation to all if you don't understand it study it. Its so there can't just be a majority rule on everything.

I'm going to read more about it, that's for sure. However, I have some doubts:

Electoral college focuses attention and campaigns on key big swing states (Florida and Ohio being two of them). This makes the system unequal. It gives more power to the voters in these big swing states and less to voters in blue or red states like California and Texas. It seems to me that voters would be more motivated to turn out if they could atleast be guaranteed that their vote would increase their candidate's chances of being elected. Under the current system this is obviously not guaranteed since states go fully one way or the other.

Do you think it would be better to proportionally allocate delegates from each state based on the popular vote (what happens in the democratic primaries)?

[General Dissaray]

Why bother with the delagates at all? That would be like me wrighting all this in Spanish then translating it for you a few days from now. Nonesence.

[christof139]

Electoral College is now obsolete. Senators and House members are overpaid and don't do too much for the money they get paid.

Revamp most of it.

Chris

[Gaidin]

Electoral College is now obsolete. Senators and House members are overpaid and don't do too much for the money they get paid.

Revamp most of it.

Chris

What does the current pay of senators and representatives have to do with the EC?

[Senno]

One can win the Presidential election just carrying 11 states, Sheep. Those little states need the oopmp just to get it to that point.

[General Dissaray]

Why is Ohio more important than Oregon then? Are they not both states? Why should one be requierd to win and the other choped liver? It dosen't add up I tell you.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Created by old white men as a contingency, just in case they lost.

[christof139]

Little States could join together to make bigger States.

Chris

[Senno]

Little States could join together to make bigger States.

Chris

Umm, those little states LIKE to be their own little states....

[antaeus]

who cares about the states. you're voting for national president. the states should be irrelevant.

[General Dissaray]

exactly my point.