Electoral college issues

[heretic888]

Actually, "dumping" the electoral system would just give an extreme imbalance of power in favor of higher-populated states.

I think the major problem here is that most people have yet to realize we are not a United State, we are United States.

If the electoral system was dumped, don't expect any other states but New York, California, Texas, and Florida to receive any attention.

 

[Tgace]

Actually, "dumping" the electoral system would just give an extreme imbalance of power in favor of higher-populated states.

I think the major problem here is that most people have yet to realize we are not a United State, we are United States.

If the electoral system was dumped, don't expect any other states but New York, California, Texas, and Florida to receive any attention.

I agree. I think the biggest popularity problem with the system happens when the college conflicts with the popular vote....unless you voted for the winner of course.

 

[Seig]

So, you two feel that the electoral college is very important to the election. Well, then I guess the popular vote should be done away with to your way of thinking. It means nothing anyway, right? Those electoral college votes are spoken for prior to the election, if I remember correctly. Besides which, we've been shown what the popular vote is worth by Florida's performance in the last election. So -- exactly how would either of you structure the elections of the future?

I'm hoping we cecede by then.

Whoa, I don't feel the electoral college is important to the election. I know it is as it is what actually decides who wins the presidency, or is supposed to. What I stated was that a friend of mine said it didn't matter who he voted for as the issue was already decided. I do not agree with his assesment; I was only parrotting it. The travesty in Florida does not mean things are like that all over. You seem, and I could be wrong, to be a bit sensitive about this issue. If I thought my vote did not in actuality matter, I would not have re-registered to vote after absenting myself from voting for several years. I think that all voting machines should be computerized with the best security available and the popular vote should carry it. The issue involved there and the reason the Electoral College was set up was to try and get a more fair representation of the classes versus the population; meaning that if two states with large populations voted one wasy and five with a relatively smaller populations voted, the two larger states would carry. How do you feel?

 

[loki09789]

I agree. I think the biggest popularity problem with the system happens when the college conflicts with the popular vote....unless you voted for the winner of course.

Yup,

This sounds like the 'chain of command' so to speak. You vote for local reps who represent you locally and take it up the chain to the state and the state level representation (gov, congressmen, senators, electoral votes...) get sent up the chain to the fed level....

I guess my biggest grip after looking back at the posts isn't so much with the College system as it is with the non participation (but full ownership of the right to ***** at the same time) that can lead to circumstances that make the electoral votes from my state go the candidate that the popular do not support.

"In a perfect world" if even 75% of the voting aged citizens participated it would be a more realistic representation of the 'popular vote' instead of the way it is now. So the 'problem' is at the individual initiative level for me, not the system itself. Any modification to the 'system' would only 'feed the apathy.'

 

[kenpo tiger]

Whoa, I don't feel the electoral college is important to the election. I know it is as it is what actually decides who wins the presidency, or is supposed to. What I stated was that a friend of mine said it didn't matter who he voted for as the issue was already decided. I do not agree with his assesment; I was only parrotting it. The travesty in Florida does not mean things are like that all over. You seem, and I could be wrong, to be a bit sensitive about this issue. If I thought my vote did not in actuality matter, I would not have re-registered to vote after absenting myself from voting for several years. I think that all voting machines should be computerized with the best security available and the popular vote should carry it. The issue involved there and the reason the Electoral College was set up was to try and get a more fair representation of the classes versus the population; meaning that if two states with large populations voted one wasy and five with a relatively smaller populations voted, the two larger states would carry. How do you feel?

I resided in the only state (actually a Commonwealth, if you want to split hairs) which "voted" for George McGovern in 72. I supported John Anderson. I have voted in every single election since 1971, when I turned 18 and was eligible. Am I frustrated? You betcha. I think people don't pay enough attention to the issues and vote for who has better hair (please read this the way it's meant, tongue firmly in cheek). Clinton was excoriated for having an intern perform oral sex on him (sorry - I really can't think of a more elegant way of putting it right this moment), yet Bush will probably be carried triumphantly into office once again on the coffins of our children. You tell me why I still vote. Maybe I have this addled notion that my voice counts. Right.

 

[Tgace]

Even if it were a popular vote, and your candidate didnt win, people would feel the same way. Your voice does count but so does mine and a few million other peoples.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Another view:

 

[Tgace]

Like I said, I think the voting system works. The problem is the knuckleheads the parties always seem to put up for election. Its not the "system" IMHO. Its the "selection".

 

[loki09789]

Like I said, I think the voting system works. The problem is the knuckleheads the parties always seem to put up for election. Its not the "system" IMHO. Its the "selection".

Funny, that's pretty much what I said about belt rank systems. The 'system' isn't the problem, but how/who is 'important' when people apply the system.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So, if the problem is the selection, how can we improve that?

More importantly, how can we break the 'big 2' monopoly on the system and get these 3rd parties more public awareness? I'm certain that many of them are running candidates who would do an excellent job if eleceted, but no one knows they exist.

 

[loki09789]

So, if the problem is the selection, how can we improve that?

More importantly, how can we break the 'big 2' monopoly on the system and get these 3rd parties more public awareness? I'm certain that many of them are running candidates who would do an excellent job if eleceted, but no one knows they exist.

Active participation, active participation, active partici.....

How do we get THAT done? I don't really know if there is a short term answer, but I do notice that when there is something like a war or terrorist attack fresh on our minds, there does seem to be more of an interest in participation.

Maybe this was also true during the civil war, depression...other major periods of stress in the country. People need an immediate 'thing' to motivate them on the average.

 

[kenpo tiger]

If the selection process is to blame, how can it be changed? It would require those selected to change it, wouldn't it? Any other ideas? I remember something about the states individually ratifying certain resolutions and, once a majority was attained, the resolution became law under some obscure regulation or amendment. Am I remembering wrong - or is this a viable alternative? Historians?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People have been screaming for reform for years. 1 survey I found stated that 70% of the population wanted things different. Unfortunately, the only people who can actually make those changes are the same ones who would likely lose their jobs if it went through. Not much incentive there I'm afraid.

 

[Spud]

Even if it were a popular vote, and your candidate didnt win, people would feel the same way. Your voice does count but so does mine and a few million other peoples.

I strongly disagree with that. I'm used to seeing knuckleheads being elected in statewide elections. I may not like it, but my vote did at least count the same as every other voter participating in that election.

The electoral college allows a system where 537 voters in one state determined the outcome of an election. I could live with a system where 537 voters nationwide made a difference.

 

[Tgace]

I strongly disagree with that. I'm used to seeing knuckleheads being elected in statewide elections. I may not like it, but my vote did at least count the same as every other voter participating in that election.

The electoral college allows a system where 537 voters in one state determined the outcome of an election. I could live with a system where 537 voters nationwide made a difference.

Where do we disagree? Thats what I meant by "Your voice does count but so does mine and a few million other peoples." Point being that much of the "my voice dosent count" sentiment could just mean "my guy didnt win".

 

[heretic888]

People have been screaming for reform for years. 1 survey I found stated that 70% of the population wanted things different.

Yes. But, chances are, most of those 70% don't actually understand why things are done the way they are done. Somewhat similar to, sorry to say, most of the people on this thread.

I fail to see how difficult it is to grasp the very rational, logical, and straightforward reason: it was to balance the power between smaller and larger states. All of these "proposals" would basically just throw that out of the window, and all the small states in the country would basically get hosed.

The electoral college allows a system where 537 voters in one state determined the outcome of an election. I could live with a system where 537 voters nationwide made a difference.

I wonder how quickly you'd change your tune when your state was the one getting bypassed??

 

[RandomPhantom700]

My problem with the electoral college is that, basically, the electors are able to decide whether there decisions conform with the popular vote. Since they don't have to (I understand that their political careers may be ruined by going against it, but that's little reassurance to the voters), I see no real reason why voters should vote.

 

[heretic888]

My problem with the electoral college is that, basically, the electors are able to decide whether there decisions conform with the popular vote. Since they don't have to (I understand that their political careers may be ruined by going against it, but that's little reassurance to the voters), I see no real reason why voters should vote.

Well, for one thing, "what if" and "could be" are not very sound reasons to do nothing about who governs the country for the next 4 years, either.

If someone can actually cite in history when, where, and how the electoral college has supposedly been abused and gone against the wishes of the statewide constituents that they represent, then we might have something here. You would then have an actual basis to argue from. To use the terminology of science, you would have a working hypothesis (an educated guess).

But, if not, then what you're left with is just baseless speculation --- kind of akin to the notion that there might be aliens orbitting our planet.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Yes, heretic, there have been times when the electors chose against the popular vote in their states. I don't have the citations right now, I'll find them later. And guess what: their political careers may have been ruined, but in the meantime the popular vote got ignored.

And there's nothing really to prevent this from happening. In the interest of maintaining the balance you speak of, we could give the states points equal to the number of electoral votes they currently have, but just automatically count them towards the candidate that the state's popular vote chooses, rather than leaving it in the hands of some electors whose decision may very well have been bought out.

 

[Spud]

I wonder how quickly you'd change your tune when your state was the one getting bypassed??

Uhm I live a small state with 4 electoral votes locked for one party. We've been bypassed for nearly 30 years. The campaigns will ignore my state period. I'd just be thrilled to have my vote count in a general election. That seems to be a wild-eyed philosophy.

Tgace I'm confused, probably my lack of reading skills. I'd much rather discuss this will everyone over a beer. You and Heretic888 come to Boise and I'll buy.

heretic888 There's also a lot of speculation coming from your end when you suggest the campaigns would soley focus on 4 states under a general election. I'd suspect that campaigns would chase single issue voters as we see in many Senate & House races. That's my speculation.