Electoral college issues

[Phoenix44]

I believe the electoral college is an anachronism which gives too much weight to some individual's votes (Florida Bush supporters, 2000) and invalidates others (NY Bush supporters, 2004). We have the technology to record the popular vote, and the popular vote should be the deciding factor.

By the way, I voted FOR Clinton, FOR Gore, and FOR my Republican Congressional representative. I will also vote FOR Kerry--although I admit, I would vote for Sponge Bob before I'd vote for Bush.

 

[Tgace]

I dont think its an issue of being able to record the popular vote. I agree with heretic. It would then become an issue of the most populous states. The smaller states and their political needs would be ignored.

 

[Seig]

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.

We are here to discuss the process, not whether or not Clinton was a lying dirt bag (that is another discussion, I can happily bash Clinton for hours) or if Bush is an incompetent moron (he is great material for some great jokes). Many people are frustrated, as you are, what do you propose as a solution? I think one of the best comments I have seen here is the fact that not enough people vote to get a true representation of the people's will. The basic problem with the political system, as I see it, is the fact that by and large only the wealthy get to be in office. I can honestly say the one of the Senators of my state has absolutely no idea how I feel, nor does he care. Why should he? He not only doesn't live in West Virginia, he has never been a wage employee. People have become apathetic or worse, want to be lied to. I look at the city councilman for my district, he's a drunk, a derelict, and if it were not the fact he draws a salary from the city, he would probably be considered a vagrant. He won the seat because essentially no one ran against him. I have thought about running for local office, but always decide against it. I couldn't get elected, I am crude and honest. The public doesn't want either. If it is that bad on a local level, how bad has the federal level really gotten. The real issue here is not George Bush or even John Kerry; it has nothing to do with how you feel about Iraq, the issue is that the American public has become so ignorant and so lazy, that they do not bother to do anything to make changes happen. Don't like someone in office? Vote them out, that is what our forefathers fought and died for, it was the ideal I served when I served during the Bush Sr's Iraqi conflict. If people want change, they have to make it happen, or at least try. That is the main thrust of this thread. We can debate, argue, and theorize all we want, but it will change nothing.

 

[Phoenix44]

It would then become an issue of the most populous states. The smaller states and their political needs would be ignored.

No more than they are now. How much campaign interest is there in Rhode Island right now?

Not all "needs" are related to a particular state. New Jersey, New York, California, Connecticut and Pennsylvania have needs related to transportation, jobs, health care. California, Idaho, New York, Florida, and Kansas have needs related to agriculture.

The SENATE should represent state-related national political needs--not the presidency.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No more than they are now. How much campaign interest is there in Rhode Island right now?

Much more than there would be if we went by popular vote.

Yes, the number of electoral votes are still less for the smaller states than for the more populated ones. But consider the difference between Rhode Island's 3 votes (I'm guessing) and Florida's 25 (it's 22). Twenty-two puts Florida as a higher priority, but that 3 for R.I. can help it to become important in a tight race, when combined with a number of other smaller states. Now, if we went by popular vote, whereby Florida's advantage goes into the thousands, if not milions, rather than just 22, then there's no way anyone would care at all about Rhode Island's vote.

The SENATE should represent state-related national political needs--not the presidency.

Good point, I think.

 

[kenpo tiger]

I agree with the idea of the Senate representing the states' interests. After all, there is no other governmental body which has equal representation in it. As to the size of the state vs. its 'importance' or 'weight' -- well, each state is equal, isn't it, so in this case size doesn't necessarily matter. We all have different economic bases also, so you could say that weighted representation isn't important other than within specific interest groups.