Burgold Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 On the other hand, should 49% of a states population count for absolutely nothing? If you get a 51-49 or a 47-53 or even a 49.99-50.01 (or closer which happened in a few recent Senatorial races) should roughly half of the state's populace have no voice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wysknz1 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Yes, I think we should. To me, the chief advantages of the electoral college had to do with an illiterate populace and really poor communication of ideas due to distance and lack of tech. These days that's gone. I don't really buy the small states will be ignored argument. Besides, if we could get rid of the red state/blue state mentality I think we would all benefit. One of the few times I have agreed with you BG. Goes to show, there is always something two can agree on if you wait long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 You could say that about the current system. It favors rural areas in relatively few states. This is why people don't think their vote counts. Why even bother showing up to the polls if you're a Republican in MD? It's an undemocratic way to pick our leaders. Which is good that its not democratic, we are a representaitve republic. Which is exactly what the electoral college does. Fact of the matter is a simple majority is used in very few situations in our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 how about take the percentage of the popular vote and give them that percent of 436 (1 for every representative plus 1 for DC) and then give the winner of each state (and DC) two full votes. winning states and winning popular vote are both important in that system. Or we could do the congressional district system that a couple states have adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Which is good that its not democratic, we are a representaitve republic. Which is exactly what the electoral college does. Fact of the matter is a simple majority is used in very few situations in our government. Wait, what? Yes we are republic. That is a form of democracy. In a representative republic, you are supposed to have representation that is proportionate to the will of the people. So when voting for a president to lead the entire country, how does having a system that allows a person that gets FEWER votes to win? There is nothing more un-democratic than that. At this point, I don't think there is one good reason we should keep the electoral college. Most of the time it won't matter, but every now and then it could really **** the election up (see 2000). Plus, getting rid of it will make CNN stop with their silly little map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted April 6, 2009 Author Share Posted April 6, 2009 Which is good that its not democratic, we are a representaitve republic. Which is exactly what the electoral college does. Fact of the matter is a simple majority is used in very few situations in our government. A simple majority is used in electing our leaders who then represent us except for President. Why is my vote worth less than a guy in Ohio or Florida? Why don't candidates come around here except for primaries? I think it's going to take the whole 2000 situation to occur a couple times (hopefully in a row) for get something done. If I had my way it would be a popular vote and a weekend for voting. Plus throw some territories the right to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupidmorals Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I liked how Jefferson was Washington's VP....the loser of the election should be the VP Could you imagine Obama with McCain as the VP? That would be pretty sweet. Uh, John Adams was Washington's VP. Both times. Jefferson was Adams' VP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Popular vote? Can it be guaranteed that the Dead,European tourists, Felons, Illegal Aliens, and pets won't vote? Can it be guaranteed that New Yorkers won't vote in Florida or Virginia where they have a residence and absentee in New York? Can it be guaranteed that people won't vote early and often? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalhead Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 On the other hand, should 49% of a states population count for absolutely nothing? If you get a 51-49 or a 47-53 or even a 49.99-50.01 (or closer which happened in a few recent Senatorial races) should roughly half of the state's populace have no voice? I agree with you on this. Those scenarios blow my mind. Watching this past election was so frustrating, seeing all those votes just tossed aside. Say winning California, 51-49...that's a lot of populace and electoral votes. It would be nearly dead even in popular, but the loser comes up miles behind in the EC even if it gets several landslide victories in smaller states. If California was based on popular, the party that got 49% and landslides in three other states would be running away with it instead, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 i voted to eliminate it. However, living in California, my vote would count for didly squat if voting for a republican. I agree in concept that the majority vote should win. But I think an augmented system where everyones vote is counted FAIRLY, even in states where one party rules, might be better. Off hand I don't have any idea what that would look like, just sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuraitengai Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I liked how Jefferson was Washington's VP....the loser of the election should be the VP Could you imagine Obama with McCain as the VP? That would be pretty sweet. ive thought the same thing. it would make things a bit different. someone said that it would mean that the pres and VP would always oppose each other. but if they 'really' cared about the interests of the country, they could get along and make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted April 7, 2009 Author Share Posted April 7, 2009 Popular vote?Can it be guaranteed that the Dead,European tourists, Felons, Illegal Aliens, and pets won't vote? Can it be guaranteed that New Yorkers won't vote in Florida or Virginia where they have a residence and absentee in New York? Can it be guaranteed that people won't vote early and often? None of those can be guaranteed now. Again no radical change in how election boards run their state. Just scrap the whole your state is worth this much in terms of importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Every election in this country from dogcatcher to U.S. Senator is decided by most number of votes win. I'd like to see the Presidency be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 What are the advantages of ditching it? Why is a "direct" election better in your minds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunny Highway Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Gawd no.Dems would really crank up the efforts to get ACORN to register entire graveyards and pay even more kids in cigs to register people 5 times. Not to mention the carbon footprint bussing all those people to different states would cause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 It certainly would make us potentially have 50 FLA circa 2000 every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.