Dude, the electoral college makes the US a great country. However, I do agree on Bush winning despite majority, but that dosen't happen and Bush sucked
Thankfully, this country is not a pure democracy, it is a republic, and the electoral college is one feature of that fact. I am surprised that so many people must have forgotten basic civics classes that should have been taken in high school, because a basic civics class should have rendered this thread as an unnecessary discussion.
I've read your stuff, Okie. You either slept your way thru all your civics classes or you only woke up for the propaganda stream.
Robert Gentel wrote:
Flunking the Electoral College
There is no reason to feel sentimental about the Electoral College. One of the main reasons the founders created it was slavery. The southern states liked the fact that their slaves, who would be excluded from a direct vote, would be counted " as three-fifths of a white person " when Electoral College votes were apportioned.
The founders also were concerned, in the day of the wooden printing press, that voters would not have enough information to choose among presidential candidates. It was believed that it would be easier for them to vote for local officials, whom they knew more about, to be electors. It is hard to imagine that significant numbers of voters thought they did not know enough about Barack Obama and John McCain by Election Day this year.
And, while these reasons for the Electoral College have lost all relevance, its disadvantages loom ever larger. To start, the system excludes many voters from a meaningful role in presidential elections. If you live in New York or Texas, for example, it is generally a foregone conclusion which party will win your state’s electoral votes, so your vote has less meaning " and it can feel especially meaningless if you vote on the losing side. On the other hand, if you live in Florida or Ohio, where the outcome is less clear, your vote has a greatly magnified importance.
Voters in small states are favored because Electoral College votes are based on the number of senators and representatives a state has. Wyoming’s roughly 500,000 people get three electoral votes. California, which has about 70 times Wyoming’s population, gets only 55 electoral votes.
The Electoral College also makes America seem more divided along blue-red lines than it actually is. If you look at an Electoral College map, California appears solidly blue and Alabama solidly red. But if you look at a map of the popular votes, you see a more nuanced picture. More than 4.5 million Californians voted for Mr. McCain (roughly as many votes as he got in Texas), while about 40 percent of voters in Alabama cast a ballot for Mr. Obama.
One of the biggest problems with the Electoral College, of course, is that three times since the Civil War " most recently, with George W. Bush in 2000 " it has awarded the presidency to the loser of the popular vote. The president should be the candidate who wins the votes of the most Americans.
While we're at it, let,s replace Congress with a computer program, no long boring speeches, no filibusters, no lobbyists, no huge salaries and perks, just the consensus way of doing things.
Given the public mood swings wouldn't the regulators get confused?
With the coming Presidential election, it is quite possible that Romney will win the popular vote, yet lose the electoral college. Who is still in favor of getting rid of the electoral college with this as a possible outcome?
I am still in favor of the electoral college, but I believe states should do away with the winner takes all mechanism and allow the college to vote the way their constituents desire.
I agree, even if it costs Romney the election.
Actually, I agree with the way electoral votes are allocated to the states, based on representation. I do not see the need for electors to gather and cast the votes as decided by their respective states. After all, someday, they just might not.
I have been agitating for the removal of the electoral college for at least twenty years.
but I believe states should do away with the winner takes all mechanism and allow the college to vote the way their constituents desire.
That makes a terrible mockery of one person one vote, McG.
There actually is an argument to be made in favor of actual electors casting ballots (as opposed, say, to just awarding the electoral votes automatically to the candidate who receives the most votes). Suppose, for instance, that, between the date of the election and the date the electors cast their ballots in December, the winner of the election is discovered to be a child molester or an alien replicant or dead. In that situation, the electors could cast their ballots for someone else who presumably would have been more acceptable to the majority of voters had they known about the winning candidate's true condition.
That's basically what happened in 1836, when Virginia's electors refused to vote for Richard Mentor Johnson because he was considered to be a miscegenist -- which somehow disqualified him for the office of vice-president. It also happened in 1872, when Horace Greeley, the Democratic candidate for president, died between the election and the electoral college balloting -- the electors pledged to Greeley (who lost the general election anyway) were then free to cast their ballots for Democrats who were at least nominally alive. That scenario, by the way, can still occur, as the 20th amendment to the constitution only deals with situations where the president-elect dies or is otherwise incapable of serving prior to inauguration.
I hadn't thought of that possibility.
I've been a supporter of the Electoral College all along, but now I am having second thoughts.
No, it's not because there is a possibility that Romney will win the popular vote but lose the presidency.
What has changed my opinion is the fact that the focus of both campaigns and the Media has been on so-called swing states.
Every four years the votes of citizens in Ohio, and Florida seem to mean more than the votes of citizens in other states.
I live in Texas and the absolutely clear evidence that both the Romney and Obama campaigns believe that Texas will go for Romney is that we are expeience less than 1% of the election ads blanketing the airwaves in Ohio.
This is something on the plus side of the Electoral College debate, but the basic message is clear to voters in dark Red or Blue states: Vote or don't vote, the result is in the bag.
As with anything that is no clearly wrong-headed, there are arguments for the Electoral College, but the fact that every presidential election cycle only a handful of states are said to "matter" suggests something is wrong.
I suspect that both parties are in favor of the status quo since it allows their candidates to concentrate time and money on only a few states. Screw them.
I don't know how anyone can be dead set or for the Electoral College system since for all the problems it creates, it solves others, and so the likelihood of it changing is quite minimal.
I do know that I have grown tired with the intense focus on Ohio.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
I have similar feelings but I embrace the fact that I'm not being bombarded by constant ads (my email inbox appeals for $$$$ notwithstanding).
I think proportional EC delegates might be the way to go. I recently heard that 40% of Texas is Dem. I know that much of IL outside of Cook County is Republican. It seems that these folks don't matter when it comes to the Big Dance. That said, there are many House, State and local issues that show up on our ballots so I hope that people don't think their votes don't matter on election day.
Has Ohio any oil Finn? They might need to play hard to get as their only claim to fame.
That said, there are many House, State and local issues that show up on our ballots so I hope that people don't think their votes don't matter on election day.
It would be a sensible thing to think.
After all JPB, the idea that the vote of people who have majored in an 'ology matters is too laughable to discuss.
If you're going to comment on our elections, do some more serious research. Otherwise...