3
   

Dissolve Electoral College

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2003 11:24 am
fishin' wrote:
Agreed! A lot of this is somewhat complicated by who is/was a "small state". Of the people listed yesterday as being from states with few EC votes two are from states that now have large EC representation so that mucks things up too. Is "large" or "small" based on today's numbers or the numbers in place at the time the election happened???

I based my figures on the electoral votes at the time of the elections. Obviously, things change over time. Pierce came from a small state that is still a small state, but Fremont ran in 1856 when his home state of California had only 4 electoral votes -- and that has changed considerably over the past 147 years!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2003 11:49 am
ye110man wrote:
still isn't accurate as we added 47 states since the beginning with fluctuating numbers of electoral votes.

Surely you meant to say that we added 37 states.

ye110man wrote:
plus we didn't include the bull moose party and other popular but short-lived parties.

Actually, in my brief survey, I did consider any third-party candidate who received electoral votes -- including Roosevelt (1912), Wallace (1968), Thurmond (1948), Bell and Breckinridge (1860), and even William Wirt (1832).

ye110man wrote:
but if you stick with only the presidents that have been elected, it'll make it a lot easier.

As I mentioned previously, only three presidents have been elected from states with 6 or fewer electoral votes: Taylor, Pierce, and Clinton.

ye110man wrote:
anybody know how many presidents have come from states will less electoral votes than the average at the time? or how many presidental candidates have beat candidates from states with more electoral votes?

Can't come up with a list of winners from below-average states.

Elections (since 1804) in which the winner came from a smaller state than the runner-up:
1812, 1816, 1828, 1840, 1852, 1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880, 1888, 1912, 1916, 1928, 1948, 1960, 1976, 1992.
In most of these cases, New York provided the loser. In several elections, the winner and runner-up came from the same state (e.g. 1904, 1920, 1940, 1944) or from states with the same number of electoral votes (e.g. 1832, 1996).
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2003 11:49 am
My understanding is that reason for the EC was to protect the republic from the ignorance of the masses. The electors should represent the educated and intellectual. Their abilty to change their mind is crucial in this respect.

We should support this and even strengthen it. Don't you think that this country would be better run if only the people who take the time to learn about the issues had votes that counted more. Most people make their decisions about who is best suited to run the country from 30 second TV spots.

The American public is simply not intellectually equiped to choose its own system of government The election of Arnold was based on the popular vote. It was without doubt a choice for all of the wrong reasons.

Perhaps Democracy is the best system of government -- But it still is a pretty crummy one. Keeping the fickle and reactionary public will from influencing important decisions is a step in the right direction.

If only we could institute a Platonic republic with its Philosopher King...
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2003 12:22 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
My understanding is that reason for the EC was to protect the republic from the ignorance of the masses. The electors should represent the educated and intellectual. Their abilty to change their mind is crucial in this respect.


I've seen this repeated a few times but I think it comes from a misreading of intent. The people that drew up the idea of the EC WERE concerned about people making uneducated choices but that concern was based in the hardships of getting reliable information about someone from another region of the country at that time in history.

It wasn't so much about the "educated and intellectual" as it was about someone in Georgia being able to get information on a candidate from Maine.

But that was only one of several concerns. The original proposition was to have the Congress elect the President but that had some issues with the whole "seperation fo powers" concept and they also had to contend with the small states concern about being over-run by the larger states.

The EC bridged all 3 of those concerns.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2003 12:29 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Elections (since 1804) in which the winner came from a smaller state than the runner-up:
1812, 1816, 1828, 1840, 1852, 1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880, 1888, 1912, 1916, 1928, 1948, 1960, 1976, 1992.
In most of these cases, New York provided the loser. In several elections, the winner and runner-up came from the same state (e.g. 1904, 1920, 1940, 1944) or from states with the same number of electoral votes (e.g. 1832, 1996).

if you look at it that way it's about 50/50.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2003 12:39 pm
ye110man wrote:
if you look at it that way it's about 50/50.


??? Note he said "smaller" not "small". In many of the races listed both the leading party candidates were representing large states.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2003 05:44 pm
Oh - I finally started the patriotism thread I promised - http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=398042#398042
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2003 05:24 pm
To me, the EC issue isn't about whether or not a President comes from a small state--it is about taking the will of the people in each state as a collective unit.

If we have no EC, we are counting votes individually throughout the country, effectively disenfranchising the majority of people in this country. Why would someone from Wyoming even vote, if they knew NY or CA would negate their attempt? I think with the EC system, individual voters have a greater chance to affect an outcome at the state level than they would throwing it in to the national pot. The state's choice is signified and given credence through the EC. It is an equalizer for small states. And, trickling down, has been an equalizer for individual voters.
0 Replies
 
RicardoTizon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2003 04:03 am
Sofia
[To me, the EC issue isn't about whether or not a President comes from a small state--it is about taking the will of the people in each state as a collective unit.]

That is where I say the major flaw. A very Republican state discourages a Democrat to vote knowing that the state would end up Republican anyway invalidating their votes. Same is also true on the reverse.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2003 09:08 am
Hiya, Ricardo. I'm not arguing with you, but I am trying to at least show my point.

Here is someone who may explain it better than I have. I bolded what is important, to me.
-------------------
While candidates must win the popular election of a state in order to get its electors, the electoral college is a barrier against a national popular election. Why? Because (except in Maine) the states have a winner-take-all arrangement. All of the electors of a particular state are awarded to the candidate who wins the popular vote of that state. There is, therefore, proportional representation in Presidential elections, but it is parceled out by the states, not within the states (again, except in Maine). This means, among other things, that the runner-up candidate in an election often is much closer in the national popular election than he is in the electoral college, and that in very close elections (as in 1876 and 2000) the runner-up may actually win the national popular vote. But the electoral college means, more importantly, that a candidate must win the election within states, and not the greatest number of votes in the nation, in order to be elected. This arrangement obliges candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply were required to win the popular national election.

The Electoral College Protects States' Rights

The electoral college is a bulwark of states' rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. But neither does it give these less populous states an unfair advantage over the more populous states. The electoral college maintains a delicate equity by (a) allotting the more populous states a greater number of electors, but (b) requiring the electors chosen by the state actually to elect the President. We call our nation the United States of America, and not the united people of America, because it is a union of states, and not merely of individuals. States directly elect Presidents; individuals only indirectly elect Presidents. This protects the integrity of the various states in that it vests them with the authority to choose electors who will themselves choose the President. However, it also fosters the cohesiveness of the entire nation, because it discourages candidates from concentrating on a few dispersed but highly concentrated urban areas.
The 2000 Presidential election was razor-close because, for the most part, Vice President Al Gore won the electors of most of the highly populous states and Governor George W. Bush won the electors of the least populous states - which are the majority of the states. Gore won most the big electoral states (which are few) and Bush got a large number of the small electoral states. The closeness of the election highlights the fairness of the system - the populous states should each carry a heavier weight in the vote total, but since the states themselves select a President, no individual state can afford to be dismissed.

To eliminate the electoral college would be essentially to eliminate the role of states in presidential elections. It would comprehensively nationalize the selection and insinuate that states as such have no interest in national presidential politics. For all practical purposes, it would remove the borders between states and transform the United States of America into the united people of America.
------------
The US census states there are approximately 284.7 million of us.
34.5 mil live in CA.
904 thousand live in the state of Montana.
2.9 mil live in Orange County, CA.

A county in CA could negate the votes of all the citizens living in Montana.

Idaho has only 1.3 mil. Orange County, CA could effectively negate the votes of two other states.

NY state has 19 mil. NY county has 1.5 mil. Again, many counties have more people than many other states...

This is why the EC is so important. We vote by state, and are counted by state. Each state has a voice in who becomes President. Otherwise, Presidential elections will be ruled by two states and perhaps Philly.<-- And, so of course, these are the only places Presidential candidates would go, and they (CA/NY) would become the one and only special interest group. The rest of us could go to hell.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2011 11:51 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNb4-thR-0c&NR=1
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 08/03/2021 at 04:57:44