4
   

The electoral college and the modern presidency

 
 
kjamez
 
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 03:24 pm
in what ways does the modern elections still lend itself to the electoral college and in what ways is not necessary
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 1,457 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2016 01:49 pm
@kjamez,
Yes, I am in favor of getting rid of the electoral college. If we were to get rid of the electoral college, the presidential candidates would put more time and emphasis on the most populated states. Republicans would spend more time in traditionally populated democratic states like California and New York. Democrats would spend more time in traditionally republican states like Texas. The reason for this is because those huge populated states will no longer be winner take all. They would become one person and one vote. Winning any particular state would no longer be the goal of presidential candidates. Instead the goal would be to win as many votes as you can within the most populated states. It being a red state, a blue state, a deep red state, or a deep blue state would no longer matter. Only thing that would matter would be that they be heavy populated states.

Both republicans and democrats would virtually ignore the smaller less populated states and focus most of their time on the larger more populated states.

Both parties would spend virtually all of their time in California, Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota, Wisconsin, and possibly two or three other states. Both parties would virtually ignore most of the middle of the country. Both parties would virtually ignore most of the south.



ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2016 04:05 pm
@Real Music,
I get you and agree.

I can see not agreeing, the large states with small population need equal representation, but that is achieved in the senate. Meantime, power has been taken away from individuals, from my point of view. The rest of us get shrunk re individual votes meaning less.
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2016 06:42 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
states with small population need equal representation, but that is achieved in the senate


I agree that the less populated states do get equal representation in the Senate. Two senators from each state. California, Texas, and New York get the same number senators as Rhode Island, North Dakota, and Idaho. I am fine with all 50 states getting the same amount of power in the Senate by giving two senate seats to each of the 50 state.

I am also fine with the House giving power/house seats based on population. I just don't care for the gerrymandering.

I don't like the electoral college diluting the one person one vote in presidential elections.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2016 07:35 pm
The constitution does not mandate that electors be apportioned on a winner-take-all basis. Maine and Nebraska apportion electors based on the winner in each congressional district. Maine has only four electoral votes, and Nebraska has five. I would not want to see the Electoral College abolished. I do wish, however, that the apportionment of electors were reformed. This can only be accomplished in the legislatures of the states.
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The electoral college and the modern presidency
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 07:03:11