electoral college

Nationwide elections would never pass the senate, since the vast majority of senators come from the small states which get overrepresented in the current system.

i dont understand your statment Ein.

The EC mitigates the ability of a few large states from having an inordinate amount of weight in the selection of the President of all 50 of the United States.

so how does the fact that one can win the popular vote and still lose be fair? seeing as that it is apparent that he is the one the public wants... but doesnt get? that just seems wrong.

In essence they are weighting the vote so that small states can be represented even though they have less people. It has to do with the fact that we are so enormous and diverse. When presidents win without a popular majority, it usually isn't enough of a gap to provoke revolt.

Because it is the states that elect the President, not the population of the U.S. as a whole. When you vote, you are voting for your state's electors pledged to the candidate you vote for.

Each state gets two senators regardless of population.

Each state gets congressmen in proportion to its population.

Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to the sum of its congressmen and senators.

Thus a state with only one congressman get three times as many electoral votes in relation to it's population as a state with 53 congressmen.

Because each state has two senators regardless of population, people from small states are disproportionally well represented in the senate. These same people are also disproportionally represented by the electoral colledge, although less so.

A constitutional amendment replacing the electoral colledge with a national election would require 2/3 of the senate to pass, and the majority of the constituencies of senators would whield less influence under such a system.

Therefore an amendment replacing the electoral colledge with a nationwide election will never pass.

ah so i see... but i still dont like it oh well... i guess its not really up to me huh?

It was irrelevant in the election just completed.

this is true... just a thought that came to mind is all.

I don't like it either. It makes it seem like your vote just doesn't count.

im with you there kristie...

Why so? You voted and it went to the candidate of your choice in your state?

well, i did vote and my state didn't go to the candidate of my choice.

Well boo hoo. So now you want to change the system prescribed by the Constitution.

Of course that would not have mattered in this election since Bush won by nearly 4 million votes.

hey calm it down larry.. there is no need to start getting nasty.

I beg your pardon?

what? was it not clear enough?

i mean she just stated a fact. you dont have to get all snippy with her