-
Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Personally, I would have preferred to see this done a long, long time ago...even if it meant Al Gore might have been President the last eight years. Which, for me, is saying a lot!
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
The electoral college always seemed antiquated and basically unfair to me.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
^^^I think antiquated is the perfect word
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Its easy to suggest that the EC be gotten rid of until you see what effect that would have on elections. Imagine what would have happened if we decided our presidency by popular vote and over the course of the entire country there were just a few thousand votes separating the two candidates. The losing party would be declaring "election irregularities" far and wide. At least in 2000, the issue was isolated to one state.
I've suggested a better idea than getting rid of the EC would be to force every state to use a "by district" system like the ones Maine and Nebraska use. This way "election irregularities" could be further contained to the problem districts.
Of course, that would create an enormous issue with gerrymandering.
It seems whatever solution we would implement, would just create another problem.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
My main issue with the EC is that it seems to give more weight to voters in larger states, a vote from a California voter for instance means much more than a vote from a Idaho voter. Shouldn't everybody's vote count the same?
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pan Dah
Who's vote would a candidate rather have though? California has 55 electoral votes, Idaho has 4. A candidate could actually win the election by winning only the 11 largest states.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Richard_Head
My main issue with the EC is that it seems to give more weight to voters in larger states, a vote from a California voter for instance means much more than a vote from a Idaho voter. Shouldn't everybody's vote count the same?
Ironically enough, many critics of the EC argue that it gives smaller states disproportional power since two of every state's electoral votes are based on their Senate delegation which isn't population based.
For instance, California has 11.95% of the U.S. population. It controls 55 of the 538 electoral votes which is only 10.22%. Idaho has 0.49% of the U.S. population. It controls 4 of the 538 electoral votes which is 0.74%. Per capita, an Idaho voter actually has more clout than a California voter.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
I think the electoral college is way past it's expiration date.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pan Dah
As doc pointed out above, the major problem is the winner-take-all approach in most states, not the EC itself, and that's certainly true regarding the advantages of concentrating campaigns on CANYTX.
Really a large electoral count is only an issue if the state in question is a swing state. CA consistently goes democratic so Republicans write it off as a loss and concentrate their efforts elsewhere. TX goes consistently Republican so Dems do likewise. States like FL and OH on the other hand will get campaign bombed from both camps.
If we went to a "by district" or "proportional" system, this would certainly change things. In fact, CA Republicans want to do just that.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...lit/index.html
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
The whole idea of the EC was that the political elite were afraid that the populace might do something really stupid some day... I think it's pretty safe to say that if we're going to do something stupid voting wise, we'll do it with or without the EC. obviously I'm simplifying the situation.
Also, I'm just waiting for the day when an election is influenced by a member of the EC not voting the way the people want.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
It's not all bad. It helps to ensure that regions are represented and not just population centers.
But it should be popular vote.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
'Tyranny of the Majority' !
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
i believe the original logic included preventing a regional candidate from winning the presidency. A president was suppose to have support in a majority of the areas even if the support was thin. The country has become so nationalized an election has to be within 1% of the popular vote for the popular and electoral votes to differ.
It won't change unless a republican president wins popular vote but loses the election.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
The EC ensures that smaller states at least have some say in the process. Under the popular vote, 4/5ths of the states wouldn't matter at all.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Is it time to eliminate the electoral college?? I'm pretty sure someone soon will get around to shootin' it up too!:O
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tauries
Is it time to eliminate the electoral college?? I'm pretty sure someone soon will get around to shootin' it up too!
:scared:
The FBI is on it's way to your house right now.... :cop:
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Here's another argument in favor the EC that you might not have considered.
In 1990, I was living in Nebraska. We had a very close gubernatorial race that year where the Democratic candidate won by a very slim margin. It just so happened that on Election night that a major snowstorm hit the Western half of the state which votes heavily Republican and kept a lot of registered voters in those Western counties home. There's no proof of course, and there can never be, but some people conclude to this day that snowstorm affected the election outcome. May I point out that Democratic governor went on to serve two terms and is now a two term Senator.
Now try to imagine the same scenario on a national level where say a similar natural disaster (big Nor'easter, hurricane, major wildfire) has kept voters stuck at home or worse yet displaced to some remote location where they cannot vote. Under a popular election system, those states affected by the disaster would be underrepresented. Under the EC, their vote still counts in full whether 20% or 80% of the eligible voters actually show up.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sophia_Starina
:scared:
The FBI is on it's way to your house right now.... :cop:
I'm not sure if the electoral college campus is in their jurisdiction::) !
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Why stop with the Electoral College ? As long as you're going to eliminate Federalism, then abolish the states as autonomous entities and re-apportion the Senate so that California has more senators and Delaware just gets one or has to share with Maryland.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Why stop with the Electoral College ? As long as you're going to eliminate Federalism, then abolish the states as autonomous entities and re-apportion the Senate so that California has more senators and Delaware just gets one or has to share with Maryland.
Well, shouldn't California really have more senators than Delaware? They do have a good 36 million or so more people.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
It's an academic question. In order to amend the Constitution, you need three fourths of the states to sign on. That means that 13 states can block an amendment. So you're asking Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oklahoma, easily comprising at least half the land mass of the USA, to cooperate in making themselves irrelevant.
I suspect their answer would be no.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pan Dah
Well sure. And while we're at it, the USA should have nine times as many votes in the UN as Canada; and China should have four times as many as us.
Maybe we shoulds, we pay enough...
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
I dont know, about eliminating the electoral college vote. I think we should just have a better system. That gives a fair advantage! I like the fact we have more than one way to vote.
-
Re: Is it time to eliminate the electoral college for a direct populat vote?
Quote:
Well sure. And while we're at it, the USA should have nine times as many votes in the UN as Canada; and China should have four times as many as us.
Quote:
Maybe we shoulds, we pay enough...
.... well now we're back to the issue of voter eligibility. If 'paying' is a valid criteria (as it was when the US was founded), does that mean that welfare recipients shouldn't be allowed to vote ? Does that mean that people earning less than $27k (or whatever) per year such that the don't actually have to pay any income taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote ?