Electoral College

[Lincolnman]

I think the electoral college idea was good for the time, but with todays technology it no longer is necessary. The whole country get the same information via television, internet etc. I think the majority physical vote should be the only one that counts.

 

[driller]

I think the electoral college idea was good for the time, but with todays technology it no longer is necessary. The whole country get the same information via television, internet etc. I think the majority physical vote should be the only one that counts.

I'll say it again.

The founding fathers were no fools. They left the constitution with an out. It's easy. All you have to do is propose an amendment and have it ratified.

Awwwwww, what? Now you want to change them rules too? argue2 Whatsa matter? Can't get enough votes? All you need is a congressional 'super majority' and then have it ratified by the states.

Dream on. :sleep:

 

[Pepsi2185]

The electoral college talk has been onthe board for years. It will take time. I believe in time it will happen, but not in my, next gen, or next next gen's time. It will take a huge conspiracy and an underhanded election to a candidate no one likes to make a change.

Kinda like if Carter would have been relected by the electoral college even though he had like 1.5 percent of the popular vote, LOL

 

[CaptainZilog]

The whole point of the electoral college was the give the states a representative vote, even if they were small (RI has like 1.5 Million people, but I could probably drive past a million people in less than 15 minutes around here, sort of lopsided). But states have no power any more. They are just filters from federal levels. No point any more.

 

[Kbob]

Usually it's the people that live in the large population states that want to do away with the electoral college. Changing to a purely popular vote would substantially widen the rift between large and small states due to the power shift going completely to the larger states. The country would deteriorate and ultimately fall apart due to the unequality.

 

[CaptainZilog]

Inequality of what? The popular vote should determine the president. States are completely federally controlled now, there is no reason for them to cling to an outdated voting system.

We have the Senate anyhow. 2 per state, no matter what. Even if there was some odd law that increased some 'magical' burden on small states, they are represented in the senate equally and have just as much power as CA, NY, FL, TX, etc.

 

[Lincolnman]

:iconcur:

Inequality of what? The popular vote should determine the president. States are completely federally controlled now, there is no reason for them to cling to an outdated voting system.

We have the Senate anyhow. 2 per state, no matter what. Even if there was some odd law that increased some 'magical' burden on small states, they are represented in the senate equally and have just as much power as CA, NY, FL, TX, etc.

 

[MonsterMark]

Usually it's the people that live in the large population states that want to do away with the electoral college. Changing to a purely popular vote would substantially widen the rift between large and small states due to the power shift going completely to the larger states. The country would deteriorate and ultimately fall apart due to the unequality.

The way it is going now, we are going to need the 2 Americas that Edwards speaks so foundly of. One for the people with moral values, hard work ethic, and compassion for their fellow citizen, and the other one for the kind of people that showed up at the Republican Convention to protest.

 

[Kbob]

Inequality of what? The popular vote should determine the president. States are completely federally controlled now, there is no reason for them to cling to an outdated voting system.

We have the Senate anyhow. 2 per state, no matter what. Even if there was some odd law that increased some 'magical' burden on small states, they are represented in the senate equally and have just as much power as CA, NY, FL, TX, etc.

The 2 Senators from each state only addresses part of the legislative branch of our government, not the executive. I'm talking about urban and rural areas, cities versus the sticks, slickers versus rednecks, farms versus factories. The rural areas and small states would be the BIG losers, almost always getting the shaft when it comes to federal funds and executive initiatives.

You're oversimplifying the federal rule of states. States are not as strong as they used to be, but neither are they a push-over to the feds. Try to pass a popular vote election system and you'll see what I'm talking about, trust me.

Look at a hypothetical example: a future president gets voted in by an overwhelming majority of people living in the northeast, but a minority everywhere else. Guess where the big focus of that administration is going to be domestically speaking? It's not that hard to figure out, the rest of the country could be largely ruled by a small section of our country. The popular vote system is too open for abuse.

 

[CaptainZilog]

But there's no point to electing a president via electoral college. The senate has enough control over lawmaking that it wouldn't be possible to encounter a situation like the one you postulated. The senate would completely deny any sort of imbalance like that.

The electoral college is way more prone to abuse, because if you could get Texas, California, Florida and New York, you win. That's 4 states, and most likely not a majority.

Sure the minimal amount of votes you get from Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, etc will make you pass over them, but that's how it is now. The presidental campaign trail spends most of its time in the larger states, because that's where the big votes are. That's the way the game is played.

 

[Kbob]

But there's no point to electing a president via electoral college. The senate has enough control over lawmaking that it wouldn't be possible to encounter a situation like the one you postulated. The senate would completely deny any sort of imbalance like that.

I don't agree with your opinion, but that's just my opinion.

The electoral college is way more prone to abuse, because if you could get Texas, California, Florida and New York, you win. That's 4 states, and most likely not a majority.

I'll compromise with you and say they are equally prone to abuse, so why change?

Sure the minimal amount of votes you get from Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, etc will make you pass over them, but that's how it is now. The presidental campaign trail spends most of its time in the larger states, because that's where the big votes are. That's the way the game is played.

I believe the majority of campaigning goes on in the "toss-up" states, regardless of size. How much campaigning is Kerry and Bush doing in California other than fund-raising? Zilch, cause it's a lock for Kerry.

 

[CaptainZilog]

I'll compromise with you and say they are equally prone to abuse, so why change?

I'll agree they're both flawed in our State-system.

I believe the majority of campaigning goes on in the "toss-up" states, regardless of size. How much campaigning is Kerry and Bush doing in California other than fund-raising? Zilch, cause it's a lock for Kerry.

True, but that's because Bush will get precisely nothing from California. If Bush were to get at least some sort of vote, maybe he wouldn't ignore it?

 

[Kbob]

True, but that's because Bush will get precisely nothing from California. If Bush were to get at least some sort of vote, maybe he wouldn't ignore it?

Good point.