Discussion: Electoral College

[SuBe]

Keep it or go to strict Popular Vote? Discuss...

 

[SentinelMind]

I say keep it, I like the US Constitution the way it is....we're a democratic republic, not a democracy.

 

[SentinelMind]

double post

 

[Handsome Rob]

Keep it. It gives smaller states a little more say and keeps the largest ones from dominating the election every go-round.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Why fix something that's not really broken?

Sure, due to the uniqueness of the system, unpredictable things can happen, but it's still not broken.

 

[The Senator]

Keep it. It gives smaller states a little more say and keeps the largest ones from dominating the election every go-round.

So the Dakotas, Alaska, Montana, Delaware, Vermont and Idaho have just as much a say (combined) as New York or Texas?

My math must be fuzzy...

 

[Handsome Rob]

So the Dakotas, Alaska, Montana, Delaware, Vermont and Idaho have just as much a say (combined) as New York or Texas?

My math must be fuzzy...

If the number of electors match up, then yes. The electoral system, in my mind, serves a purpose much like our bicameral legislature. It brings balance by recognizing the influence of large states solely on their numerical population but not allowing those same large states to "bully" small ones based on the smaller population.

 

[Jokers_Wild]

Get rid of it. No more BUSH v. GORE!!

 

[Matt]

Keep.

 

[brucewayne165]

Get rid of it.
I live in Georgia, a very Red State. Therefore, if I were to vote for Obama, my vote would do nothing for Obama since he won't win the electoral votes from my state anyway. However, a voter who votes Obama in a swing state's vote makes a huge difference as it could be the vote that helps him win the state. This makes swing states even more important and makes those votes count for more in actually getting a Candidate elected.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

The Electoral College system is pretty out-dated. You have to remember this was insrtituted in a time when information and communications were scarce, and they didnt think the general population had enough information to vote. Interesting read here:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=436

 

[kane9321]

get rid of it

 

[The Senator]

If the number of electors match up, then yes. The electoral system, in my mind, serves a purpose much like our bicameral legislature. It brings balance by recognizing the influence of large states solely on their numerical population but not allowing those same large states to "bully" small ones based on the smaller population.

Actually, those ten states combined don't add up to the electoral totals of New York or Texas. That was my point-- people say the electoral college gives more influence to smaller states, but it really doesn't. In 2012, growing states such as Arizona, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia will still have more influence in deciding who becomes president than North Dakota or Wyoming.

 

[USMC]

There's no real need for it in this day and age. Let every voice be heard.

Dump it.

 

[The Chairman]

Dump it. It's outdated and, in my opinion, not very fair.

 

[The Senator]

I say keep it, I like the US Constitution the way it is....we're a democratic republic, not a democracy.

Yeah, I'm sure African Americans and women agreed with such sentiments one hundred and fifty years ago...

 

[SuBe]

Yeah, I'm sure African Americans and women agreed with such sentiments one hundred and fifty years ago...

It didn't say in the Constitution that Women couldn't vote, and it never said that African Americans are 3/5 persons. The only reason 3/5 persons were written into the Constitution was to reduce the power of the Slave States in the Union to basically force them someday to drop their slavery laws. So, the Writers of the Constitution were agaisnt Slavery, and it was the only way to get these States into the Union, and someday hope to change the Slave States. Which did work.


I was thinking about this the other day, when this country was founded, Each State was it's own entity, almost like it's own country. The Union was meant to group the "countries" together. Some don't think of it that way anymore. The change in thought reduces State Rights.

It's like some think the Country is like Walmart, you have different departments (States), but they are all run by a central Managment. Where others think of it more like the Mall, each Store has it's own identity, can organize their store how they want, but are grouped into a single area.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The Electoral College was a product of our nation's founding days and simply has become a relic in today's day and age. Because of it the Democrats and Republicans focus on a few swing states and just simply ignore the strongholds and take those votes for granted.

And frankly it makes my vote feel rather useless since New York is going to go for Obama anyways.

It's time to get rid of it. Relics just need to be gotten rid of.

 

[BlackestNight]

Sorry

 

[Exploding Boy]

Get rid of it. No more BUSH v. GORE!!

I wholeheartedly agree

 

[The Riddler]

Despite the new feverish push to get potential voters (especially the youth) to actually go out and vote for our next president, there are no actual benefits in doing so.


The logic behind such non-behavior is the fact we are Californians and though we are the largest state with the most electoral votes (55), Californians are non-factors in deciding the outcome of the election. Perhaps if we each had a vote in the few vital swing states (Ohio, Florida, etc.) that decide the election each year, our votes would actually be relevant. The fact of the matter is that ultimately, the elections are decided on these swing states, and these states alone.

In addition, with the current electoral college in place, it's very likely your vote will NOT count. All electoral votes for a state are awarded to the winner despite the possibility he may only have won by the slimmest of margains. Because it is not a direct election (popular vote), if you vote for the losing candidate, your vote is ultimately void. In this way, for a state like California, whose winner is very often easy to predict, voting for anyone else but the favorite very often ends up being a complete waste.

According to www.calcounts.com:

"In the last presidential election in California, over 5.5 million voters cast a ballot for someone other than the winner. That’s more votes than were cast for the winning candidate in any of the 49 other states, yet every one of the 5.5 million ballots was wasted under the current unfair winner-take-all system."


Essentially, if you vote for the underdog in California and he loses, (which is the usual outcome) you wasted your vote because all points go to the winner; if you voted for the frontrunner in California and he wins, (which is the usual outcome) you just threw your vote in for a group that never needed your help in the first place.

Just watch the election night coverage; CA's result is never in debate. Ultimately, without a popular vote, voter turnout, especially in California, will never reach its full potential.

With the election out of our hands, why bother?

the biggest and most prosperous states like california should not be politically relegated to the background of the presidential election. it's pretty absurd.