Once again, the Electoral College needs to go.

[quade 4]

Quote

The time has long been past, where a popular vote, one in which EVERY individuals voice in the choosing of our president is heard.

While I agree with you and the electoral collage absolutely amplifies the win to make it appear greater than it really is, the margin was large enough (this time) where there was no doubt whatsoever who actually won the election.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[diablopilot 2]

Agreed.


Wait, isn't that twice in a week?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Lawrocket: What about the potential of a popular vote system helping open the race up to a strong third party candidate?

As would be the case here if we adopted poportional representation?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Third party? Like Perot or Nader?

Seems to me that the electoral college made them MORE significant.

Only in the way they can fuck up the other guys chi.

Remind me how many EC votes Perot got?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

Lawrocket: ... popular vote system helping open the race up to a strong third party candidate?

As would be the case here if we adopted poportional representation?

The counter argument is that proportional representation (either on the list system or single transferable vote) tends to produce weak coalition goverment.

One possibility for the US Presidential Election would be to adopt the French system of two elections where if no candidate gains more than 50% of the popular vote, then there is a run-off between two 2 most popular candidates... Or those most popular candidates who between them have over 67% of the popular vote.

The problem with this system is that it can be protracted and expensive with no settable timetable due to the repeated votes.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[livendive 8]

I agree. The popular vote in a congressional districts elects a representative, and the popular vote in a state elects a senator. In my opinion, application of such a system should extend such that the popular vote in the nation should elect the president.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

PLEASE add comment to that so I don't agree with you!!!



I agree you may actually be right in this case oh learned one.

The motive for the EC was stated by Hamilton (an elitist if there ever was one) in the federalist papers, and it was to prevent rule by "the mob". Nothing to do with making sure small states had an equal say in the matter.

In fact, most people making the argument that it benefits smaller states are sadly misinformed on the mathematical subtleties of the EC.

And you might have noticed how little time either candidate spent in Vermont, Rhode Island or Wyoming.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Quote

They say we can vote to spend more on law enforcement, when the whole bill means prosecuting 14 year olds as adults (I didn't have good judgement until after becoming 18 in spite of having two good parents living in the same house), throwing people convicted of drug crimes out of public housing, denying bail to illegal immigrants (I can't come up with a good reason why my great grandparents (some penny-less after the potato famine) were OK and the newcomers aren't apart from my family being white and the new guys brown which doesn't sound American), allowing hearsay as evidence, and requiring a 75% super majority for future changes in the law.

It would appear as though people did a good job informing themselves on the matter though, because prop 6 failed in a landslide.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A team game lose game one 10-0 and win game two 1-0 and 2-1 and win the series, even though they scored 11 runs to the other team's 3.

Huh?

Math is hard.

It's not even math, it's only arithmetic.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[riddler 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Today, citizens are well-educated enough to be able to make the decisions for themselves

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No. We've entered an age where the purpose of education is scoring well on standardized tests (which can't score on original thought, because that's too hard) and we have a post-literate population which gets their news from a small number of news sources with government granted monopolies they got by providing information that was most pleasant for the peoples' consumption.

I agree with you on many of your points, but I think it is safe to say that the average person today is still better educated than the average person at the time of the revolutionary war, standardized testing or not. All the way up to the 1840s, only the children of wealthy people even went to school, and it wasn't until the early 1910s that education was made mandatory for every child.

It's hard to say what the average person's education was when the electoral college was formed, but I would guess it's about the equivalent of today's 5th or 6th grade (about a 12-year old). Most people in American today have a 12th-grade level of education (6 more years). Today's education requirements are much, much better, and more extensive than they were 240 years ago.

Maybe some would say a high school education isn't enough to be able to make a good decision about voting, but it's good enough for me.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I disagree. I think the Electoral College is a great idea that has, in my not-so-humble opinion, has proven its worth.

The electoral college is like a multi-game sport series. A team game lose game one 10-0 and win game two 1-0 and 2-1 and win the series, even though they scored 11 runs to the other team's 3.

The electoral maps demonstrate the wisdom of the system - the winner needs the support of the country, not just 3 or 4 major metropolitan areas.

I agree 100%.

The US was not designed as a democracy for a reason.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

The US was not designed as a democracy for a reason.

RIGHT! To prevent the ordinary people from deciding who should be president. That's a task for the elite. (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #68)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[joedirt 0]

***
The motive for the EC was stated by Hamilton (an elitist if there ever was one) in the federalist papers, and it was to prevent rule by "the mob". Nothing to do with making sure small states had an equal say in the matter.
***

Did he come up with the idea of having 2 senators per state as well?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I absolutely agree.

It's not an issue of what party you belong to. The electoral college simply reduces the power of individual citizens to choose their president.

Y'all need to re-read the Constitution again. The people don't elect the President, the STATES do.

They (the states) could decide to allocate their votes by augury and it would be legal.

As stated above, abolishment of the EC would mean that candidates would campaign in the states with the highest populations and that would be it - the rest of the country would effectively lose their votes.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

I feel strongly that the EC should be abolished.

Any system that has such ability to skew the "official" result compared to the actual popular vote, by functionally making some citizens' votes stronger and others' weaker, is simply un-democratic, and an insult to the citizens. Perfect examples are 2000, where Bush lost the popular vote but was still declared the president, and this year, where McCain lost by about 5 or 6% of the popular vote, but in the EC he's deemed to have been trounced by over 2 to 1. A Democrat in Utah or a Republican in Massachusetts might as well not vote for president at all because their votes are almost guaranteed to be meaningless. That's bullshit. It's time for the EC to go the way of the dodo.

[Erroll 80]

Quote

... abolishment of the EC would mean that candidates would campaign in the states with the highest populations and that would be it -

Forgive me, but I don't understand how that is different from what happens currently?
As John pointed out, how much time did either candidate spend in Vermont, Rhode Island or Wyoming?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

... abolishment of the EC would mean that candidates would campaign in the states with the highest populations and that would be it -

Forgive me, but I don't understand how that is different from what happens currently?
As John pointed out, how much time did either candidate spend in Vermont, Rhode Island or Wyoming?

They campaign where they will get the most bang for their buck and concentrate on 'swing' states - abolish the EC and nobody outside of NY, Cali, Illinois and Texas would ever see a candidate. (hint: look at the 10 most populous cities in the US)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

... abolishment of the EC would mean that candidates would campaign in the states with the highest populations and that would be it -

Forgive me, but I don't understand how that is different from what happens currently?
As John pointed out, how much time did either candidate spend in Vermont, Rhode Island or Wyoming?

They campaign where they will get the most bang for their buck and concentrate on 'swing' states - abolish the EC and nobody outside of NY, Cali, Illinois and Texas would ever see a candidate. (hint: look at the 10 most populous cities in the US)

Exactly. And guess what? In order to abolish the EC, you need a Constitutional amendment and to do that you need to get 38 of 50 states to sign on. Never going to happen.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

... abolishment of the EC would mean that candidates would campaign in the states with the highest populations and that would be it -

Forgive me, but I don't understand how that is different from what happens currently?
As John pointed out, how much time did either candidate spend in Vermont, Rhode Island or Wyoming?

They campaign where they will get the most bang for their buck and concentrate on 'swing' states - abolish the EC and nobody outside of NY, Cali, Illinois and Texas would ever see a candidate. (hint: look at the 10 most populous cities in the US)

So the EC forces candidates to campaign in one set of states, and a popular vote in another (very similar) set.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

... abolishment of the EC would mean that candidates would campaign in the states with the highest populations and that would be it -

Forgive me, but I don't understand how that is different from what happens currently?
As John pointed out, how much time did either candidate spend in Vermont, Rhode Island or Wyoming?

They campaign where they will get the most bang for their buck and concentrate on 'swing' states - abolish the EC and nobody outside of NY, Cali, Illinois and Texas would ever see a candidate. (hint: look at the 10 most populous cities in the US)

So the EC forces candidates to campaign in one set of states, and a popular vote in another (very similar) set.

Absolutely - Obama had to campaign in 57 states, after all.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

... abolishment of the EC would mean that candidates would campaign in the states with the highest populations and that would be it -

Forgive me, but I don't understand how that is different from what happens currently?
As John pointed out, how much time did either candidate spend in Vermont, Rhode Island or Wyoming?

They campaign where they will get the most bang for their buck and concentrate on 'swing' states - abolish the EC and nobody outside of NY, Cali, Illinois and Texas would ever see a candidate. (hint: look at the 10 most populous cities in the US)

So the EC forces candidates to campaign in one set of states, and a popular vote in another (very similar) set.

Absolutely - Obama had to campaign in 57 states, after all.

At least he can count beyond 5, even if erratically.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Presidential campaigns are nation-wide, via TV, internet, and other media. Despite all the people who do go to rallies, the simple fact is that most people don't, and never see any of the candidates live. And yet they inform themselves (more or less) and vote. If every vote counts, every vote is precious. "Where the candidates campaign" is a lame excuse to keep an archaic, un-democratic practice in a democracy.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Presidential campaigns are nation-wide, via TV, internet, and other media. Despite all the people who do go to rallies, the simple fact is that most people don't, and never see any of the candidates live. And yet they inform themselves (more or less) and vote. If every vote counts, every vote is precious. "Where the candidates campaign" is a lame excuse to keep an archaic, un-democratic practice in a democracy.

Far better to experiment, eh, rather than stick with what has worked far longer than most countries have existing with their current goverment.

Your dismay over Gore losing is really not a sufficient reason to fuck with it. I've given you plenty of reasons to against it. And until states like Florida can run a proper election, it's impossible to think about implementing a nationwide vote.

[diablopilot 2]

Maintaining the Electoral College will in effect maintain the dominance of the two party system, where a significant portion of the voting population is really under or miss represented.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Maintaining the Electoral College will in effect maintain the dominance of the two party system, where a significant portion of the voting population is really under or miss represented.

perhaps, though England is a parliamentary democracy that still has a two party system.

We have two semi independents in the Senate, with at least one clearly associated with the Democrats and both generally voting with that party. None in the House. The EC does nothing to prevent third parties from succeeding in Congress, yet they are not, implying that this is not a legitimate complaint at this time.