Is it time to scrap the Electoral College?

[Bronco Yoda]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27283314

"A group called National Popular Vote says it has found a way.

So far, it has persuaded four Democratic-controlled legislatures (in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and New Jersey) to pass a law which commits those states to give their electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote.

The accord takes effect once states with a combined 270 electoral votes agree to it.

The states would pledge to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner even if he or she had not been the majority choice in their state."

[enjolras]

As I've argued at length before: "no".

[W*GS]

I concur. No.

[snowspot66]

I say no as well. A popular vote doesn't effectively represent the low population states.

[Bronco Jamus]

No. Then we are no longer a republic, and population centers would rule.

[watermock]

no

The urban centers allready have too much relevance. It's still a big country.

Alaska in particular is underrepresented as is Montana.

[SJ Bronco]

Yes, the will of the people is the will of the people, no matter who they are. The majority should win....

[TexanBob]

Definitely not. The brilliance of our founding fathers was born out in 2000. As big a mess as we saw in Florida, could you imagine if we had to have a national vote recount?

The right already thinks the polls are rigged because of ACORN, motor voter and efforts by liberals to include felons and illegals on the voting rolls. The left thinks the polls are rigged because of Diebold and efforts to stop felons and illegals from voting.

By having 50 elections instead of one, it is harder for a small group to rig the election. If it was strictly based on the popular vote, all that would be needed would be one hacker who could throw millions of votes into the system.

The Electoral College isn't perfect but it is the least corruptible way to determine the outcome of a nationwide election.

[tnedator]

We are a "United States" of America. The electoral college ensures that all states, which the president will preside over, have some relevance in the election process.

[BABronco]

I say do away with it .. i live in oklahoma... unless your voting for mccain there is no reason to vote and if you are voting for mccain your guy already won the state so no need in going out to vote. I say **** the states being represented. How about we allow the American people to be represented?

[Spider]

Throw the Electoral college into the ****ter ASAP ......

[Spider]

We are a "United States" of America. The electoral college ensures that all states, which the president will preside over, have some relevance in the election process.
So says the Nazi bastard .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The right already thinks the polls are rigged because of ACORN, motor voter and efforts by liberals to include felons and illegals on the voting rolls.

That should be no surprise - the right also thinks Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

http://www.buzzflash.com/files/colsanders.jpg

[TailgateNut]

That should be no surprise - the right also thinks Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

http://www.buzzflash.com/files/colsanders.jpg

Love the "yard sign"!

[Garcia Bronco]

I say do away with it .. i live in oklahoma... unless your voting for mccain there is no reason to vote and if you are voting for mccain your guy already won the state so no need in going out to vote. I say **** the states being represented. How about we allow the American people to be represented?


And then Oklahoma still wouldn't have a voice. Congratulations. In fact, Florida, New York, California, Ohio, and Mich would about decide everything in a national election.

[Garcia Bronco]

From the article:

"A relic of the early republic
The system is a relic of the early days of the republic when electors were supposed to be independent agents exercising their judgment in choosing a presidential candidate from a list of several contenders.

Today, electors are party loyalists who almost always vote for their party’s nominee."

This is a lie. The Electors vote for who wins the state not party affilation. Fox News/MSNBC at it again.

If you want to make it more representitive then do what Maine and Neb does, have the electorate vote on up wins the district. As mentioned, we will no longer be a republic if this happens and we'll be doomed.

[kappys]

Get rid of it. We need more democratic forms in this government.

I also think that originally the electoral college was designed to provide unity between the states which varied considerably in culture. I think the US is far more homogenous a society now than it was in the past. Of course there are differences between rural areas and major population centers and we often focus on them but they are across a very narrow spectrum when compared to other countries with well functioning democracies that often have wide disparities in culture between different regions of their nation.

[Rohirrim]

Any system that allows the person who got the fewer votes to win the office is not democracy.

[Garcia Bronco]

Get rid of it. We need more democratic forms in this government.

I also think that originally the electoral college was designed to provide unity between the states which varied considerably in culture. I think the US is far more homogenous a society now than it was in the past. Of course there are differences between rural areas and major population centers and we often focus on them but they are across a very narrow spectrum when compared to other countries with well functioning democracies that often have wide disparities in culture between different regions of their nation.

Incorrect. The electorial college was put in place to make sure we are a Republic. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. Democracy fails because the majority and population centers always rule. It's tyranny in another form. No democracy has ever lasted more than 200 years. The longest standing government in our world history was Rome. Which was a Republic.

[Garcia Bronco]

Any system that allows the person who got the fewer votes to win the office is not democracy.

We are not a democracy.

[ak1971]

no

[snowspot66]

If you guys can come up with a better way then I'm all ears but I just don't see how we can fairly represent low population areas in any other fair way. Agricultural states would be ****ed over. Candidates wouldn't even stop in the midwest except maybe a short stop in Denver. They would spend all their time on the coasts.

[kappys]

Incorrect. The electorial college was put in place to make sure we are a Republic. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. Democracy fails because the majority and population centers always rule. It's tyranny in another form. No democracy has ever lasted more than 200 years. The longest standing government in our world history was Rome. Which was a Republic.

You are accurate in that we are a Republic and not a democracy. I view this as a flaw and not something to be proud of. If it was then we should stop with this sham of democracy promotion and start admitting what we really are.

As for Rome this is a terrible example. Rome was only a Republic for a brief period of time. Following the takeover by Gaius Julius Ceasar it became a monarchy ruling by fiat from a hereditary structure. Republican forms remained with regards to the Senate - but their power and influence were very limited and could not oppose Ceasar's will.

[gyldenlove]

If you guys can come up with a better way then I'm all ears but I just don't see how we can fairly represent low population areas in any other fair way. Agricultural states would be ****ed over. Candidates wouldn't even stop in the midwest except maybe a short stop in Denver. They would spend all their time on the coasts.

Why should low population areas have more say? why should you get 2 or 3 votes because you live in Hawaii or Rhode Island?

If you want a government that represents the people do away with the electoral college, it is a remnant of an era when most people couldn't read and had absolutely no qualifications to decide who should be in powe... okay, maybe the electoral college is not that bad considering most STILL have no qualification to decide what to eat for breakfast.

If America was the land of the well-educated, informed and politically conscious I would say the college should go, but considering America is the land that brought us the super sized bigmac combo, the SUV and Ted Weiss (the dead guy who got elected in New York) I am all for a system that limits the influence of Mr and Mrs John Q Fatass as much as possible.

[SJ Bronco]

If you guys can come up with a better way then I'm all ears but I just don't see how we can fairly represent low population areas in any other fair way. Agricultural states would be ****ed over. Candidates wouldn't even stop in the midwest except maybe a short stop in Denver. They would spend all their time on the coasts.

They can be represented by their vote. I don't think anyone's vote should count more than 1 vote, and it's not fair that someone in Oklahoma's vote counts more than mine. At the very least, Cali, New york and Florida should get more points and less to smaller states. I say the system is corrupt already and is geared to keep bible thumping bigots in office. I say screw them.

[BABronco]

And then Oklahoma still wouldn't have a voice. Congratulations. In fact, Florida, New York, California, Ohio, and Mich would about decide everything in a national election.

Partially correct. Oklahoma still wouldn't have a voice, but should a state have a voice or should the people of the country have a voice?

Lets say Cali always goes to the democrats. So why should a republican even bother to vote? However, if the person were voting on a national scale the vote would actually count because the said person would be voting with the nation apposed to the state.

I think the absolute best thing we can do for our voting process is make it a winner take all... Nation wide. Get ride of the state boundaries for the general election of a president. Honestly Garcia, do you consider yourself an American first or a person from Colorado first? If you answered American why should your vote not count on a wide spread scale?

[kappys]

Partially correct. Oklahoma still wouldn't have a voice, but should a state have a voice or should the people of the country have a voice?

Lets say Cali always goes to the democrats. So why should a republican even bother to vote? However, if the person were voting on a national scale the vote would actually count because the said person would be voting with the nation apposed to the state.

I think the absolute best thing we can do for our voting process is make it a winner take all... Nation wide. Get ride of the state boundaries for the general election of a president. Honestly Garcia, do you consider yourself an American first or a person from Colorado first? If you answered American why should your vote not count on a wide spread scale?

Precisely. If you look at older American literature the term country was often applied to the state someone came from not the US as a whole.

[Garcia Bronco]

You are accurate in that we are a Republic and not a democracy. I view this as a flaw and not something to be proud of. If it was then we should stop with this sham of democracy promotion and start admitting what we really are.

As for Rome this is a terrible example. Rome was only a Republic for a brief period of time. Following the takeover by Gaius Julius Ceasar it became a monarchy ruling by fiat from a hereditary structure. Republican forms remained with regards to the Senate - but their power and influence were very limited and could not oppose Ceasar's will.

Which is why our Government is structured differently from that of Rome. But it was still a republic.

[snowspot66]

They can be represented by their vote. I don't think anyone's vote should count more than 1 vote, and it's not fair that someone in Oklahoma's vote counts more than mine. At the very least, Cali, New York and Florida should get more points and less to smaller states. I say the system is corrupt already and is geared to keep bible thumping bigots in office. I say screw them.

It's not a democracy. It's a republic. Democracy won't work in a country as large as ours. It is too big and too diverse.

Our country is a union of states not a country with provinces and that is a very important distinction. At the Federal level we have an equal representation through Congress. Why would we throw that out when it comes to elections? There is no way low population states will be properly represented in national vote and you can't discount the fact that we are a nation of states. The states retaining their rights and some sense of autonomy was the only way they could agree to coming together in the first place.

*edit*

The question asked do you consider yourself an American first or a person of X State. I say it depends on what we are talking about. Internationally I'm a US citizen. Nationally I'm a Montanan and you're lying to yourself if you think a lot of people aren't the same way. What state we are from is a point of pride just as much as what country we are from. In a national election we'll not vote as Americans but as citizens of our own states because we want what's good for our area even above what's good for our country. It's human nature to form tribes. Our states are closer knit tribes and receive priority on a national level.

[kappys]

Which is why our Government is structured differently from that of Rome. But it was still a republic.

Republic in name only after the first 200 years. I don't think it can really be considered anything other than a monarchy after that.

[enjolras]

If you go to a simple majority you are going to see a complete disregard and disenfranchisement of rural America. It's really that simple. The majority of votes today come from population centers. American politics will become about what's best for New York, L.A., Chicago, San Francisco, etc... 79% of the population in the United States (as of 2000) lived in large population centers.

The electoral college is a brilliant scheme that balances out how people are represented. Higher population states (with bigger cities) get more votes, but states with lesser population have a bigger say than they otherwise would.

This really hits home here in Colorado. In a popular vote system Colorado is meaningless. No one cares about what is good for Colorado. We don't have enough people to warrant attention. However, in the electoral college system we (along with other culturally diverse states) are extremely important. It is the fact that we can go either way as a state that makes us powerful, and ensures that our needs are (at least somewhat) addressed.

[Garcia Bronco]

Partially correct. Oklahoma still wouldn't have a voice, but should a state have a voice or should the people of the country have a voice?

Lets say Cali always goes to the democrats. So why should a republican even bother to vote? However, if the person were voting on a national scale the vote would actually count because the said person would be voting with the nation apposed to the state.

I think the absolute best thing we can do for our voting process is make it a winner take all... Nation wide. Get ride of the state boundaries for the general election of a president. Honestly Garcia, do you consider yourself an American first or a person from Colorado first? If you answered American why should your vote not count on a wide spread scale?

Its a bad idea. History proves it. Our Constitutional Framers knew what they were doing. Why should a Republican vote in California? Because he thinks his/her ideas are better. If they can't sell their ideas then they have no business winning anyway. The best thing we can do for our voting process is leave it the **** alone. No more electronics and keep the paper ballots. The amusing thing is it's not going to matter in this election and the sore losers from the last two elections are going to win by a land slide.

[kappys]

It's not a democracy. It's a republic. Democracy won't work in a country as large as ours. It is too big and too diverse.


We have one of the most homogenous population of any country in the world. We certainly have diversity from various immigrant populations but this pales in comparison to diversity seen among other large nations (Russia, India, China, Euro) which have vast differences in language and cultural traditions. Outside of some Latin American countries (Argentina for example) we are more or less the same.

[SJ Bronco]

It's not a democracy. It's a republic. Democracy won't work in a country as large as ours. It is too big and too diverse.

Our country is a union of states not a country with provinces and that is a very important distinction. At the Federal level we have an equal representation through Congress. Why would we throw that out when it comes to elections? There is no way low population states will be properly represented in national vote and you can't discount the fact that we are a nation of states. The states retaining their rights and some sense of autonomy was the only way they could agree to coming together in the first place.

Leave their rights, count my vote. It is possible. They can vote for whomever they want to represent their state in the house and senate, thats fine, but in national matters, such as presidential elections, they will have to take the majority rule and like it. IMHO

[enjolras]

And didn't the Roman Republic last like 450 years?

[kappys]

And didn't the Roman Republic last like 450 years?

I think you're right. It depends a bit on what the starting and ending points were.

I think more important is that while Rome was a Republic they controlled a relatively small land mass and mainly a local power. It became an empire after the vast conquests of Ceasar. I think the empire conparison(which was decidely not a Republic) is a far better analogy to the modern US Empire.

[BABronco]

Leave their rights, count my vote. It is possible. They can vote for whomever they want to represent their state in the house and senate, thats fine, but in national matters, such as presidential elections, they will have to take the majority rule and like it. IMHO

:thumbsup: on fire today.

[BABronco]

It's not a democracy. It's a republic. Democracy won't work in a country as large as ours. It is too big and too diverse.

Our country is a union of states not a country with provinces and that is a very important distinction. At the Federal level we have an equal representation through Congress. Why would we throw that out when it comes to elections? There is no way low population states will be properly represented in national vote and you can't discount the fact that we are a nation of states. The states retaining their rights and some sense of autonomy was the only way they could agree to coming together in the first place.

*edit*

The question asked do you consider yourself an American first or a person of X State. I say it depends on what we are talking about. Internationally I'm a US citizen. Nationally I'm a Montanan and you're lying to yourself if you think a lot of people aren't the same way. What state we are from is a point of pride just as much as what country we are from. In a national election we'll not vote as Americans but as citizens of our own states because we want what's good for our area even above what's good for our country. It's human nature to form tribes. Our states are closer knit tribes and receive priority on a national level.

Thats some bs thinking which has clearly ****ed up the country. Everyone is out trying to get theirs first. And no I am not lying to myself.

[snowspot66]

Doing it that way will give large states like California two advantages. They will have population and the House. The Senate will be the ONLY place small states have any influence whatsoever. The House and popular vote won't matter at all for them. That doesn't sound very equal or fair to me. You'll need to come up with a better idea than that.

[SJ Bronco]

Doing it that way will give large states like California two advantages. They will have population and the House. The Senate will be the ONLY place small states have any influence whatsoever. The House and popular vote won't matter at all for them. That doesn't sound very equal or fair to me. You'll need to come up with a better idea than that.

it's equal, and its fair. What's not fair is giving a small population too much power. Whats not equal is giving two votes to johnny hayseed, while I only get 1.

[BABronco]

Doing it that way will give large states like California two advantages. They will have population and the House. The Senate will be the ONLY place small states have any influence whatsoever. The House and popular vote won't matter at all for them. That doesn't sound very equal or fair to me. You'll need to come up with a better idea than that.

As SJ said, the states can keep their right and everything else they got... just let my vote count. Let the population (not states) decides who becomes the most influential person on the face of the planet.

[Garcia Bronco]

As SJ said, the states can keep their right and everything else they got... just let my vote count. Let the population (not states) decides who becomes the most influential person on the face of the planet.

You vote does count within your state. Like I said, I think Nebraska does it the best making each electoral district winner vote for the PResident, but the EC isn't going away.

[BABronco]

You vote does count within your state. Like I said, I think Nebraska does it the best making each electoral district winner vote for the PResident, but the EC isn't going away.

If I were voting for Obama in my state my vote would not count. If your voting for mccain in most states your vote will not count.

[kappys]

What we have now is an even more narrow group of people deciding the President. NOt the intent I think but functionally that is what it has become.

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, North Carolina and a handful of others will decide the election. Unless you live in one of those states your vote doesn't really matter.

Afterall look at where they are campaigning - pretty much in the above states only. Obama is looking to stiffen up support in NY and CA, and Mccain isn't bothering to swing by Texas or Oklahoma.

[Garcia Bronco]

If I were voting for Obama in my state my vote would not count. If your voting for mccain in most states your vote will not count.


That's just not true.

[Garcia Bronco]

What we have now is an even more narrow group of people deciding the President. NOt the intent I think but functionally that is what it has become.


Not true either.

[kappys]

Not true either.

?. Give me an argument against my point at least.

[BABronco]

That's just not true.

yeah ... what kappy said

[enjolras]

?. Give me an argument against my point at least.

By your logic your vote wouldn't really count in a majority-rule election either. The only time your vote ever truly counts is in the case of a tie, and you cast the last vote. If you vote for Obama in Kansas, your vote counts just the same as it would in a majority-rule election.

It's just a matter of scale. If you live in a state in which your candidate is going to lose, how is that different than living in a country where a candidate is going to lose?

[snowspot66]

It counts just as much as everybody else's vote in your state. We decide things in Congress by the state elections of officials, not a popular vote. Congress was set up specifically to balance the power difference between rural and urban population states. Why should we ignore that delicate balance in an election for the most important seat of our government? It was all set up in the first place to specifically PREVENT the majority having all say over the minority because they were fully aware that both sides deserved representation and that just because a group is a majority does not necessarily make them right or the best solution for everything.

Your vote counts within your state. Your state then chooses who it well put it's EV's towards. Much like we elect officials to represent us the votes of our state represent our choice. Putting it all to a national vote does a complete end around of the intent for a Republic.

I would not be opposed to a hybrid plan however much like the one that has been mentioned. Voters within districts select where each House vote will go and a overall popular vote within each state can decide the two senate votes. Or the Senate votes can be done by district too.

I think that would be even more representative to the idea of a Republic.

A plan like this is about as far as you will ever get the rural states to agree with. If a popular vote ever got adopted there would be massive issues and protests. We already have states telling the Fed to cram it's national ID card where the sun don't shine. It would be much more vocal than that without a doubt.

[Garcia Bronco]

?. Give me an argument against my point at least.

We do not have a narrow group of people deciding who is President. In fact the most narrow group was the first. Our Republic decides the President in a fair way and really always has. Sure you'll have a few instances where the popular vote does not equate to the winner, but it's happened 4 times in almost 220 years.

[kappys]

By your logic your vote wouldn't really count in a majority-rule election either. The only time your vote ever truly counts is in the case of a tie, and you cast the last vote. If you vote for Obama in Kansas, your vote counts just the same as it would in a majority-rule election.

It's just a matter of scale. If you live in a state in which your candidate is going to lose, how is that different than living in a country where a candidate is going to lose?

Good rebuttal, you are right sir. :thumbs:

[BABronco]

By your logic your vote wouldn't really count in a majority-rule election either. The only time your vote ever truly counts is in the case of a tie, and you cast the last vote. If you vote for Obama in Kansas, your vote counts just the same as it would in a majority-rule election.

It's just a matter of scale. If you live in a state in which your candidate is going to lose, how is that different than living in a country where a candidate is going to lose?

Not exactly. In a majority rule election each person gets his/her vote which is counted nation wide not state wide. Lets say your a dem who lives in the Bible belt or a republican who lives on the coasts, no matter who is running your not going to win. There is no use in voting in that scenario. Now your a democrat in the Bible belt where your vote isnt going to be counted as a Oklahoma vote. Your vote will be counted as a nation wide vote. This way your voice is not canceled out 75-25. Maybe your candidate loses .. maybe they win but this way you actively get to voice your opinion.

[TexanBob]

The U.S. is simply too big and needs to be carved up. Put the conservatives in one part of the country and liberals in another part of the country and build an enormous ****ing wall between them so they'll stop screaming at each other. It will be a great experiment on whether capitalism or communism really is the better system.

Problem with you commie liberals is that you create hellholes like New York City and Detroit with your airhead policies and then flee to red state America because of the high taxes and high crime rates your own policies caused to happen. Then you whine that we are backward hicks who aren't as sophisticated as the hellholes you came from but, instead of moving back to those hellholes, you demand the red states adopt the same policies as the hellholes you came from. As more of you flee to the red states, you start voting in your own kind until those states also become liberal hellholes which you commie libs will then leave for another red state because of the high taxes and the high crime rates you are experiencing.

One last thought. Once that wall is built, we won't be taking anyone from Liberalland into our new country. You'll just have to find someplace else to **** up when your high tax rates, high crime and loss of liberty get to be too much for you. That wall ain't coming down.

[Bronco Bob]

The U.S. is simply too big and needs to be carved up. Put the conservatives in one part of the country and liberals in another part of the country and build an enormous ****ing wall between them so they'll stop screaming at each other. It will be a great experiment on whether capitalism or communism really is the better system.

Problem with you commie liberals is that you create hellholes like New York City and Detroit with your airhead policies and then flee to red state America because of the high taxes and high crime rates your own policies caused to happen. Then you whine that we are backward hicks who aren't as sophisticated as the hellholes you came from but, instead of moving back to those hellholes, you demand the red states adopt the same policies as the hellholes you came from. As more of you flee to the red states, you start voting in your own kind until those states also become liberal hellholes which you commie libs will then leave for another red state because of the high taxes and the high crime rates you are experiencing.



I doubt New Yorkers consider New York to be hell. To them, hell
is being stuck in some podunk town out in the middle of nowhere.





One last thought. Once that wall is built, we won't be taking anyone from Liberalland into our new country. You'll just have to find someplace else to **** up when your high tax rates, high crime and loss of liberty get to be too much for you. That wall ain't coming down.

You'd all starve to death within a year without the federal tax money
you get from the blue states.

[OrangeDoofus]

One last thought. Once that wall is built, we won't be taking anyone from Liberalland into our new country. You'll just have to find someplace else to **** up when your high tax rates, high crime and loss of liberty get to be too much for you. That wall ain't coming down.
Just so you know, Alaska would have to be part of Liberalland, since it's the most socialist state in the country. They tax the hell out of the oil companies there and use the money to send a check to every resident of the state every year. It's easily the biggest "spread the wealth" program in the country, and I know you wouldn't want that kind of thing messing up your free-market utopia, because all those taxes would drive the oil companies away.