0
lawrocket

Many States Trying to enact Law to Skirt the Electoral College

Recommended Posts

Source - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_re_us/electoral_college_1

States are seeking a compact to devote all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. These states are apparently upset with the "all or nothing" aspect of the electoral college and the fact that they may be able to assist in the election of a POTUS that does not win the popular vote.

This, to me, is a curious solution. They object to giving all the votes to the candidate who wins the state, and instead want to give all the votes to the candidate who wins the popular election.

Does it not seem more logical that the state passes a law that its electors are pledged to provide thier electoral votes by a percentage of the votes in the state?

Furthermore, it seems to be a powergrab by states with large population centers, none of whom seem to appreciate that flyover country is having a large impact.

I am just shocked that states will put themselves in a position of just going along with the rest of the country.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not see any value whatsoever to the Electoral College.

In The World According To Don, it's one person, one vote; then you add them all up, without regard to what state the person lives in, and the person with the most votes wins.

The Electoral College, laws requiring a person to own property, or be white, or be male, etc are all shameful vestiges of the immature days of our culture. They were all put in place to safeguard against certain groups of people from having a say.
" . . . 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I do not see any value whatsoever to the Electoral College.

In The World According To Don, it's one person, one vote; then you add them all up, without regard to what state the person lives in, and the person with the most votes wins.

The Electoral College, laws requiring a person to own property, or be white, or be male, etc are all shameful vestiges of the immature days of our culture. They were all put in place to safeguard against certain groups of people from having a say.



Poll laws, I will (to an extent) agree with - the problem now is that people no long vote for what candidate they think is best for the country, but rather for the person that will do the most for them - the "bread and circuses" theory.

The electoral college, however, is a different story. It protects the wishes of the smaller states from the overwhelming influence of the larger states and insures that their wishes are heard.

Lastly - the United States is *NOT* a democracy - it's a representative republic. Take away the electoral college, and you take away the representation.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I do not see any value whatsoever to the Electoral College.

In The World According To Don, it's one person, one vote; then you add them all up, without regard to what state the person lives in, and the person with the most votes wins.

The Electoral College, laws requiring a person to own property, or be white, or be male, etc are all shameful vestiges of the immature days of our culture. They were all put in place to safeguard against certain groups of people from having a say.



Very well said, I agree 100%.

Flyover country has the Senate, that's more than enough "balanced" representation.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The Electoral College, laws requiring a person to own property, or be
>white, or be male, etc are all shameful vestiges of the immature days of
>our culture. They were all put in place to safeguard against certain groups
>of people from having a say.

Actually, it was implemented back in the day when it was considered the united STATES of america (important word emphasized.) The federal government was intended to be a weak unifying force over a few dozen powerful states, each pursuing its own policies via its own methods. The electoral college was a method whereby each state had a certain amount of "voting power" it could use as it saw fit.

Nowadays, the concept of the state is more of a historical curiosity, notable only in terms of income tax, property tax, drinking age, DUI limits etc. You can drive from California to Maine on the same federal highways, pass the same strip malls, see the same banks, hotels and stores. The idea that you were passing through a dozen separate entities has gone away. Today we consider ourselves citizens of the US, not citizens of our respective states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

it's one person, one vote; then you add them all up, without regard to what state the person lives in



A couple of hundred years ago it was decided that the US would be a tight-knit assembly of generally independent governments. Those governments chose the president. Those governments first asked the citizens for their opinion in the matter, but the citizens had no more than an advisory role.

Now the word "state" is coming to mean simply a geographical subdivision within the US borders. All independence is being stripped away. The US is almost completely a unified nation.

If that's to be the way it is, then the electoral college is obsolete and the electoral college should be abolished or state governments should finally put themselves out their own misery and just structurally assign their electoral votes by the national referrendum.

It seems like it's time to re-decide this issue with a constitutional convention: are the states to be independent governments or is that idea dead? The wasted effort of continually fighting about it over and over and over is a real drag.

Edited to add: I'm getting real tired of writing essentially the comments as billvon and having him hit the "Post Reply" button seconds before I do.


First Class Citizen Twice Over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nowadays, the concept of the state is more of a historical curiosity, notable only in terms of income tax, property tax, drinking age, DUI limits etc.



Actually, drinking age and dui limits are controlled by the feds. The laws are nominally state laws, but the feds blackmail the states (with their own money) to make their laws fit federal guidelines.

The areas of law which remain in state control are rapidly diminishing and I suspect hardly any are actually protected by principle any more. Maybe lawrocket can think of some examples but I can't.


First Class Citizen Twice Over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Edited to add: I'm getting real tired of writing essentially the comments as billvon and having him hit the "Post Reply" button seconds before I do.



Type faster!
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The electoral college, however, is a different story. It protects the wishes of the smaller states from the overwhelming influence of the larger states and insures that their wishes are heard.



It does this by granting greater credence to the votes of those persons in low population/electoral vote ratio states than those in high population/electoral vote ratio states. Personally, I think the vote of a person in Idaho should be no more or less important than a person in Texas, California, or Vermont. The only ways to accomplish that are to either discard the electoral college entirely or to strictly tie the number of electoral votes for a state to the number of actual voters in it. Personally, I rather discard the electoral college. The infrastructure of our country (e.g. transportation and communication) has grown to the point that it is no longer necessary.

Quote

Lastly - the United States is *NOT* a democracy - it's a representative republic. Take away the electoral college, and you take away the representation.



Your representation is in the white house and in congress. Without the electoral college, those people would still (badly) represent your wishes.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bout Fucking Time, could've spared us the grief of dealing with Numbnuts at the helm for 8 years, well better late then never I guess!
*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


The electoral college, however, is a different story. It protects the wishes of the smaller states from the overwhelming influence of the larger states and insures that their wishes are heard.



It does this by granting greater credence to the votes of those persons in low population/electoral vote ratio states than those in high population/electoral vote ratio states. Personally, I think the vote of a person in Idaho should be no more or less important than a person in Texas, California, or Vermont. The only ways to accomplish that are to either discard the electoral college entirely or to strictly tie the number of electoral votes for a state to the number of actual voters in it. Personally, I rather discard the electoral college. The infrastructure of our country (e.g. transportation and communication) has grown to the point that it is no longer necessary.



As an example to prove my point - the state of Florida could counteract the votes of, collectively: Alaska, DC, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. How is that fair to the people living in THOSE states?

The only feasible solution that I can see is to move the electoral college from a "winner takes all" situation to a proportional amount based on the popular vote for the state. If the popular vote is split 60/40 in a state, then the electors are as well.

You say that the electoral college over-represents the rural states, you should SURELY be howling over the Senate, with each state having 2 senators..that's even MORE of a misbalance.

I've yet to see anything about abolishing the Senate, BTW.

Honestly, I think this is more "sour grapes" from the Dems that is driving this - they want a greater ratio favoring their adherents in the large cities. More people voting for "Bread and Circuses".

Remember all the veiled threats of "if we don't win in November, it must be fraud" from the Dems last year? Isn't it amazing how when the Dems win it's a clean election, but if the Repubs win it's election fraud?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why just the presidency? Why not Congress? Add up all the votes for congress and dole out the seats proportionally. That's what they do in Israel and they have nice stable governments don't they?:S



Feel free to provide Israel's constitution, so that we can compare it.

As for Congress, seats are apportioned by the creation of congressional districts. I don't recall off the top of my head if that is strictly by cencus or if there are other considerations.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. The system does not give "more" creedence to smaller states. It just makes sure that they have a voice.

In 2000, Gore took 21 states (including D.C. with its 3 electoral college votes) and Bush took 30 states. Checking an election map, Gore got the entire pacific coast (except Alaska), New Mexico, A block of the upper midwest, and the northeast (except New Hampshire). Bush managed to take the rest - what appears on its face to be a huge geographic area.

In 2004, GW Bush actually won a majority of the popular vote (50.7%), something that he didn't do before, and something Clinton never did. The electoral college voted 286-251 (with 1 "faithless elector.")




Now, my issues with this law are many.

First, it puts basically all power in the hands of the 11 most populous states. Let's say that 70 percent of New York voters vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election. But New York has this law. John McCain, through his strength in the rest of the country, manages to eke out the popular vote by 50,000 votes. Despite the overwhelming desire of the New York voters, New York's votes go to McCain.

This means that the will of the voters of that state is set aside.

Second. But - and this is a HUGE BUT - a look at the electoral college map and the elections of 2000 and 2004 reveal exactly what is going on. The south and midwest (flyover country) have, on the basis of the sheer number of states, a lock on the election. You can't win a presidential election without at least a couple of those states. 10 small dogs can beat 3 big dogs.

The big dogs don't like it. In the California bill, California will only do it when there are at least ten other states that control 270 electoral votes when combined with California. 270 is the magic number for an electoral college win.

So what we have is the situation where 11 states are all it takes. It seems to me to be a fundamentally unfair process. Voters of those 11 states may be screwed by the will of the rest of the country. The other situation is that voters in the rest of the country are screwed by the will of those 11 states.

Think about it - anything that doesn't require everyone to join in on WILL be unfair. 11 states will decide?

Third - am I the only one who catches the extreme irony of this? These are measures that are being put through by legislatures. They are not being put up for popular votes in the states via ballot intiative or referendum.

Dont' get me wrong - I believe this is the way it's supposed to be done. Our country's founders could have made this a majoritarian democracy, but did not.

It's just that sometimes you see something that is being done in a way so goddamned counter to what it claims it wants to do that leaves one scratching one's head. "The PEOPLE should decide. Therefore, we are going to force this bill through, without a vote, that will allow the PEOPLE - well, other people - to decide what we will do."

Why don't they put it to a vote?


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



As for Congress, seats are apportioned by the creation of congressional districts. I don't recall off the top of my head if that is strictly by cencus or if there are other considerations.


I know how they are apportioned. The process is integral to how electoral college votes are apportioned. If you are arguing that the electoral college system is broken the same argument exists for the concept of electoral districts for congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Feel free to provide Israel's constitution, so that we can compare it.
As for Congress, seats are apportioned by the creation of congressional districts. I don't recall off the top of my head if that is strictly by cencus or if there are other considerations.


Translation = Blah, Blah-Blah, Blah-Blah! >:(
*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Feel free to provide Israel's constitution, so that we can compare it.
As for Congress, seats are apportioned by the creation of congressional districts. I don't recall off the top of my head if that is strictly by cencus or if there are other considerations.


Translation = Blah, Blah-Blah, Blah-Blah! >:(


If you have something constructive to add to the conversation, feel free. Or are you still sore about having your hand spatted in the other thread?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sore about my hand being "Spatted" Not at all, Like i said the little pricks destroyed/covered up evidence everytime, in the past why should this time be any different,.... ya didn't "spatted" Shit! Ever view the 911 hearings??? How bout we're talking about the same man, who was visably confused & frustrated, & couldn't understand why Stevie Wonder, didn't return his numerous waves to him during a performance for the president!!!
Stevie Wonder The COMPLETELY BLIND entertainer, didn't respond to GWB waving to him on stage!:S Duh go figure. And before ya ask - Oh, yeah, it's on film, the media had a field day with that!
ROTFLMAO!:S:D:D:D:D

*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I disagree. The system does not give "more" creedence to smaller states. It just makes sure that they have a voice.



An individual voting in a smaller state controls a greater percentage of an electoral vote than an individual voting in a larger state.

Quote



First, it puts basically all power in the hands of the 11 most populous states. Note the first sentence of this paragraph is at odds with the rest of it. You specifically list an example in which the voting power of a state that is party to this compact is deferred to the rest of the country Let's say that 70 percent of New York voters vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election. But New York has this law. John McCain, through his strength in the rest of the country, manages to eke out the popular vote by 50,000 votes. Despite the overwhelming desire of the New York voters, New York's votes go to McCain.



So what we have is the situation where 11 states are all it takes. It seems to me to be a fundamentally unfair process. Voters of those 11 states may be screwed by the will of the rest of the country. The other situation is that voters in the rest of the country are screwed by the will of those 11 states.



Let's separate these into two scenarios.

One - "Eleven states is all it takes" and "The other situation is that voters in the rest of the country are screwed by the will of those 11 states." Isn't that already the case? All a candidate has to do is eke out California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina, at which point the opposing voters in those states and all voters in the other states are screwed...that's the Presidency. The proposed law might actually fix that, and it certainly won't exasperate it.

Two - "Voters of those 11 states may be screwed by the will of the rest of the country." Currently that is possible on a state by state basis (California may be screwed by the rest of the country) but not collectively (those eleven states can't be screwed en masse, as they have the votes to beat the rest of the country). Under the proposed compact it becomes possible collectively, but only if a candidate wins the popular vote. This means that in order to win an election, a candidate will need to appeal to a plurality or majority of the people, as opposed to just certain select states. Campaigning in California won't necessarily win him California's electoral votes, as he's got to win the popular vote. As the chief executive of the union, preferably unbeholden to any particular state or set of states, I think it's good for him to have to campaign on a national platform.

On a smaller to bigger scale, the House represents the smallest geographical areas and population bases...voting districts. The Senate represents bigger geographical areas and populations...entire states. The President represents the biggest geographical area and population...the entire collection of states and each sub-division thereof. For that reason, I think he should be elected by his constituency...the entire population.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



As an example to prove my point - the state of Florida could counteract the votes of, collectively: Alaska, DC, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. How is that fair to the people living in THOSE states?



Curious logic. Right now a resident of Wyoming has about 20 times the "voting power" that a resident of California has in selecting the president.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



As an example to prove my point - the state of Florida could counteract the votes of, collectively: Alaska, DC, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. How is that fair to the people living in THOSE states?



Curious logic. Right now a resident of Wyoming has about 20 times the "voting power" that a resident of California has in selecting the president.



And changing it where that resident of Wyoming has NO "voting power" is somehow better?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



As an example to prove my point - the state of Florida could counteract the votes of, collectively: Alaska, DC, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. How is that fair to the people living in THOSE states?



Curious logic. Right now a resident of Wyoming has about 20 times the "voting power" that a resident of California has in selecting the president.



And changing it where that resident of Wyoming has NO "voting power" is somehow better?



Why would she have no voting power? If it goes according to the popular vote, then a WY resident has exactly the same amount of voting power as anyone else.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



As an example to prove my point - the state of Florida could counteract the votes of, collectively: Alaska, DC, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. How is that fair to the people living in THOSE states?



Curious logic. Right now a resident of Wyoming has about 20 times the "voting power" that a resident of California has in selecting the president.



And changing it where that resident of Wyoming has NO "voting power" is somehow better?



Wyoming has two senators. So does North Dakota. So does Alaska. As do New York and California.

That's more than enough "voting power" for the folks in less populous states.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote



As an example to prove my point - the state of Florida could counteract the votes of, collectively: Alaska, DC, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. How is that fair to the people living in THOSE states?



Curious logic. Right now a resident of Wyoming has about 20 times the "voting power" that a resident of California has in selecting the president.



And changing it where that resident of Wyoming has NO "voting power" is somehow better?



Why would she have no voting power? If it goes according to the popular vote, then a WY resident has exactly the same amount of voting power as anyone else.



Why? Because, a candidate can take the "Big 11" states and completely ignore the rest of the country - that's exactly what will happen if the electoral college goes away, and what goes on to a smaller extent currently.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if the electoral college is abolished alltogether, it won't matter what states are campaigned in, because each individual citizen would have an equal voice. It doesn't matter if they live in California, New York, or Alaska. They get one vote for president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0