0
lawrocket

Many States Trying to enact Law to Skirt the Electoral College

Recommended Posts

Quote

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.



No, what that means is that Los Angeles, New York and Chicago would be voting in the President every election, regardless of what the rest of the country might want.
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



When each voter is equal, you can imagine the campaigning will be where the candidate can get to the most voters possible. Wyoming and North Dakota will be right out. Don't expect to see any in New Hampshire either. Maine? Who's ever heard of Maine?


First Class Citizen Twice Over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



Right now, if a candidate takes the "Big 11" states by even a 51-49 margin, he wins the election. Period. In a popular vote, winning a landslide 70-30 in those "Big 11" states would still allow the loser of that margin to combine his 30% of "Big 11" votes with those he wins in the other 39 states and potentially take the election without winning any of the "big" states.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



No, what that means is that Los Angeles, New York and Chicago would be voting in the President every election, regardless of what the rest of the country might want.



If memory serves correctly, our current President won the popular vote in 2004. Will a bit of fact-checking show that he won Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



Right now, if a candidate takes the "Big 11" states by even a 51-49 margin, he wins the election. Period. In a popular vote, winning a landslide 70-30 in those "Big 11" states would still allow the loser of that margin to combine his 30% of "Big 11" votes with those he wins in the other 39 states and potentially take the election without winning any of the "big" states.

Blues,
Dave



That's why I think if any changes are made to the EC, it should be a proportional electoral vote change, rather than the 'all or nothing'...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

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.



Right now, if a candidate takes the "Big 11" states by even a 51-49 margin, he wins the election. Period. In a popular vote, winning a landslide 70-30 in those "Big 11" states would still allow the loser of that margin to combine his 30% of "Big 11" votes with those he wins in the other 39 states and potentially take the election without winning any of the "big" states.



That's why I think if any changes are made to the EC, it should be a proportional electoral vote change, rather than the 'all or nothing'...



At which point the benefit of the EC over a straight popular vote would be what? I think I see the rationale here...since the smaller states with only 3 EC votes can't divide them perfectly, they would almost always be split 2-1, giving 66% of their votes to one guy even if he only wins 51% of the vote, and only 33% to the guy who won 49% of the vote. However 55 votes (California) are much easier to divide, thus the loser would get much closer to his share of the EC votes. We all know who's favor such a system would usually work in. A straight popular vote would be much fairer, and wouldn't change the outcome of all that many elections.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

At which point the benefit of the EC over a straight popular vote would be what?



It still gives the smaller states SOME influence in an election.

Quote

I think I see the rationale here...since the smaller states with only 3 EC votes can't divide them perfectly, they would almost always be split 2-1, giving 66% of their votes to one guy even if he only wins 51% of the vote, and only 33% to the guy who won 49% of the vote. However 55 votes (California) are much easier to divide, thus the loser would get much closer to his share of the EC votes. We all know who's favor such a system would usually work in. A straight popular vote would be much fairer, and wouldn't change the outcome of all that many elections.



It's still more fair than a straight popular vote...where the smaller states basically are swallowed up by the "Big 11".

And yes, we *do* know who would benefit by a straight vote and who would decide elections by a straight vote ... the Democrats and the blue states, respectively. That's why I feel that the overwhelming amount of the sturm und drang of the "Abolish the EC" movement is coming from the Democrats.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

At which point the benefit of the EC over a straight popular vote would be what?



It still gives the smaller states SOME influence in an election.



Yeah...MORE influence than their population merits. Why should a West Virginian's vote count for more than a Texan's? As I explained above, districts have representatives, states have senators (and governors in constitutional matters), the PEOPLE should control the Presidency.

Quote

Quote

I think I see the rationale here...since the smaller states with only 3 EC votes can't divide them perfectly, they would almost always be split 2-1, giving 66% of their votes to one guy even if he only wins 51% of the vote, and only 33% to the guy who won 49% of the vote. However 55 votes (California) are much easier to divide, thus the loser would get much closer to his share of the EC votes. We all know who's favor such a system would usually work in. A straight popular vote would be much fairer, and wouldn't change the outcome of all that many elections.



It's still more fair than a straight popular vote...where the smaller states basically are swallowed up by the "Big 11".

And yes, we *do* know who would benefit by a straight vote and who would decide elections by a straight vote ... the Democrats and the blue states, respectively. That's why I feel that the overwhelming amount of the sturm und drang of the "Abolish the EC" movement is coming from the Democrats.



How do you figure? I know the doom and gloom approach is attractive and probably sells well, but in the last century, exactly ONE election would have gone differently using a popular vote instead of the EC system, and nobody can prove whether we'd have been more fucked or less fucked with that guy at the helm. Given that Congress was controlled by the opposing party, he'd have probably been as ineffective as our current guy is this term.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


When each voter is equal, you can imagine the campaigning will be where the candidate can get to the most voters possible. Wyoming and North Dakota will be right out. Don't expect to see any in New Hampshire either. Maine? Who's ever heard of Maine?



I would think the residents of those states would be thankful.:D
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yeah...MORE influence than their population merits. Why should a West Virginian's vote count for more than a Texan's? As I explained above, districts have representatives, states have senators (and governors in constitutional matters), the PEOPLE should control the Presidency.



And they do, through the electors - guaranteeing that the West Virginia vote counts, even if it's skewed so that those poor Californians only get 18x the influence over the election than the West Virginians.

Is it a perfect system? No. Is a straight popular vote better? No, in my opinion.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yeah...MORE influence than their population merits. Why should a West Virginian's vote count for more than a Texan's? As I explained above, districts have representatives, states have senators (and governors in constitutional matters), the PEOPLE should control the Presidency.



You don't understand the terminology. The PEOPLE do control the presidency. "The PEOPLE" refers to the several state governments. Maybe you don't mean "The PEOPLE" but instead you think "people" should control the presidency. As in individuals.

That's not how it works. If you'd like it to work that way, change the constitution.

(Of course in actuality neither individuals nor the state governments control the presidency. The corruption has obsoleted both of those concepts. Ah well...)


First Class Citizen Twice Over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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



Take your whiney crap someplace else--Your little rant has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And if it's "on film," why didn't you post a link to a clip of GWB "visibly confused and frustrated" and making numerous attempts to wave at Stevie Wonder? I find it hard to believe that if a video like that exists, it isn't on the Internet somewhere. As the saying in skydiving goes, "If it isn't on video, it didn't happen."

NOTE: I think GWB is an incompetent president; however, it annoys me to no end when someone tries to interject this type of trite drivel into a serious political discussion.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Yeah...MORE influence than their population merits. Why should a West Virginian's vote count for more than a Texan's? As I explained above, districts have representatives, states have senators (and governors in constitutional matters), the PEOPLE should control the Presidency.



And they do, through the electors - guaranteeing that the West Virginia vote counts, even if it's skewed so that those poor Californians only get 18x the influence over the election than the West Virginians.

Is it a perfect system? No. Is a straight popular vote better? No, in my opinion.



In a straight popular vote, each Californian will have exactly the same influence on the election as each West Virginian, as it should be. Neither is better or wiser than the other, so why shouldn't they be counted equally? Maybe we could institute a different geographical line...those people that live within 100 miles of Washington DC get 5 votes, those within 500 get 4, those within 1000 get 3, 2000 get 2, and 4000 get 1. Fuck Alaska and Hawaii. Sound absurd? State lines have become that arbitrary. The electoral college served a great purpose when a much larger percentage of the population couldn't read, and dissemination of information was slow and unreliable. Today, essentially everyone in the US has access to the internet and/or a phone and/or mail service and/or television and/or radio and/or newspapers. With the exception of a few counties in Florida, most people are perfectly capable of either visiting a voting center or voting by absentee ballot. As such, there's no need for a panel of "more educated" voters to communicate their wishes to Congress.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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!



Unable to be proven.

Most of Gore's popular vote margin was garnered in California, an uncontested state. Same would be true of Texas (GOP) and New York, but since the larger states favor the Democrats, this biases popular vote towards the Democrats. Make it a popular vote and the GOP will start campaigning there.

The counter argument is that since the outcome is certain, many in the dominant party for those states won't bother showing up.

I had expected the opposite result in 2000 - Bush winning the vote, Gore squeaking out the EC.

----
If America wants to switch to a popular vote method, fine, we have a process to do this. I don't think it should be done piecemeal by states.

A much better solution to me is allocating the EC on a district by district level, or by proportions, and giving the +2 to the winner.

Or do nothing. 2000 was an abberration, one that's happened before in the 19th Century. Didn't seem to destroy the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

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.



No, what that means is that Los Angeles, New York and Chicago would be voting in the President every election, regardless of what the rest of the country might want.



If memory serves correctly, our current President won the popular vote in 2004. Will a bit of fact-checking show that he won Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago?



No, because he didn't. I was writing in a broad term, so now, I have connect the dots...

Without the electoral college, campaigning would focus on those three cities first, as they are the largest population centers in the country. Politically active cities like Portland, OR, Seattle, WA or Minneapolis, MN wouldn't even qualify as a "blip" on the screen. The "flyover" part of the country, from the Dakotas to Texas would be nearly forgotten.

The popular vote is represented by the electoral college. It is also represented in the Congress. Equal representation is also provided in the Senate.
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue is that we have a system which was developed at a time when the States had more power than the federal government. In that regards, there was (and there still is) a popular vote, but at the State level. However, today, the States have lost much of their initial power and autonomy (albeit not all of it), yet the electoral system has remained the same.
I am not convinced a national popular voting system would necessarily mean ignoring the majority of the country. Winning LA by 20,000 votes would be irrelevant if losing in Omaha, Nebraska by 25,000 votes. There would still be battle grounds, although they may shift from where they stand today.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The issue is that we have a system which was developed at a time when the States had more power than the federal government. In that regards, there was (and there still is) a popular vote, but at the State level. However, today, the States have lost much of their initial power and autonomy (albeit not all of it), yet the electoral system has remained the same.
I am not convinced a national popular voting system would necessarily mean ignoring the majority of the country. Winning LA by 20,000 votes would be irrelevant if losing in Omaha, Nebraska by 25,000 votes. There would still be battle grounds, although they may shift from where they stand today.



Los Angeles is a population of 8,000,000. Omaha is roughly 390,000. If I win in LA, I don't care how the people in Omaha vote (in broad terms).
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Los Angeles is a population of 8,000,000. Omaha is roughly 390,000. If I win in LA, I don't care how the people in Omaha vote (in broad terms).


Unless you win a very tight race in LA, and lose by a lot in Omaha. What matters is not whether you win in LA, Omaha, NYC or Monkey's Eyebrow, KY (my favorite!), but whether you have one more vote than your opponent.
GWB did not win LA, NY, Chicago or SF in 2004, yet won the national popular vote. In a national popular vote system, it is not about winning cities or state, but individual votes. You can not afford to totally neglect parts of the country during the campaign like you can with the current system.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Los Angeles is a population of 8,000,000. Omaha is roughly 390,000. If I win in LA, I don't care how the people in Omaha vote (in broad terms).


Unless you win a very tight race in LA, and lose by a lot in Omaha. What matters is not whether you win in LA, Omaha, NYC or Monkey's Eyebrow, KY (my favorite!), but whether you have one more vote than your opponent.
GWB did not win LA, NY, Chicago or SF in 2004, yet won the national popular vote. In a national popular vote system, it is not about winning cities or state, but individual votes. You can not afford to totally neglect parts of the country during the campaign like you can with the current system.



I understand your point, but in the reality, the inner cities are not so close in political alignments.
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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



Then you should go read the Federalists Papers so you understand the intent. It is working exactly as they inteneded and invisioned.

On another note, there is only one way around it. Amend the Consitution. But this most states would never agree to any change. If you study the reasons you will understand that too.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Personally, I think the Electoral College is full of shit.



Then you have not studied it and the reasons for it. READ THE FEDERALISTS PAPERS. Our founders were visonaries and were briliant
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



No, what that means is that Los Angeles, New York and Chicago would be voting in the President every election, regardless of what the rest of the country might want.



Cities don't vote, people do. One person one vote regardless of where they live. It's VERY simple, all you have to do is think about it.
...

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

Cities don't vote, people do. One person one vote regardless of where they live. It's VERY simple, all you have to do is think about it.



Just thinking about it. Yup - each person gets a vote. People win the obtuse award.

But, campaign promises would then be focused on high population density areas to get more bang for the buck. So policy will favor those areas in order to get votes easier.

So polarizing the areas of the country so one group gains at the expense of the other just for political gain is a good idea?

Of course, it's what the country is based on.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So polarizing the areas of the country so one group gains at the expense of the other just for political gain is a good idea?


One would argue that looking at the current "political" map, it's already quite polarized...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

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