What is the true purpose of the Electoral college?

Originally posted by JFetch
Like I stated earlier, my state always votes republican, so anyone who doesn't vote the majority gets their vote thrown out before it goes past the state level because of the EC.

It's such a game, it's really messed up. If you're going to lose a state anyway, you don't advertise or campaign worth a damn. I mean there's no point now. You're right. Collecting votes is pointless.

Gore proved that. You need the 'right' votes. He messed up letting it come down to the whims of Katherine Harris about who could vote. And other Florida irregularities.

He should have put everything into winning Tennessee then Florida wouldn't matter. Florida and California and Texas are owned by Republicans now (and I don't mean the voters). That's really it. No real point to a 2004 election. I saw something like Dean would need NY and about 35 other states to overcome those three going Republican. It's not even just winning the most votes, OR the most states...it's the right states.

I've posted articles before on Bush's out of character Federal contributions to Florida. He's a damn environmentalist in Fla, but nowhere else. It's all about keeping Jeb in office and Florida locked up. The recent "I still eat Beef" thing was for Texas. We know what Arnie is about.

(From Stronghold Crusader) It's oooover my friend. Let's face it, you've lost.

NephraT:
"propaganda to keep it going.
Have you considered the fact that the smallest states already have drastically less representation?
13 electoral votes in one state to 3 in another is a huge difference.
The electoral college does NOT make the balance equal.
If that were so then California would have the same number of votes as South Dakota.
The number is still greater based on population. It is a silly statement to say that it would reduce their power... they already have diminished power due to their size, the difference would be minimal.
The USA is about the PEOPLE not the state government.
again. that bit of info is meant to convince people not to question it.
I don't buy it."


It really doesn't matter whether you buy it or if its all propaganda for you.
You can question it all you like, no one is preventing you from doing so.
My best advice for you and others is to take the time to look into all aspects of something before labeling something "propaganda" or using the conclusive phrase "your not buying it". Again, no one is selling you anything nor making you believe anything, but simple historical facts speak louder than assertions. Take the time to read up on it before condemning it. Read on what the consequences of eliminating something will have on the people, states, nation, as a whole, before you and others go off condemning it and calling for a dismissal.
It may well need to be reformed or tweaked or fixed. I have no doubts that it does, but 'eliminating' it and its consequences are not to be dismissed as "propaganda" or as "your not buying it" attitudes.....better think of the ramifications before you eliminate something then after, cause it may be too late to fix after.
Forethought....



regards
seekerof

"better think of the ramifications before you eliminate something then after, cause it may be too late to fix after. Forethought.... "

Were you PRO recall in California or Against? I know it was a technically legal maneuver, but it seemed a bit conspired to me. Something not quite right about it.

I'll be honest with you Rant....I stayed far away from the issue and never gave an opinion one way or the other on it.

Recall seems a bit conspicious to me period. I'm still mystified by it to this day, but hey.....thankfully, I don't live in California.


regards
seekerof

I'm actually opposed to it, but I sure wanted this one to happen so I could watch the media trip over each other to hype up the circus like a bunch of P.T. Barnums.

Originally posted by NephraTari
propaganda to keep it going.
Have you considered the fact that the smallest states already have drastically less representation?
13 electoral votes in one state to 3 in another is a huge difference.

Allow me to show the difference between Virginia, the only state with 13 electoral votes, and Montana, a state with 3 electoral votes.

Montana has the largest population out of all the states with 3 electoral votes.

Electoral College:

Virginia = 13

Montana= 3

A difference of 4.33
or 433%

Popular Vote:

Virginia= 7,187,734

Montana= 0,904,433

A difference of 7.95
or 795%

The electoral college does NOT make the balance equal.
If that were so then California would have the same number of votes as South Dakota.

Electoral College(2004):

California = 55

South Dakota = 3

A difference of 18.33
or 1833%

Popular Vote(pop.est.2001):

California = 34,501,130

South Dakota= 00,756,600

A difference of 45.60
or 4560%


The number is still greater based on population. It is a silly statement to say that it would reduce their power... they already have diminished power due to their size, the difference would be minimal.

Allow me to show you the wonderful mathmatical difference between an Electoral College, and a popular vote. In Wisconsin v.s. California:

Electoral College(2004):

California = 55

Wisconsin = 10

A difference of 5.50
or 550%

Popular Vote(pop.est.2001):

California = 34,501,130

Wisconsin= 05,401,906

A difference of 6.39
or 639%

The USA is about the PEOPLE not the state government.
again. that bit of info is meant to convince people not to question it.

sorry you are wrong, the u.s.A. is a union of states, not people. It is called, "The United Statesof America"
Each state is a seperate country, joined in the union to have the benefits from joining, yet retain most powers to remain independent. (Which sadly looks diminishing)

I don't buy it.

That's sad, i sure hope you got caught up to speed on this now, from my fabulous calculations.

edit: hope it all fixed. Had to eliminate the % sign after the difference, and put the real percentage below.

[Edited on 12-29-2003 by BeingWatchedByThem]

It still has a purpose. I don�t want them to change it does protect us even if it�s a double edged sword. Say California everyone wanted Adolph Hitler as their leader and also New York and Texas. They all went to the polls and voted that way. Everyone else in the country wanted to stay with a middle of the road president. Yet since everyone in the big states voted for Adolph Hitler we all have to have him. Also if they did away with it many states would never even see the candidates.
-----------
Thank You, finally someone puts some sanity into this political discussion.
The problem that I do have with EC is that they actually have a person for each EC vote that makes the final vote. Why can't they just go with the people's EC vote instead of putting the final decision into a select few's decision?

Well, this might have meant something back when each state saw itself as it's own mini-country. Point is though, if more people as a whole (regardless of where they are from) want a certain person to be president, then that should be the case. Comparisons to the Senate/House idea are like apples and oranges to the race for presidency..... The EC was established to eliminate this scenario...

In colonial times, lets say we had a candidate run from one of the bigger states. No tv ads, etc. mostly local people knew him, his fellow statesmen and surrounding states.... So, if all of them voted for him, it might eclipse the other states' votes. This isn't the case today. There is no reason we couldn't have a more true democracy.

And yes, states are NOT required by law to have their Electoral go the same way as the Popular vote. Again, this has outlived it's usefulness, and is about as archaic as a law for horse and buggy drivers (in any other state than Oregon, hehe...)

Originally posted by Gazrok
Well, this might have meant something back when each state saw itself as it's own mini-country. Point is though, if more people as a whole (regardless of where they are from) want a certain person to be president, then that should be the case.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!! You got it!!!

If this doesn't happen, then we aren't making anything more fair, we're inhibiting fairness.

[Edited on 12-29-2003 by Satyr]

Wasnt the electoral college put under fire after Bush was "elected"?

If I remember correctly there was talk of getting rid of it?

Someone please correct me if Im wrong.

Originally posted by Gazrok

Well, this might have meant something back when each state saw itself as it's own mini-country. Point is though, if more people as a whole (regardless of where they are from) want a certain person to be president, then that should be the case.

Well i guess you don't know, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!

We live in The United States of America! A bunch of separate countries to form a union. Look at the E.U. The United States of America is almost like the E.U.

The United States of America is a REPUBLIC! To give control to majority is suicidal for the minority!

We DO NOT live in a place called, "The United People of America" It's The United States of America.

The states are called, "states" for a REASON. They are not districts, or Providences, they are free, independent states!

If the u.s.A were to become a democracy, it would be all to easy for someone to use the Roman-age tactic called, demagoguery.

Also known as, �divide and conquer�. Would you rather have a President that attempts to please everyone and keep a national state of unity, or a President that favors one group or people, and encourages dis-unity, just so they can establish themselves in a position of power?

I for one, will NOT HAIL CAESAR!

BeingWatched you state...


Electoral College(2004):

California = 55

Wisconsin = 10

A difference of 5.50%

Popular Vote(pop.est.2001):

California = 34,501,130

Wisconsin= 05,401,906

A difference of 6.39%


Sorry, but all of your percentages are off by 2 decimal points. 34,501,130 is 6.39 TIMES or 639% larger than 5,401,906.

While it doesn't change the net it does dramatically increase the differences.

PEACE...
m...

Originally posted by Springer
BeingWatched you state...


Electoral College(2004):

California = 55

Wisconsin = 10

A difference of 5.50%

Popular Vote(pop.est.2001):

California = 34,501,130

Wisconsin= 05,401,906

A difference of 6.39%


Sorry, but all of your percentages are off by 2 decimal points. 34,501,130 is 6.39 TIMES or 639% larger than 5,401,906.

While it doesn't change the net it does dramatically increase the differences.

PEACE...

lol, thanks,. my bad.

kinda forgot a step. lol
m...

No problem, I agree with you, by the way, in as much as the States MUST be kept sovereign (I can never spell that damn word!).

I also agree with Seeker Et Al that we may need to tweek the system to more realistically reflect Modern America. How would we tweek it? I have absolutely NO IDEA.

To state, out of hand, that the system needs to be removed is LUDICROUS and uneducated.

To go further and state any opinion to the contrary is propaganda and extremist is laughable. Pitiful absolutely pitiful.

PEACE...
m...

Originally posted by Springer
No problem, I agree with you, by the way, in as much as the States MUST be kept sovereign (I can never spell that damn word!).

I also agree with Seeker Et Al that we may need to tweek the system to more realistically reflect Modern America. How would we tweek it? I have absolutely NO IDEA.

It could be done as this, if they wanted,

Each U.S. House of Representive district, could be one vote for whomever for U.S. president/vice, for the people.

and the two U.S. senators votes as a state vote
from the state senate

This i feel would be the best option.

Originally posted by Springer
How would we tweek it? I have absolutely NO IDEA.

Has no one been reading? What about a YES/NO vote system???

To state, out of hand, that the system needs to be removed is LUDICROUS and uneducated.

I disagree. Changing our current gov't system would be like trying to repair the KKK. It's not going to happen to any real effect, period.

Originally posted by Satyr
Has no one been reading?

What about a YES/NO vote system???

why dont you explain this, yes/no idea, then we might understand it. So far, i have not seen you explain how it would work.

A lot of good points made here and in particular by 'beingwatched..'

I am not an american citizen but in my country we have a lot of similar issues and debates. The current voting system is unfair and represents Canada at inception more that what it currently is in many ways.

My point is that Athens was a republic and the original idea was one citizen one vote. Sounds good in practice but why it failed is simple, one citizen does not necessarily equal any other citizen. That is why the elites decided that they would for the most part run things. I do not necessarily disagree with this actually. But what I do disagree with is that they are not held accountable nor do they suffer consequences of their excess and self centred behaviour.

That is where the system has failed miserably in my opinion.

I do not know if changing the electoral system will really make things better. It may only just change the goons at the top but not change much else.

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem

Originally posted by Satyr
Has no one been reading?

What about a YES/NO vote system???

why dont you explain this, yes/no idea, then we might understand it. So far, i have not seen you explain how it would work.

It's so simple!

Tell me what you think of this. I propose that the vote be modified. A better system would allow people to vote without having to choose the lesser of two or three evils, as we all know is basically all the election process is.
A better way to do this, IMO, would be to change the presidential vote to a yes or no vote. In this way, the people would truly have a choice in whom they want for president. If the candidate doesn't receive at least a certain percentage of the total votes, they can't win. This way, if no candidate was voted into office, other more acceptable candidates could step forward. This would practically eliminate the two party system we now have. Since this would also give people the power to keep someone out of office, instead of just throwing away their vote on an obvious wildcard party, more people would vote, and more people would run.

This type of vote would give people the ultimate power in election. For instance, you wouldn't vote for just one person, you'd vote yes or no for all candidates. Whomever has the most yes votes, and also meets the required minimum percentage of votes, wins. If a candidate has more no votes than yes, he automatically loses. I'm not too sure how that part would work, though. It may require a few more little rules to avoid a deadlock election. That's why I want to hear some opinions on this idea. Help me hash this plan out and see if it does indeed hold water. What do you think? Any comments, ideas, additions?

Wouldn't it be better to have a president chosen by the people because that's really who they want? Not one we're forced to vote for because there are no other options.



[Edited on 12-30-2003 by Satyr]

A better version of the YES/NO option i feel, would be, the favorite to least favorite option.

Say there are 5 canidates in the race:

Bob
Joe
Sean
Anne
Dick

then you number from most favorite to least, with one being the favorite.

| 4 | Bob
| 1 | Joe
| 3 | Sean
| 2 | Anne
| 5 | Dick

The canidate with the lowest score wins,
or it could go into a run-off.

However, this might confuse those who are ignorant, and don't learn about all the canidates. The brainwashed cattle that believe in the two party system would be scared.

Thus, it would not happen with the current two party system.

It might also confuse people thinking 5 is most favorite and then it's Florida on a national scale.