Bush Leads Kerry By 5 Points in Gallup/USA Today/CNN

"los angelas" and the others you mentioned, are not states, they are cities. also, even though those states and cities are liberal, they still can elect republicans. both ny and CA have republican governors, and nyc has a republican mayor.

since you people need some lessons on why the electoral college exists, i will let MTV explain it you.

"the system was set up as a safeguard against the people electing some crazed demagogue as president.

The Electoral College was devised in a time when your average citizen couldn't turn on CNN and find out what the candidates were up to — or even who they were. The drafters of the Constitution therefore reasoned that a handful of educated electors (probably wealthy, white landowners) would be able to make a better decision than the rabble in the streets."

http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/voter101/news.jhtml?id=1492998

the electoral college is outdated and unnecessary, given the current party system, as well as the ability for ordinary people to actually know what national candidates stand for even though they are physically very far away. when washington dc might as well have been mars, because media sucked, you had to elect peeps to go there and figure it out. now you can watch politicians and analysis 24 hours a day if you want.

 

martin...we agree on something!!!!!!

the population of cities should have no bearing on how the vote turns. you are silly if you believe everyone in Boston is a Democrat and everyone in Texas is a Republican. we have the information tools available for everyone to make informed decisions (newspapers, tv, internet). The electoral college is outdated and pure crap.

let the people decide!!! it is why we vote in the first place, isn't it?

 

Never said they were states, but those cities I mentioned make up like 25% of the US population. (Dont quote me, I think thats the number I remember hearing.) A very large %of the population. The founding fathers got it right, and it still works today, otherwise you you have seen a change, or will see one. And itaint gonna change, not in our life time at least. And i dont base my beliefs on what MTV has to say

 

BTW.....I respect everyones opinions on politics, although I sometimes dont agree with them. I just firmly believe that the current system will never change. And I understand why people think it should, just dont agree.

...And I just noticed I did call them States, meant cities, my bad. I just dont think that 5-6 cities should have that much impact on an election. Sure there are republicans in those cities, but they are largely outnumbered

 

Electoral college votes are weighted by population as well. The argument that the popular vote favors major urban centers too much is stupid.

 

I'm not in the mood to go into a real long explanation here, but 8 million NYC voters don't have near the impact under the electoral college that they would under a popular vote system.

No offense, but I think I'll get my info elsewhere.

 

BatGirl

Who is the hottie in your signature?

 

Under the current system individual voters in large states have more impact than in smaller states. 1 voter from the state of California has the power to grant over 10% of the electoral votes. I don't see how can you get more impact than that?

I feel like a broken record but here I go again. Under the electoral college it only takes winning 9 states by 1 vote to determine the entire election. If a candidate wins CA, NY, FL, TX, OH, IL, PN, MI, and NJ all by one vote and receives ZERO votes in every other state then they win the election.

That being said I think going to a system passed on popular vote isn't the right way to go either. If you go to a strict popular vote you get almost the same scenario.

Take California vs Wyoming as an example. California has over 30 million people in the state. Wyoming has about 500K. If you went to a strict popular vote Wyoming's citizens might as well stay home because CA has 60 times the voting power of Wyoming. Under the current system CA only has 55 votes to WY's 3.

In this case the electoral college helps to reduce the inequities between states and reduces the voting power of California to 18 times the voting power of Wyoming. While a small state like WY will still never get the attention of the candidates like CA at least their voice will be heard, albeit a small squeak.

I think the best scenario is a proportional division of electoral votes. That way if a candidate wins California by 1 vote they only get 28 electoral votes not the entire 55. But that's just my .02 :thumb:

 

Ms. Lindsey Lohan