Your opinions on the Electoral College process

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by mesquite tiger, Sep 7, 2004.

Page 2 of 2
  1. BRETT

    BRETT LSU FAN Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    3,073
    Likes Received:
    672
    THe EC ensures that all states are represented equally. This system has created the greatest civilization known to mankind for more than 200 years. Change it at your own peril.
     
    BRETT, Sep 7, 2004
    #11
  2. lsugrad00

    lsugrad00 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    141
    How is this different from the way the current system works? The large states already have all of the power.

    In theory under the current EC format nine people can decide the entire presidential election. If a candidate is running for president and wins California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan
    Plus one of these three states; Georgia, North Carolina, or New Jersey.

    They have enough electoral votes to win the election. So once again in theory a candidate can win those nine states by one single vote and not receive a single vote in any other state and still secure the presidential election. How can you give the large states more power than that?
     
    lsugrad00, Sep 7, 2004
    #12
  3. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    lsugrad00 is right on.

    shouldnt people be represented in population centers, relative to their populations without the added nonsene of arbitrary imaginary lines?

    like my example above. i live in new jersey, and my friend lives a few thousand yards away in new york. and my vote is more relevant to the outcome of the election than his, because i live in swing state and he doesnt. even though we could almost yell to each other through megaphones from our apartments. my friend's vote doesnt matter much. he could campaign his neiborhhoood, volunteer, convince thousands and thousands of his neigbors to vote bush. it woulnt matter. however, because i live in jersey, if i did the same thing, it could have a HUGE impact. a few thousand bush votes in jersey is way more important than a few thousand bush votes in new york. doesnt that seem arbitrary? we live basically right next to each other.

    a vote should be a vote. abolish the EC.

    of course, larger population centers will always get more attention. so what? 10 million people deserve more attention than 10 thousand. why should particular people in a swing state deserve more attention just because they happen to live in a swing state? thats not basing their importance on population, but happenstance of even party distribution.

    why not proportional representation? all votes matter the same. 10 voters in florida should matter just as much as 10 votes in texas to the candidates. popular vote is the way to go.
     
    martin, Sep 7, 2004
    #13
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    The electoral college is an outdated relict of the 18th Century. In a time when communication was slow in a largely roadless country that was thinly populated, the electoral college solved some real problems. The citizenry was largely uneducated and in many cases illiterate. Tabuating and properly recording the popular vote in the quill pen era was a time-consuming process and subject to much error.

    In the 21st century we have a literate and educated population, mass communication, computer data processing, and internet linking. There is no reason not to use a popular vote in a presidential election.

    States rights are fairly maintained in the Congress where states get a equal vote in the Senate and a proportional vote in the House. The "winner take all" philosophy of the electoral college in most states is purely political and designed to give maximum influence to political parties instead of to the will of the people.

    The office of The President is a national one and should not be elected by state politicians but by The People.
     
    red55, Sep 8, 2004
    #14
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    semi- fascinating map of how the swing states are swinging over the last days and weeks:

    http://electoral-vote.caida.org/

    some of them are pretty damn close, they are flickering back and forth. if you live in those states, vote bush.
     
    martin, Sep 12, 2004
    #15
  6. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    The EC is an anachronism. It came from a time when the majority of the populace could not read or write. I don't think it evens out the playing field for smaller states at all. Winning California, New York, and Texas is really all that matters. Whether it be by popular vote or electoral college urban centers carry more weight. The urban centers have even more power in an electoral system because the votes count more in a closely contested race. The popular vote should determine the President.
     
    LSUsupaFan, Sep 12, 2004
    #16
  7. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,994
    That site flip flops almost as much as Kerry.
     
    Bengal B, Sep 12, 2004
    #17
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    particularly florida and pennsylvania and ohio. those states are flashing blue/red. call your pals in those states and threaten to beat them up unless they vote bush.
     
    martin, Sep 12, 2004
    #18
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page