Electoral College vs. Popular vote - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

450slcguy · #1 03-20-2006, 11:22 AM

I'm not a fan of the Electoral college. After all, why shouldn't the canidate with the most votes win? That's the way every other election in this country works. As far as I'm concerned, Al Gore should of have been President, he really did win, kinda.

aklim · #2 03-20-2006, 02:34 PM

IIRC, the electorial kollege was because we had communication issues over a large country. Perhaps it;s days should be ended and popular vote be instituted.

Not according to the way the Supreme Court decided, Al Gore didn't.

benzene · #3 03-20-2006, 02:54 PM

The electoral college is a result of the fact we're a republic, not a direct democracy. It allows less-populated states to have a reasonable say in federal matters, and prevents California, Florida, and New York from singlehandedly controlling presidential elections.

Also, imagine a countrywide recount the next time we have a sore election loser. You thought the Florida recount was a trainwreck? Best we keep things granular and isolate irregularities to single states.

I'm sure some constitutional scholars here can do better than my measly answer.

aklim · #4 03-20-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benzene

Also, imagine a countrywide recount the next time we have a sore election loser. You thought the Florida recount was a trainwreck? Best we keep things granular and isolate irregularities to single states.

I remember a "Sore/Loserman" bumper sticker I saw and bought but can't remember where it is right now.

NKowi · #5 03-20-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by benzene:

Quote:

It allows less-populated states to have a reasonable say in federal matters, and prevents California, Florida, and New York from singlehandedly controlling presidential elections.

So goes the theory, anyway. Another theory (admittedly an enormous stretch, but mathematically possible) says that if only one of California's approximately 25 million registered voters turned out to vote, and voted for one presidential candidate, and all of Wyoming, North Dakota, Vermont, District of Columbia, South Dakota, Alaska and Montana's approximately 3 million combined registered voters were to turn out and vote for another, the former candidate would receive 55 electoral votes, while the latter would be awarded but 21. Three million to one - but the one gets 34 more electoral votes than does the three million.

PC Dave · #6 03-20-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NKowi

Originally posted by benzene:

So goes the theory, anyway. Another theory (admittedly an enormous stretch, but mathematically possible) says that if only one of California's approximately 25 million registered voters turned out to vote, and voted for one presidential candidate, and all of Wyoming, North Dakota, Vermont, District of Columbia, South Dakota, Alaska and Montana's approximately 3 million combined registered voters were to turn out and vote for another, the former candidate would receive 55 electoral votes, while the latter would be awarded but 21. Three million to one - but the one gets 34 more electoral votes than does the three million.

Slight side note from your post - does D.C. have any electors? If so, how, since the number of electors is equal to the number of senators + congresscritters? If not, why bother voting in the Presidential election if you live in D.C.?

Botnst · #7 03-20-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PC Dave

Slight side note from your post - does D.C. have any electors? If so, how, since the number of electors is equal to the number of senators + congresscritters? If not, why bother voting in the Presidential election if you live in D.C.?

They want the vote but it would take a constitutional amendment. The Democrats have been pushing for that for decades and the Republicans have been blocking it for decades. For the obvious reasons.

I believe one of the Federalist Papers presented the argument as to why the national capital should not have representation in Congress and a presidential vote. I think the argument is that the laws and taxes and what have you in DC are set by Congress or some such. Anyway, Congress actually runs DC they just let the mayor play with it.

DieselAddict · #8 03-20-2006, 05:25 PM

I don't like the electoral college either because I belive the candidate with the most votes should win, period. NY, FL and CA wouldn't control the elections even without the electoral college because they hardly constitute a quarter of the US population. I think the electoral college was originally formed to prevent the general population from electing an idiot to the president's office....

Botnst · #9 03-20-2006, 05:29 PM

As PC Dave mentioned, the electoral college vote is computed as a vote for each senator and congressman. Since the Congressmen are allocated directly by population, that portion of the vote is directly proportionate to the population.

Why have 2 senators per state? What's that about? Why not have senators in proportion to population too? Wouldn't that be more reasonable than having 2 from WY and 2 from CA? Why should CA and WY have equal numbers of senators?

The answer to that will also answer the question of the Electoral College.

B

H2O2 · #10 03-20-2006, 06:24 PM

The EC disenfranchises large segments of the population who happen to differ in opinion from the electoral majority of their given state. I believe it's largely responsible for depressing the voter turnout in our one chance at a national referendum. Why would anyone with red or independent/minor party leanings bother to vote in a predominantly blue state, and vice versa? Their votes aren't tallied in a meaningful manner, and hence aren't useful to anyone. It's an archaic institution that's long outlived it utility.

super SEC · #11 03-20-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

originally formed to prevent the general population from electing an idiot to the president's office....

That hasn't worked! Electoral College is way out of date. We need to scrap that system since we can literally track every vote. One vote per person. The most votes win - that's a democracy!

Botnst · #12 03-20-2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O2

The EC disenfranchises large segments of the population who happen to differ in opinion from the electoral majority of their given state. I believe it's largely responsible for depressing the voter turnout in our one chance at a national referendum. Why would anyone with red or independent/minor party leanings bother to vote in a predominantly blue state, and vice versa? Their votes aren't tallied in a meaningful manner, and hence aren't useful to anyone. It's an archaic institution that's long outlived it utility.

A couple of states actually divide the EC vote along Congressinal districts. This allows each district a proportional opportunity to vote independently of the other districts.

But what about senators? Why does each state get two?

B

PC Dave · #13 03-20-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

But what about senators? Why does each state get two?

B

Why have a bicameral legislature at all? Eliminate the senate. When it comes down to it, per the previous post, since we have the technology to count every vote, why have a legislature? Bills could be argued on a TV show followed by a nationwide vote every Friday night via text message (just like American idol..). Well, actually, it would have to be Thursday nights or Texas votes wouldn't count during high school football season.

You want a democracy? That's a democracy.

Botnst · #14 03-20-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PC Dave

Why have a bicameral legislature at all? Eliminate the senate. When it comes down to it, per the previous post, since we have the technology to count every vote, why have a legislature? Bills could be argued on a TV show followed by a nationwide vote every Friday night via text message (just like American idol..). Well, actually, it would have to be Thursday nights or Texas votes wouldn't count during high school football season.

You want a democracy? That's a democracy.

Yeah you're right. We don't need no stinking president, either. Just log on to the computer every day and vote for hwo to run things. Folks could start initiatives and create voting blocks to change rules whenever they get enough voters to get a majority vote.

That would be interesting.

I suggest folks who like pure democracy could learn a lot from the reading about Athens during the Peloponnesian Wars.

savas · #15 03-20-2006, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Yeah you're right. We don't need no stinking president, either. Just log on to the computer every day and vote for hwo to run things. Folks could start initiatives and create voting blocks to change rules whenever they get enough voters to get a majority vote.

That would be interesting.

I suggest folks who like pure democracy could learn a lot from the reading about Athens during the Peloponnesian Wars.

Why even vote at all? Just let the electoral college decide for us.