Electoral College; Fair or not?

[raychull]

What do you think of the electoral college? Should it stay or should it go? Any other thoughts?

I think it's a good idea, but it's definitely flawed. I know the chances are extremely minimal, but on the offchance a third party candidate won the popular vote, what would happen?

[saysmydoctor]

The electoral college was created to make sure little states still mattered in the general election. With that being said, electoral college votes should split in much the same manner that primary/caucus delegates split proportionally.

[saysmydoctor]

Popular vote doesn't decide the election.

[loveisdead]

Popular vote doesn't decide the election.
He's right in that my vote means nothing in NY. Don't you wish you were from Virginia, NC, West Virginia or Missouri?

[bluecrunchy]

I don't see how anyone can think this system is fair and democratic. It means that anyone who doesn't live in close run state has no real vote. If you're a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in New Hampshire there's no point even showing up most elections. It also means that people from US territories can't vote at all.

And that's ignoring the obvious that someone can win the popular vote and lose the election ala Al Gore.

Agreed. There's really no point in voting in a state that is primarily in favor of the candidate you're not voting for.

[saysmydoctor]

That's why I said a proportional representation of the vote should be shown in the electoral vote. That's a more democratic representation of both the popular vote. But to abolish the electoral college is silly.

And no, I'm happy here in this county. I've made a dent in my canvassing. This is a very republican county/district.

[loveisdead]

That's why I said a proportional representation of the vote should be shown in the electoral vote. That's a more democratic representation of both the popular vote. But to abolish the electoral college is silly.

And no, I'm happy here in this county. I've made a dent in my canvassing. This is a very republican county/district.
Yeah that is the best way to go about it. I don't know why we don't do that.

[saysmydoctor]

Well, at the time of the Constitution, state's didn't operate under counties, parishes, etc. Also, cities weren't 1/3 of a state's population. It was a practical system and the most democratic in...1788.

[loveisdead]

Well, at the time of the Constitution, state's didn't operate under counties, parishes, etc. Also, cities weren't 1/3 of a state's population. It was a practical system and the most democratic in...1788.
Right. Which is why we should probably change it to more of the system you described.

[saysmydoctor]

Oh, yeah, exactly. Personally, the whole Constitution should be scraped and rewritten in my opinion, in a Constitutional referendum, modernizing it.

[saysmydoctor]

Read the motherfucking thread before you motherfucking post.

[loveisdead]

Proportional representation is the only democratic way to run a country. Completely oppose the electoral college system and the first past the post system we have in the UK.

It should. Any other system is undemocratic.
Do you disagree with yourself often?

[saysmydoctor]

I mentioned proportional representation concerning the electoral college to make it a truly democratic system. But to deny that this system wasn't designed to be the most democratic and manageable way to run an election in the nontechnology/computer age of the late 1700s is fucking ignorant. Please, seriously. Stop pulling words out of your ass and stringing them together into sentences that make absolutely no sense.

[apoemtothedead]

While it may not be the most fair, I think disbanding the electoral college leads us down a slippery slope. I'm currently in favor of the electoral college because each state has the same amount of say in the Presidential Election as they do in bills on the congressional floor. Disbanding the electoral college could lead smaller states with only three representatives in the House and Senate to further complain about how their state is still under-represented. Do we really want every citizen voting on every bill on the House floor?

[saysmydoctor]

Small states not getting a fair representation in the election process is really undemocratic.

But, that's just the logical, rational side of this argument. Enough with the wiki-intellectualism.

[apoemtothedead]

Small states not getting a fair representation in the election process is really undemocratic.

But, that's just the logical, rational side of this argument. Enough with the wiki-intellectualism.
If anything, they get an unfair representation because of their Senators.

[saysmydoctor]

That was the purpose of the bicameral legislature.

[apoemtothedead]

That was the purpose of the bicameral legislature.
I'm talking about as far as the electoral college vote. Wyoming gets an electoral college vote for every ~170,000 people, while states like California and Texas get an electoral college vote for every ~700,000 people.

[wesgemm08]

I don't see how anyone can think this system is fair and democratic. It means that anyone who doesn't live in close run state has no real vote. If you're a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in New Hampshire there's no point even showing up most elections. It also means that people from US territories can't vote at all.

And that's ignoring the obvious that someone can win the popular vote and lose the election ala Al Gore.

There is alot more than just the presidential election to vote for on November 4th

[saysmydoctor]

I'm not entirely certain of the breakdown state by state, Wyoming has 500,000+ residents with 3 electoral votes, so your numbers sounds right.

Again, I have never stated this system is perfect. But saying it is undemocratic is false.

[saysmydoctor]

Prioritising the rights of people to have a voice is far more important than prioritising the rights of states, which are after all just groups of people.

Under the current system I'd speculate a good 70-100 million Americans have no real vote because they live in a state at odds with their own political views. That's a third of Americans and over a third of American voters.

I propose the electoral colleges be abandoned entirely and everyone gets one vote whether you're from Delaware or California, Republican or Democrat. Most votes wins and becomes president. This would also open to door far more to third parties to make actual serious gains.

Moreover it's not like small states would have no say because you're removing states entirely it's all about people, which is much more democratic.

As states in America still run much of their own affairs anyway I don't see the problem.
Or the proportional representation of the vote via the electoral college. Eliminating the system means small states don't matter, don't know if you noticed, but there are 50 states, not Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and California. If states don't get represented, the people in the state don't get representation.

[saysmydoctor]

Also, you are implying nearly all Americans vote. False.

[apoemtothedead]

No but I think there's should be a lot more direct democracy. Serious bills like the bail out, war in iraq and other big federal issues should be voted on by the people.
I'd hate to break it to you, but most Americans are idiots. Bills that are unpopular but necessary, for example the bailout, would never pass. While bills like the Patriot Act would pass by a large majority.

[saysmydoctor]

So states matter more than the people in them?

What's more undemocratic? Smaller states getting a smaller say or millions and millions of people getting no say at all?



We're talking potential votes. It would idiotic to talk in any other terms as so many people don't vote because they know their vote is worthless.
Did I say that? Please don't misrepresent what I said.

Smaller states are FORCED by the constitutional guidelines a certain say so that their smaller populations get EQUAL say.

[apoemtothedead]

So states matter more than the people in them?

What's more undemocratic? Smaller states getting a smaller say or millions and millions of people getting no say at all?



We're talking potential votes. It would idiotic to talk in any other terms as so many people don't vote because they know their vote is worthless.
Smaller states would go completely ignored, even more so than now. It would make no sense fiscally for a candidate to parade around Wyoming for a day when they could visit three medium sized cities in California and reach twice as many people.

[wesgemm08]

That's the problem with a democracy. I don't think it's valid in a "democratic nation" to do things to which the people oppose in a huge majority. What you're saying is you want America to be an oligarchy.

It's called a Federal Constitutional Republic.

[apoemtothedead]

That's the problem with a democracy. I don't think it's valid in a "democratic nation" to do things to which the people oppose in a huge majority. What you're saying is you want America to be an oligarchy.
No, what I'm saying is that it's better for informed Congressmen to make the decision.

[apoemtothedead]

Which is an oligarchy.
An oligarchy tends to imply that the power was given to the people based on wealth or royalty. Which is not the case in America.

[wesgemm08]

And it's not a fair or just way to run a country and anyone who supports democracy and the rights of individuals should oppose it.

The United States was founded as a Constitutional republic... not a democracy.

[xshady121]

I think Ted kennedy hit the nail on the head shortly after the calls for reform were made earlier this decade when he said that to change the electoral college system now would be reneging on the agreement made with the smaller states. They only agreed to the constitution because the electoral college (and the senate) ensure that they do matter. If we were to get rid of the electoral college, they wouldn't matter anymore. The small states held up their half of the bargain, we can't just reneg cause we don't like how it turned out.

[saysmydoctor]

Why should some people get more of a vote than others? That is not democratic at all. I do not see how you can justify states rights mattering more than people's rights. Every man's vote should matter as much as everyone's elses regardless of race, gender, wealth and location.
My God you are so fucking stupid, sitting here demanding we have democracy when we are fighting for small state representation and not ignoring residents of said small states. Will you fucking read, you fucking ignorant piece of shit?

[nellbelle]

And it's not a fair or just way to run a country and anyone who supports democracy and the rights of individuals should oppose it.

Anyone who has taken any sort of government class should be able to easily admit that America is not a true democracy, and I'm glad that someone did. However, I disagree with your statement that our way of running things violates the rights of individuals. Or- disagree isn't the right word. I think it's looking at things a bit too narrowly. As I've seen you hammer in in other threads, America is a very right-leaning country, even in the case of so many of people labeled as liberal by the American standard. Due to that, many more people's rights would be severely violated if we worked on a true democracy. Civil rights in our nation would be even more stunted and slow-moving than they already are. Catering to specifically what the majority wants results in mob rule, which I consider to be a very frightening concept. Our system most definitely has flaws, and there are plenty of reforms needed. As far as things like elections go, I don't see why we can't function on direct voting, seeing as (I believe, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) every vote made is tallied up anyways. But when it comes to bills and laws, I prefer to leave it in the hands of those I voted into office. I vote for someone because I trust them to accurately represent me. There is always the risk that they will betray that trust, but I still have more faith in this system than outright mob rule.

[wesgemm08]

"The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The Electoral College likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the Electoral College.


By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns."

-There is a Ron Paul quote since you usually seem to like his politics.

[saysmydoctor]

Ron Paul is totally misrepresenting the electoral college and its original purpose.

It just goes to show you are an idiot if you are swallowing that.

[raychull]

I'm not entirely certain of the breakdown state by state, Wyoming has 500,000+ residents with 3 electoral votes, so your numbers sounds right.

Again, I have never stated this system is perfect. But saying it is undemocratic is false.

But at the same time, it was formed as a democratic republic. I'm not disagreeing, just throwing that out there. Also, I agree that citizens shouldn't vote for issues in congress. Eliminating the electoral college would undermine the purpose of voting, although I think it should be reformed, to create equalness instead of having completely red and blue states. Also, without an electoral college, the two coast's votes would overpower several of the less populous states, eliminating the purpose of those votes.

With this point, I think it is ridiculous to say that if somebody doesn't vote, they're either undemocratic, or have no right to complain. Because obviously, voting republican in a dominantly democratic state, really isn't going to do a whole heck of a lot. And on a side note, do you guys think independent candidates should be introduced into debates?

I believe I read somewhere about the democratic and republican parties creating the debates, or some sort of rules with the debates, saying the primary two parties can only participate, but my information might be incorrect.

[raychull]

Anyone who has taken any sort of government class should be able to easily admit that America is not a true democracy, and I'm glad that someone did. However, I disagree with your statement that our way of running things violates the rights of individuals. Or- disagree isn't the right word. I think it's looking at things a bit too narrowly. As I've seen you hammer in in other threads, America is a very right-leaning country, even in the case of so many of people labeled as liberal by the American standard. Due to that, many more people's rights would be severely violated if we worked on a true democracy. Civil rights in our nation would be even more stunted and slow-moving than they already are. Catering to specifically what the majority wants results in mob rule, which I consider to be a very frightening concept. Our system most definitely has flaws, and there are plenty of reforms needed. As far as things like elections go, I don't see why we can't function on direct voting, seeing as (I believe, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) every vote made is tallied up anyways. But when it comes to bills and laws, I prefer to leave it in the hands of those I voted into office. I vote for someone because I trust them to accurately represent me. There is always the risk that they will betray that trust, but I still have more faith in this system than outright mob rule.

Good points.

[x togepi x]

why should "small states matter" except in the sense that that's what we've been doing for years?

[apoemtothedead]

why should "small states matter" except in the sense that that's what we've been doing for years?
Because they matter in the Senate.

[x togepi x]

Because they matter in the Senate.

so?

[apoemtothedead]

so?
So I think it's better to keep consistency throughout the system. If a state has 3 votes on a bill in Congress, a state should have 3 votes towards the Presidency.

[nellbelle]

They will not be ignored. Their votes will count equally with those from every other state.

It is a shame you cannot make an intelligent point like Ron Paul and this girl I've quoted below you.





You make a lot of valid points and there are huge flaws in both systems. I don't see how an elected dictatorship is any more just than direct democracy and in current America the majority still rule over the few and use that position to restrict rights (gay marriage, patriot act and so on) to the few. You waste a whole lot of time with a huge proccess to achieve the same aims. Nor does the state and government actually protect people from mob rule. Many states in history and in the current world are the ones restricting rights (contrary to what people want) and attacking fringe groups for various reasons. The state can and often is far worse than what the people if left to their own devices would do themselves and I propose that it's no real protection at all.

I believe one of the keys comes in through the Supreme Court, whose judges are selected for a life term by the President and approved by the Senate. In an entirely direct democracy, the Supreme Court would be eliminated, seeing as all laws would be based strictly on the votes of the country's citizens. In our system, we have the Supreme Court to act as the strongest balance against mob rule. If they find something to be unconstitutional and/or in violation of basic rights, they can overturn the decision of the people. If the system works as it is designed to work, there is a set of checks and balances designed to prevent mob rule, which direct democracy lacks. Does it always work as it's supposed to? Of course not. Every system is flawed, because every system relies on people, and people always have their own agendas. However, at least in theory, our government is constructed to be as fair as possible, both paying attention to the voice of the majority, and being able to protect the voice of the minority that would be trampled under direct democracy.

In short, I agree that we could do away with the electoral college, but I do not feel that it would be wise to go to the extreme of being a true democracy. The system is flawed, but some form of checks and balances will always be preferable to me than the thought of everything being decided strictly by popular vote.

[a nice person]

No but I think there's should be a lot more direct democracy. Serious bills like the bail out, war in iraq and other big federal issues should be voted on by the people.

completely agree

[Adeniz19]

the only thing i don't like about the electoral college is the winner take all for a state. let every state have the same amount of delegates they do now, but let them vote based on their district and not on how the state does overall. there are strong liberal areas in conservative states and conservative areas in liberal states who really don't get as heard

[Machu505]

the only thing i don't like about the electoral college is the winner take all for a state. let every state have the same amount of delegates they do now, but let them vote based on their district and not on how the state does overall. there are strong liberal areas in conservative states and conservative areas in liberal states who really don't get as heard

They do that in Maine and Nebraska if I'm not mistaken.

[x togepi x]

So I think it's better to keep consistency throughout the system. If a state has 3 votes on a bill in Congress, a state should have 3 votes towards the Presidency.

i would think that since the presidency and bills/congress are two separate things that we would have two separate systems. the whole concept of battleground states kind of negates the original purpose of the electoral college.

[saysmydoctor]

So, abolishing the electoral college system would mean presidential candidates would focus on population centers.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

So, abolishing the electoral college system would mean presidential candidates would focus on population centers.

they probably would but that wouldn't change the fact that each vote counted the same

as has already been said, people like myself (i live in alabama) have a vote that in reality does not count the same as someone in a swing state

[saysmydoctor]

Hence why I'm saying proportional representation in the electoral college. That is the most democratic.

[apoemtothedead]

they probably would but that wouldn't change the fact that each vote counted the same

as has already been said, people like myself (i live in alabama) have a vote that in reality does not count the same as someone in a swing state
In reality, unless an election is decided by 1 vote, nobody has a vote that matters.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

In reality, unless an election is decided by 1 vote, nobody has a vote that matters.

hows that?

[apoemtothedead]

hows that?
Whether Obama wins California by 2 votes or 2,000,000 votes, my single vote will not change the outcome of the race.

[Jason Tate]

In reality, unless an election is decided by 1 vote, nobody has a vote that matters.
Hmmm, mathematically I disagree.

[Jason Tate]

And it's not a fair or just way to run a country and anyone who supports democracy and the rights of individuals should oppose it.
Democracy is like three wolves and a two sheep deciding what is for dinner. We are not a full democracy - nor should we be, for democracy inherently supports the oppression of the minority.

[apoemtothedead]

Hmmm, mathematically I disagree.
How so?

[Jason Tate]

No but I think there's should be a lot more direct democracy. Serious bills like the bail out, war in iraq and other big federal issues should be voted on by the people.
Ignoring the fact that "the people" are in no way educated enough to make such decisions? Hence the republic we are founded upon ... I don't want my neighbor deciding if we need to free up credit or not. As we saw the "majority" of people thought the "bailout" was a bad idea -- this was because they were uneducated idiots. One of many reasons our government is founded the way it is ...

[Jason Tate]

How so?
Statistics and probability ... increasing or decreasing the number of votes cast, and who they are for, directly impacts the entire statistical model. Regardless of the scale - that vote does matter.

Now, a case can be made (http://plus.maths.org/issue48/features/brams/index.html) that - mathmatically speaking - it makes more sense to use an approval voting method compared to plurality voting, but that's not really what we're talking about.

[apoemtothedead]

Statistics and probability ... increasing or decreasing the number of votes cast, and who they are for, directly impacts the entire statistical model. Regardless of the scale - that vote does matter.

Now, a case can be made (http://plus.maths.org/issue48/features/brams/index.html) that - mathmatically speaking - it makes more sense to use an approval voting method compared to plurality voting, but that's not really what we're talking about.
Are you talking about for polling data? Like, say we have 500 potential voters, 200 are 100% voting for Obama, 200 for McCain, the other 100 are 50/50, what are the potential number of votes each will get? I'm not exactly following you.

[Jason Tate]

Are you talking about for polling data? Like, say we have 500 potential voters, 200 are 100% voting for Obama, 200 for McCain, the other 100 are 50/50, what are the potential number of votes each will get? I'm not exactly following you.
I'm talking about the actual election - and the vote you cast - and regardless of the final number of votes for your state, the vote you, singularly cast, impacts the statistical data in a variety of ways that does make that one vote matter. I'm saying from a mathematical perspective - "unless an election is decided by 1 vote, nobody has a vote that matters." - is not something I can agree with.

Secondly, when you look at the current statistical data for party affiliation ... singular votes matter for both sides, a lot, in this election.

[Jason Tate]

they probably would but that wouldn't change the fact that each vote counted the same

as has already been said, people like myself (i live in alabama) have a vote that in reality does not count the same as someone in a swing state
I disagree with this as well.

Your vote matters just as much - the makeup of your state doesn't change how much your vote matters. States change affiliation over time, based upon years of people - like yourself - voting.

Swing/battleground states are given a lot of national coverage because of their political landscape. Because it's roughly split and up in the air ... however, they only matter because other states aren't currently like that. Not every state is going to be a swing-state, and which are has historically changed through different elections. Your vote still matters in determining the electoral votes for your state ... just as much as someone who happens to live in a less decisive (or more split) part of the country does for their state. Oregon is blue right now (wasn't always that way), but say those who think it "doesn't matter" happen to be Democrats in one election and they don't vote - Oregon goes red. It's still determined on who votes ... regardless of a state being "battleground" or not. Just look at how many more states have been put in play this election compared to last ... I feel people only use this excuse at the end of election cycles when they look at the mass number of votes cast, and say "well, these 10 votes in this state mattered most." Yet that's a poor way of trying to analyze the data as it leaves out the fact that everything else had to play out in a particular way to get to that point. You can't look at the end results without looking at the data that got you there.

[Broken Parachute]

They do that in Maine and Nebraska if I'm not mistaken.Correct. They don't have a "winner take all" system like the other states. They break the state up into district and based on how each district votes decides where the electoral votes go, then the remaining two go to the winner of the entire state. Maine is a blue state and Nebraska is red, so they never had to split electoral votes.

[Broken Parachute]

There's always a possibility for a state to go against the color that people would assume it will vote:

Reagan vs. Mondale (1984)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

FDR vs. Landon (1936)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/1936_Electoral_Map.png

Nixon vs. McGovern (1972)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/1972_Electoral_Map.png

[apoemtothedead]

There's always a possibility for a state to go against the color that people would assume it will vote:

Reagan vs. Mondale (1984)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

FDR vs. Landon (1936)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/1936_Electoral_Map.png

Nixon vs. McGovern (1972)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/1972_Electoral_Map.png
Different times. Shit candidates. FDR would never lose another election as long as he lived.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I disagree with this as well.

Your vote matters just as much - the makeup of your state doesn't change how much your vote matters. States change affiliation over time, based upon years of people - like yourself - voting.

Swing/battleground states are given a lot of national coverage because of their political landscape. Because it's roughly split and up in the air ... however, they only matter because other states aren't currently like that. Not every state is going to be a swing-state, and which are has historically changed through different elections. Your vote still matters in determining the electoral votes for your state ... just as much as someone who happens to live in a less decisive (or more split) part of the country does for their state. Oregon is blue right now (wasn't always that way), but say those who think it "doesn't matter" happen to be Democrats in one election and they don't vote - Oregon goes red. It's still determined on who votes ... regardless of a state being "battleground" or not. Just look at how many more states have been put in play this election compared to last ... I feel people only use this excuse at the end of election cycles when they look at the mass number of votes cast, and say "well, these 10 votes in this state mattered most." Yet that's a poor way of trying to analyze the data as it leaves out the fact that everything else had to play out in a particular way to get to that point. You can't look at the end results without looking at the data that got you there.

I think you make very good points. I guess the frustrating thing about it is that my vote making the election closer in this state doesn't matter it seems. With all the electoral votes going to one candidate, unless you can tip the scale completely then nothing changes. I get however that it takes people voting to tip the scale and so in the end you are right.

[Broken Parachute]

Different times. Shit candidates. FDR would never lose another election as long as he lived.I think its funny to look at those maps and realize how ridiculously bad the opposition must have been to warrant such an extreme imbalance in the voting.

[apoemtothedead]

I think its funny to look at those maps and realize how ridiculously bad the opposition must have been to warrant such an extreme imbalance in the voting.
Obama is a lot like a current day McGovern. A grassrooty feel to his campaign. A man of the people, if you will. The only problem was that the campaign he ran sucked. His ads were awful, he didn't seem Presidential the way Obama does. And Nixon was popular enough to destroy him.

Mondale was pretty bad. Pulled the gimmick VP pick in Ferrarro that McCain picked this time around. Reagan was very popular.

[darkheart]

Different times. Shit candidates. FDR would never lose another election as long as he lived.

That is probably true but also extremely ironic considering that a lot of FDR's programs were borderline socialism even though they were mostly necessary. Everyone now is afraid of Socialism, but if a great man like FDR were to propose it they would follow like the lost sheep they are.

[Circa1628]

That is probably true but also extremely ironic considering that a lot of FDR's programs were borderline socialism even though they were mostly necessary. Everyone now is afraid of Socialism, but if a great man like FDR were to propose it they would follow like the lost sheep they are.


very, very true

[Mitch]

I wish I understood more about the electoral college.

I understand it for the most part, but a lot of things about it have me very confused. I feel like I should understand it all perfectly, though, seeing as I graduated high school.

[Nevuk]

Votes beyond the deciding one matter a bit, actually. Unless your demographic is voting, it'll never get favorable policies towards it (the youth vote compared to the senior vote - who gets more free stuff?).

[Nevuk]

I wish I understood more about the electoral college.

I understand it for the most part, but a lot of things about it have me very confused. I feel like I should understand it all perfectly, though, seeing as I graduated high school.
Lol, it's supposed to be really hard to understand. The whole concept is to set up an aristoy who can deny the popular people their vote if it's something insane (like Palin) and pick the best candidate for the country due to their betterness. Aristotelian influence on our founding fathers here...

[boykosaurus]

I took a class on this, but I didn't pay attention at all.

[splitsecond]

I find it highly amusing that lunchforthesky is so opposed to the Electoral College, being that the Electoral College is a direct result of how poorly colonizers were treated by his red-coated ancestors.

I am always disappointed by those who oppose the electoral college, because it generally shows a severe lack of knowledge and/or respect for the history of this country. Of course, it is very common for pro-big government liberals to have disdain for a system that was set up to prevent big government from running the minority states into the ground. Many people don't even realize that our centralist approach to government is very much counter to what this country was founded on, and is a more recent development in our nations history (essentially post-depression).

I always ask those who oppose the electoral college this question - If the major cities of the country - and thus the population centers of the country - were largely conservative, would this change their view?

As to some who say states should proportion their votes - I personally disagree and think that it weakens the strength of the electoral college, but would leave that up to the states to decide. Of course, I would be completely opposed to mandating that ALL states do that, as it is contrary to the purpose of the electoral college, so a few states doing it would be almost pointless. Also on that note, what prevailing party in their right mind would agree to do such a thing?

[Machu505]

I find it highly amusing that lunchforthesky is so opposed to the Electoral College, being that the Electoral College is a direct result of how poorly colonizers were treated by his red-coated ancestors.

I am always disappointed by those who oppose the electoral college, because it generally shows a severe lack of knowledge and/or respect for the history of this country. Of course, it is very common for pro-big government liberals to have disdain for a system that was set up to prevent big government from running the minority states into the ground. Many people don't even realize that our centralist approach to government is very much counter to what this country was founded on, and is a more recent development in our nations history (essentially post-depression).

I always ask those who oppose the electoral college this question - If the major cities of the country - and thus the population centers of the country - were largely conservative, would this change their view?

As to some who say states should proportion their votes - I personally disagree and think that it weakens the strength of the electoral college, but would leave that up to the states to decide. Of course, I would be completely opposed to mandating that ALL states do that, as it is contrary to the purpose of the electoral college, so a few states doing it would be almost pointless. Also on that note, what prevailing party in their right mind would agree to do such a thing?

I may disagree with you on many things, but we can agree on this.

[splitsecond]

That is good to know. The Electoral College is not about any party or viewpoint or policy - it is about protecting future generations from tyranny, be it from the throne, or be it from an angry populous.

[aoftbsten]

Well, at the time of the Constitution, state's didn't operate under counties, parishes, etc. Also, cities weren't 1/3 of a state's population. It was a practical system and the most democratic in...1788.

agreed, it just doesn't work them same anymore. i think they should be given proportionally now

EDIT: i heard that some states actually do distribute electoral votes like this now, i dunno if thats true though

[Chancetobe]

Agreed. There's really no point in voting in a state that is primarily in favor of the candidate you're not voting for.

Or even a state that is voting primarily in favor of the candidate you are in favor of.

With that said, the electoral system isn't fair.