Electoral college poll by party
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:59:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Electoral college poll by party
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Poll
Question: Do you favor replacing the electoral college with a nationwide popular vote?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
No (D)
 
#3
Yes (R)
 
#4
No (R)
 
#5
Yes (I/L/O)
 
#6
No (I/L/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 133

Author Topic: Electoral college poll by party  (Read 44911 times)
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 16, 2005, 04:21:22 PM »

I vote 'yes'.

I know we've had similar polls to this, but I don't think we've had one asking your party.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2005, 04:22:25 PM »

No.

Though I don't necessarily support the EC.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2005, 04:42:57 PM »

(D) Yes.

I know what the system was intended to do and why it's there, but somehow a vote in D.C. being worth three times one in Texas makes little sense to me.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2005, 06:45:42 PM »

Yes. (I)

I'm yet to see a single convincing argument in defense of allowing a guy with less votes than the other guy to win an election.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2005, 08:28:33 PM »

No.

Though I don't necessarily support the EC.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Although I would consider other reforms. Trust me, the registration and voting system currently in place would handle a direct popular vote even worse than they handle the EC...
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2005, 11:07:06 AM »

No, I don't favor replacement of the electoral college.

It forces candidates to appeal across a broader spectrum geographically and among interest groups than would be the case with a nationwide popular vote.

Realistically, the only time the popular vote winner won't also win the electoral vote is in a very tight election, essentially a tie.  In this case, the electoral college is meant to favor the candidate with broader geographical appeal, and it worked that way in 2000.

The electoral college does give more power in general to small rural states, but the idea of states as co-equal individual units, regardless of size, is enshrined in the constitution through the concept of the Senate as well as the requirement that 3/4 of individual states ratify constitutional amendments, a requirement that does not take into account the population of the states that have or have not ratified an amendment.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2005, 01:51:12 PM »

Yes. (I)

I'm yet to see a single convincing argument in defense of allowing a guy with less votes than the other guy to win an election.


Except that you ignore the original ideas of the founders you would be correct. States elect the president not the people. The "people" were supposed to elect the House directly and now they elect both houses of Congress.

Well that's just not democracy if you ask me.  It may have worked fine in the late eighteenth century with only a few states and only a couple thousand voters.  But things change, and the need for more democratic election procedures for our head of state is sorely needed.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2005, 02:10:00 PM »

Yes. (I)

I'm yet to see a single convincing argument in defense of allowing a guy with less votes than the other guy to win an election.


Except that you ignore the original ideas of the founders you would be correct. States elect the president not the people. The "people" were supposed to elect the House directly and now they elect both houses of Congress.

Well that's just not democracy if you ask me.  It may have worked fine in the late eighteenth century with only a few states and only a couple thousand voters.  But things change, and the need for more democratic election procedures for our head of state is sorely needed.

Technically, we don't have a democracy.  We have a republic.  True democracy would mean majority rule on everything, with no protection of minority rights.  The electoral college is a form of protection for minority - in this case, small states - rights.  Minority doesn't almost mean somebody with darker than average skin; it has a broader definition, and the constitution is set up with checks and balances to prevent the will of the majority from overrunning certain guaranteed minority rights.  I wouldn't mess with it at this point.
Logged
Hitchabrut
republicanjew18
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674


Political Matrix
E: 8.38, S: 7.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2005, 02:42:26 PM »

No, I don't favor replacement of the electoral college.

It forces candidates to appeal across a broader spectrum geographically and among interest groups than would be the case with a nationwide popular vote.

Realistically, the only time the popular vote winner won't also win the electoral vote is in a very tight election, essentially a tie.  In this case, the electoral college is meant to favor the candidate with broader geographical appeal, and it worked that way in 2000.

The electoral college does give more power in general to small rural states, but the idea of states as co-equal individual units, regardless of size, is enshrined in the constitution through the concept of the Senate as well as the requirement that 3/4 of individual states ratify constitutional amendments, a requirement that does not take into account the population of the states that have or have not ratified an amendment.

Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2005, 03:53:38 PM »

Technically, we don't have a democracy.  We have a republic.  True democracy would mean majority rule on everything, with no protection of minority rights.  The electoral college is a form of protection for minority - in this case, small states - rights.  Minority doesn't almost mean somebody with darker than average skin; it has a broader definition, and the constitution is set up with checks and balances to prevent the will of the majority from overrunning certain guaranteed minority rights.  I wouldn't mess with it at this point.

I didn't say we'd be better off with direct elections either, because I agree with your points.  But the EC needs to be reformed.  I don't really have a solution to this (my compromise idea was largely shot down), all I can really do right now is bitch about it and nothing else. Wink
Logged
TexasPatriot2024
TexasPatriot
Rookie
**
Posts: 141


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2005, 07:01:28 PM »

Yes, it was put into place at the start of our nation when the majority of the public was not educated enough to read or let alone vote. Today we can have confidence in the American public to vote on their own in good faith in the system.
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2005, 07:22:12 PM »

I support reforming it to remove "electors". If you win the state, you should get the EV's. Electors at this point can do no good, but could ruin a whole election process. They have no useful purpose.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2005, 09:31:51 PM »

We could remove the EC, but if we go to a popular vote, I want extremely strict voting rules. A nation wide voter list, everything computerized with a paper backup, independent firms counting the votes, some way of marking whether you voted (indelible ink, etc).   
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2005, 09:30:41 PM »

Repealing the popular vote will hurt third parties horribly. They will lose all recognition and that slight importance they have. Let alone that we will leave the right to elect a President in the hands of Houston, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2005, 06:20:14 AM »

These poll results are disappointing, though not really surprising.  I voted (D) Yes, of course.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2005, 07:55:07 AM »

We could remove the EC, but if we go to a popular vote, I want extremely strict voting rules. A nation wide voter list, everything computerized with a paper backup, independent firms counting the votes, some way of marking whether you voted (indelible ink, etc).   

The Democrats would never allow that.  That would "intimidate" their voters and be racist, and we could never have that.  Better to allow dead people to vote 5 x each.
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2005, 09:21:25 AM »

We could remove the EC, but if we go to a popular vote, I want extremely strict voting rules. A nation wide voter list, everything computerized with a paper backup, independent firms counting the votes, some way of marking whether you voted (indelible ink, etc).   

The Democrats would never allow that.  That would "intimidate" their voters and be racist, and we could never have that.  Better to allow dead people to vote 5 x each.

I'd allow it. I'm not sure about the "independent firms" though, that's corruptable, but everything else he said is fine by me.
Logged
Blerpiez
blerpiez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,017


Political Matrix
E: -0.65, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2005, 02:05:39 PM »

No.  I would support only giving electors based on representatives, not senators.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2005, 02:14:07 PM »

No. I kind of like Akno's idea, though -- go ahead and kill off the electors and just let the state legislature cast the electoral votes.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2005, 07:54:51 PM »

no, the interests of large cities would become the only focal point of the elections and less populated areas would recieve no representation.  Plus, it mantains a two party system that is necessary for this country to keep working.  If we split into little factions, nothing will get done.  Most liberals hate the two party system, I love it.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2005, 12:11:04 PM »

These poll results are disappointing, though not really surprising.  I voted (D) Yes, of course.

Actually, I found the results of the polling so far to be very heartening (in the aggregate).

I wish that the big states would follow the example of Maine and Nebraska.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2005, 10:28:14 AM »

I believe the proper reform would be 'curving' the eV to fit the population of a given state.

The main problem I have with the current EC, is that a lot of 3 eV states have inflated eV to vote ratios to states with greater populations.

My idea would be to divide US Pop/538 and that would be the number the population allocated to every eV in every state.
Logged
South Park Republican
southparkgop
Rookie
**
Posts: 44


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2005, 04:11:54 PM »

I support the electoral college only because without it the big population centers would dominate the presidential election process.  The people of my state would be screwed, we and any other state KY size 

At anyrate I consider it more "democratic" than a European parliamentary system where no one but maybe the people in the district/riding/precinct of the prime minister/chancellor etc actually get to vote their chief executive.
Logged
Inverted Things
Avelaval
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,306


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2005, 01:10:59 PM »

I would prefer the EC stay. I think it's much more interesting to follow 51 sets of polls than just one. Also makes sure the candidates have a wide geographic appeal.
Logged
Hitchabrut
republicanjew18
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674


Political Matrix
E: 8.38, S: 7.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2005, 07:33:25 PM »

I would prefer the EC stay. I think it's much more interesting to follow 51 sets of polls than just one. Also makes sure the candidates have a wide geographic appeal.

It sounds selfish, but I agree, it is much more fun to watch 51 polls.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 15 queries.