Electoral College

[??????????]

Which system do you prefer?

I prefer the EC as it is the method intended by the Founders. The reason I believe this is the best system is because it gives all states a FAIR voice. I live in a large state but I dont want NYC, LA or Chicago deciding my president. Remember we are a Union of States not Counties of the Federal Govt.

[??????????]

I'm also surprised that with the solid south at the turn of the last century that the democrats never won enormously in the popular vote but lost in the EC. Was turnout ever high in the south, during those times?

I couldnt tell you about turnout, but from what I've read about post war election activities is that they were absolutely a mess. Any election between 1860-1872 I would consider highly questionable on the results. Voter fraud ran rampant in the south after the war. Even if you read on this website some southern states EC votes werent even counted .. and thats AFTER they were re-admitted. Though how they could be re-admitted when Lincoln said they never left in the first place is beyond me. But thats another subject. I dont know if you could really look anywhere for true turnout numbers but if anyone would have any links or paper sources I would be curious to take a look.

BTW some of the Voter Fraud committed from the 1850s-1880s would make the Bush - Gore 2000 mess look harmless. LOL. The dead shall rise again, twice or three or four times. That was the motto of some elections (or should have been). Edgar Allen Poe was filled with alcohol and was forced to vote up to five times in Baltimore the day before he died.

[??????????]

[No nineteenth century election results can be taken exactly at face value, not only in the US. "Vote Early and Often" was meant entirely seriously...]

True but even more so during the Civil War and Reconstruction because of the way the North treated the South and the way things were administered.

[But the Electoral College as functioning now is not what the Framers had in mind.]

True, in the sense of the "winner-take-all" method. Although a elector could still go rogue if he/she wanted to. (God help that person)

[They never heard of well-organised national parties.]

During Washingtons' administration this is true. Washington was firmly against political parties. But as soon as he left office the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties formed and the members were framers of the Constitution.

[They never heard of the revolutions in transport technology that made proportional elections and all that came after feasible.]

100% Correct.

[The framers were quite certain that after Washington nobody would receive a majority of electoral votes, and the presidency was supposed to be decided by the House, with the states, via the electors, effectively drawing up a shortlist of five candidates. The candidate to get the highest total of electors was to be vice-president, a post invented purely for the purpose of enabling this compromise with those who wanted the states to chose.]

No argument there.

[Given the many defacto changes (and one major official change in 1808) to constitutional reality, "the framers made it like this with a reason" is not an argument to be taken quite seriously.]

There you're wrong. As I've stated before the framers created this system to balance the large states with the small states. If it went strictly by popular vote, then the large cities would be the only ones whos vote would actually count because they would decide the election. The framers were genuis when it came to checks and balances, the House and Senate are another example of balancing Large and Small states (Senate).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[??????????]

I was talking about the solid southern elections from about 1888-1948 turnout was often 1/20 of a state's population.

Some observations from Democrats that lived then mostly in the 20-40s a few I have talked to were raised by their parents that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln and Lincoln caused the grief and poverty that the south was going through well into the 1930s.  I havent studied the exact numbers of how many went out and voted, this is just what I understand from a few of our older citizens I have chatted with. Also the Democrats in those days were the Conservative party. It's since changed.

[??????????]

Look at the 2000 Election for example. Gore won the populuar vote by just winning large cities but hardly any of the heart of the country. I mean not just city limits but the cities and usually the counties that surrounded the city. For example Gore won Maryland, but the only counties he won where Montgomery, Prince Georges, Baltimore County and Baltimore City. The rest of the state went for Bush. Oh and just as a mention, I keep getting tired of mentioning at my work place that Bush was not the only president to not win the popular vote and win the election. People that keep saying that think it proves some kind of "Bush stole the election" conspiracy theory.

[??????????]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly why the Electoral College is a sound system for elections.

[??????????]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

[??????????]

Didnt Sadam Hussien get "re-elected" by a 99% vote. Yeah, that was a real democracy.

[??????????]

I still think though our form of Government is the most stable and the fairest for all the citizens. I mean yes we have rich and poor. But even the poor in this country have running water and have t.v. and usually even have a car. What's really sad is all these minority groups fought so hard to get the vote and then we only get 40% turnouts.

[??????????]

Another group that just wasnt given the vote at the start. Yes, many I've talked to (and I fall into this group somewhat) use the same worn out generalization "all politicians are crooks". Yes, their are SOME crooks in government but they all aren't. And its across the board its not just Democrats. I think the crucifixtion of  Trafficant, Lott and others as of late has been hypocritical.

[??????????]

Actually one of the lowest turnout groups are poor, white, rural southerners.
Turnout is always higher amoung rich, white, suburban southerners and blacks.

I blame gerrymandering...

They are a dangerous group to vote! They are politically like NASCAR dads, which in my book means stupid, rebellious, and intolerant. I was angered how Dean's statement on them was deamed too controversial.

Yes all southerners are stupid. What a broad generalization. I guess Clinton or Gore are stupid too, huh? Rebellious? Yes we take pride in our nation and will fight for it to the death. Thats why the majority of the armed forces are southerners. Intolerant? If thats the case why are more blacks moving south now then ever before? Why are Mexicans choosing to live in the south? We have many diverse groups here in the south. But I wouldn't expect someone from New Hampshire to understand that. I have a buddy at work who joined the Army and their was a guy from Vermont on the same bus with him, they had just started boot camp. He told my buddy he had never seen a black person before in his life. And this was in 1986. Yes, every area in the north has diversity.

[??????????]

Maybe if the Northerners in Congress earlier in the last century (1900s) had cared enough about the South as they did themselves, the Northern majority in those days would have funded southern schools. Its a fact Southern tax money went to build the North up. Nowadays its not like that but up until the 1950s I'd say it's true.

A college education does not always make you smarter then a blue-collar worker. Ever heard the term "educated idiot"?

[??????????]

I live in the rural south and in my area we have Hispanics from all different countries, blacks, Haitians, Domnicans, and whites. You dont call that diversity? Blacks and Whites work side by side here with very little if any noticable tension. Not like in some northern cities I've been to where the blacks resent whites and blame them for all their woes.

[??????????]

I don't like all groups of people. I don't like pure partisans- people who will agree with the parties no matter how they change. I don't like white southerners who often do not value education or religious tolerance.

Yes, Southerners dont value education. Fine schools such as Vanderbilt, University of Tennesse, University of Virginia, V.P.I., Citadel, VMI, U of Miami, U of Florida, Florida State and the list goes on and on. Ya us inbreed hick rednecks dont value edgeecatin our chillun. We have Churches, Synagogues all kinds of religions are in the south. Did you know that before the Civil War more Jews lived in the SOUTH then the North? Oh yeah but to you it's : "If day aint Christian lets git the white hoods and hangum." Just because a person doesn't go to college doesnt mean they are any less of a person compared to someone who did. I know plenty of people with no degree who have common sense and plenty who have a degree with NO common sense. If you can afford college, great! Go for it. If you can't and you have to work a blue collar job their is nothing wrong with that. Hard work doesnt equal ignorance.

Sorry for spouting folks. This kind of young ignorance Zachman displays aggravates me.

[??????????]

Look Zachman... whatever you think of rural Southerners you have to accept this simple fact:

A poorly educated, Baptist, White, unemployed former textile worker living in an a pokey and badly built wooden house in South Carolina is FAR more likely to vote for Kerry than a well educated, affluent, white collar office worker with a nice car and a big house in Cobb County, GA

This from a man living in West Virginia, one of the poorest states in our nation.

[??????????]

If so, visit West Virginia. You'll quickly choose another state for your Avatar. I thought it was odd he has a WVA Avatar. I heard they just got computers last year.

[??????????]

If so, visit West Virginia. You'll quickly choose another state for your Avatar. I thought it was odd he has a WVA Avatar. I heard they just got computers last year.

I don't get what your point is. I mean, what's so wrong with WV, that they're poor? I thought you were making an argument against prejudices towards the poor?

My grandad is from Morgantown, WVA. Kind of just a state to state rivalry, poking fun at West Virginians. I was raised in MD and VA. Its hard to understand the jabs we use on each other. I've been to WVA many many times, have no problem at all with the state. Yes, Stonewall was from that part of the country. But it was Virginia then.

[??????????]

The GOP has never nominated a Southerner for President...

I'm going to have to look that one up when I have some spare time.

[??????????]

He was born in the south. That makes him a southerner in my book.

[??????????]

I don't think you can really break up a part of a state and say "This part is southern and this part isn't." Texas was loyal to the south east or west. N.Mexico was southern territory. Like if I was born in Georgia and moved to Boston. I'd be a Southerner by birth, but I'd be a Yankee because I've lived in Boston so long. It all depends on if your parents came from the place you were born or were just living there.

[??????????]

Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are part of the same region. I'll start referring to it as the Western South. Texas, like Florida, is an exception to every regional rule because it has some major yankee influences.

Every part of the south has Yankee influences. Just like Ohio, Indiana, and Southern Ill. have Southern influences. It would be hard to find any area of the nation that was truely northern, southern, western or whatever. Florida having yankees is not a recent phenomena. In 1940 almost 48% of Floridians were not born in Florida but had moved down here.

[??????????]

Many areas of the south are the same way.

[??????????]

I work with a person and when they joined the military they met a person from vermont. The person kept staring him and his friend down and when they asked him why he was staring he said "I've never seen a black person before." They did end up being friends. This was in 1986.

[??????????]

I probably couldn't determine whether a person was Latino or not, because they just don't live in New England.

Really? That's interesting. I love how this country has such a variety of groups and how each region is so different from the next. BTW, yes the south is changing, but I know where I work if you go in pronouncing "We Northerners are better" or hint at it. You will get run out of the job. Not physically but it will happen. I've seen it happen, and the race of the southerner doesnt matter. I've seen blacks and whites just as rough on yankees.

[??????????]

Arkansas is not like TX or OK

Yes, Arkansas is different because of the Ozark Mountains and people from Arkansas are mostly descendents of Mississippians and Tennessee folk.