Electoral Voting

[© tweed]

Good! If you're in a small state you might as well burn your voting card and forget the elections. PBrunsel is right on key. The Democrats would love to take the voice out of almost half of this nation.

Huh?

[Larouche4Prez]

An point should be made to those who call for proportional distribution of each state's electoral votes based on that state's popular vote. In other words, if Gore won 53 % of California's popular vote, then he should be awarded 53% of its electoral votes rather than all of them. Thus the remainder would be divied up between Bush and Nader.

Many would argue that if distributing electoral votes proportional to that state's popular vote would have given Gore-Lieberman the victory in 2000. But they didn't exactly landslide the popular vote in 2000.

Upon further review, if it boiled down to proportional distribution of the electoral votes, Gore & Lieberman would not have had the required 270 to win. It would have gone to a vote in the House of Representatives. Considering the Republican House majority, Bush would have won the 2000 election with that format. The same could be said for Clinton-Gore in 1992.

Such a format would lead to some very interesting Novembers.

[Nym90]

The electoral system should be burned at the stake and buried under 30 feet of concrete.

Good! If you're in a small state you might as well burn your voting card and forget the elections. PBrunsel is right on key. The Democrats would love to take the voice out of almost half of this nation.

But as it is now, if you are in a lopsided state you might as well burn you voting card and forget the election. The voice is already being taken out of half the nation...the non-swing states.

[Nym90]

And with a popular vote system, every vote would count equally. So the only way that the votes of "almost half the nation" wouldn't count would be if the rest of the nation (constituting a slight majority) voted unanimously for one candidate. Every vote counts equally, so it's not possible for half the votes to not matter.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I support the Electoral college for mainly pragmatic reasons.  The 2000 debacle was bad enough limited to one state.  If we had popular vote only, the debacle would have spread to every state and could have lasted millenia.

[© tweed]

I support the Electoral college for mainly pragmatic reasons.  The 2000 debacle was bad enough limited to one state.  If we had popular vote only, the debacle would have spread to every state and could have lasted millenia.

No, Gore won the PV by over 500000 votes.  So there wouldn;t have been a recount nationwide.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's why the electoral college is bad.  Suppose there is a group of states totally 270 E.V. You don't need to run at all in other 268 E.V. worth of states, screw them. You just need to get a simple plurality in 270 E.V. to win. Even in a 2 way race, if you're running in a lot of 3 and 4 E.V. states that had disproportionally more power electorally, the other guy could get 75% of the popular vote and lose.

As for ignoring certain areas, if the electoral college system is abanonded, in 2000, Al Gore and George Bush didn't spend a dime in New York State, with its 19 million people. With a popular vote system, a vote is a vote no matter what side of what lousy state boundary you're on.

And why should a vote in Wyoming be worth 3 times as much as one in Manhattan? The federal government takes more money from Manhattan than it gives back, and vice versa for Wyoming. So in effect, you are subsidizing those people in Wyomimg who get 3 times the power per vote.

As for the arguments, well your vote in California could conceivably make a 55 electoral vote difference, well, it's around 55-60 times more likely to make a 3 electoral vote difference in Wyoming. Do the math, I'd take the later.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I support the Electoral college for mainly pragmatic reasons.  The 2000 debacle was bad enough limited to one state.  If we had popular vote only, the debacle would have spread to every state and could have lasted millenia.

The 1876 election had recounts going on everywhere. And the Republicans got a statewide recount in New Mexico in 2000. Statewide recounts are only bad when they could help Gore.

[ATFFL]

I support the Electoral college for mainly pragmatic reasons.  The 2000 debacle was bad enough limited to one state.  If we had popular vote only, the debacle would have spread to every state and could have lasted millenia.

The 1876 election had recounts going on everywhere. And the Republicans got a statewide recount in New Mexico in 2000. Statewide recounts are only bad when they could help Gore.

The Republicans did not get a state wide recount, state law mandated one.

Also, how is a vote in Wyoming worth 3 times more than one in manhattan?  Wyoming vote counts for 3 EVs while the NY one counts for 31.  Looks to me the Manhattan voter counts for 10x more.

What you should support is giving 1 EV for each congressional district and 2 EVs for each state.  This would make the Manhattan voter worth 3 and the Wyoming worth 3 without making urban areas worth disproportionately more than rural since it is easier to advertise meet more voters face to face and get voters to polls in urban areas.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I support the Electoral college for mainly pragmatic reasons.  The 2000 debacle was bad enough limited to one state.  If we had popular vote only, the debacle would have spread to every state and could have lasted millenia.

The 1876 election had recounts going on everywhere. And the Republicans got a statewide recount in New Mexico in 2000. Statewide recounts are only bad when they could help Gore.

The Republicans did not get a state wide recount, state law mandated one.

Also, how is a vote in Wyoming worth 3 times more than one in manhattan?  Wyoming vote counts for 3 EVs while the NY one counts for 31.  Looks to me the Manhattan voter counts for 10x more.

What you should support is giving 1 EV for each congressional district and 2 EVs for each state.  This would make the Manhattan voter worth 3 and the Wyoming worth 3 without making urban areas worth disproportionately more than rural since it is easier to advertise meet more voters face to face and get voters to polls in urban areas.

What?  In 2000, Wyoming had 3 E.V. and 493,782 people.
California had 54 E.V. and 33,871,648

Wyoming had an electoral vote for every  164,594 people.
California had an electoral vote for every 627,253 people.  
Each person in Wyoming has 3.81 times the voting power of someone in California.

California sends more money to the feds than it gets back. Wyomings takes more from the feds then it sends there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see what the opinion on this issue of, oh say, the Bush/Cheney campaign was on November 1st, 2000? Why is the electoral college good now, but it was bad then?

http://www.bartcop.com/111tie.htm

[ATFFL]

Let's see what the opinion on this issue of, oh say, the Bush/Cheney campaign was on November 1st, 2000? Why is the electoral college good now, but it was bad then?

http://www.bartcop.com/111tie.htm

Gore had a string of ads ready to educate the public about the importance and history of the EC.  Both sides were caught with what the other side wanted.

[ijohn57s]

I favor electoral voting.

1) If there were ever to come a perennially strong third party and the vote were to be as evenly split three ways as it has been in the past with a two-way race it could cause gridlock.

2) If we were to go to a popular vote system, there would very likely be an increase in election fraud on the part of all parties in power in various states to make the majorities larger than they actually were.

[Beet]

Nationwide popular vote.

[Nym90]

I favor electoral voting.

1) If there were ever to come a perennially strong third party and the vote were to be as evenly split three ways as it has been in the past with a two-way race it could cause gridlock.

2) If we were to go to a popular vote system, there would very likely be an increase in election fraud on the part of all parties in power in various states to make the majorities larger than they actually were.

There's actually more incentive for fraud now, under the Electoral College, because there is a greater chance that a small amount of vote fraud in a few key swing states can decide the election. The popular vote nationwide is less likely to be close enough that fraud could matter. But the electoral vote is more likely to be affected by fraud in key swing states.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The incentive for fraud may be greater under an electoral college system, but the ability to detect it is much higher as well, as resources needed to examine suspect ballots would be focused on smaller areas. That's one reason why I favore single member districts for electors.  I also favor increasing the number of electors to 3* (1 + Number of Represntatives) per state plus 3 for DC which would give us 1458 electors.  Since the function of the Electoral College is not as it was originally envisioned to bring to the attention of Congress, a few good men to select from for President, there is no need to keep the Electoral College small.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I favor electoral voting.

1) If there were ever to come a perennially strong third party and the vote were to be as evenly split three ways as it has been in the past with a two-way race it could cause gridlock.

2) If we were to go to a popular vote system, there would very likely be an increase in election fraud on the part of all parties in power in various states to make the majorities larger than they actually were.

Umm, if there were 3 equal parties, almost every election would be decided by the House and Senate. The people's vote would become irrelevant.

As for fraud, maybe it's time to have increase election standards nationwide? Have federal legislation to have accurate paper trails and so on. Bush vs. Gore showed that Republicans don't give a cheney about state's rights when it comes to elections.

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

I favor electoral voting.

1) If there were ever to come a perennially strong third party and the vote were to be as evenly split three ways as it has been in the past with a two-way race it could cause gridlock.

2) If we were to go to a popular vote system, there would very likely be an increase in election fraud on the part of all parties in power in various states to make the majorities larger than they actually were.

Umm, if there were 3 equal parties, almost every election would be decided by the House and Senate. The people's vote would become irrelevant.

As for fraud, maybe it's time to have increase election standards nationwide? Have federal legislation to have accurate paper trails and so on. Bush vs. Gore showed that Republicans don't give a cheney about state's rights when it comes to elections.

Keep talking about 2000, ok? Lest we forget 1960? Ok lets just accept the fact that both parties may "fudge" things slightly during elections. Democrats have done it and so have Republicans. Democrats skew the amount of voters and Republicans tend to skew the count. Tit for tat. It's something we all have to come to accept.

[minionofmidas]

I favor electoral voting.

1) If there were ever to come a perennially strong third party and the vote were to be as evenly split three ways as it has been in the past with a two-way race it could cause gridlock.

2) If we were to go to a popular vote system, there would very likely be an increase in election fraud on the part of all parties in power in various states to make the majorities larger than they actually were.

There's actually more incentive for fraud now, under the Electoral College, because there is a greater chance that a small amount of vote fraud in a few key swing states can decide the election. The popular vote nationwide is less likely to be close enough that fraud could matter. But the electoral vote is more likely to be affected by fraud in key swing states.

Exactly true.

[Bono]

I'm for electoral voting with split congressional districts, because it's that way it is framed into the Constitution.
But I think the House deciding elections system should be ended IN THE CASE of not having a majority, and there should be a runoff.
But if there was the need of a popular vote, there should also be a runnof framed in case no candidate got more than 50%.

[© tweed]

We can't do it by CD's...imagine how bad gerrymandering would be then.

[Bono]

We can't do it by CD's...imagine how bad gerrymandering would be then.

Well, then change the electoral law and get districst ramdomly generated by computer. :-)

Well, it's not the same thing, since while in congressional elections people allways vote for the same party, in presidential elections people tend to swing, making it impossoble to gerrymander on those grounds.

[© tweed]

Well, then change the electoral law and get districst ramdomly generated by computer. :-)

I proposed that in May 2003.  I was laughed

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

Well, then change the electoral law and get districst ramdomly generated by computer. :-)

I proposed that in May 2003.  I was laughed

I never thought of that. It's actually a damn good idea! How about having set districts and simply creating more every census?

[Nym90]

I don't think they should be randomly generated by computer, that could lead to some really weird shapes.

But computers should be used, with the districts drawn to be as geographically compact as possible, and also trying as best as possible to keep cities/townships/counties in one district. Political considerations, race, etc. should not be put into the program at all.

It's not that hard to plug in the Census data and program a computer to do that.