Should we dump the Electoral College? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Should we dump the Electoral College?


wjv
10-30-2012, 11:33
Then every vote would really count.

Blue people in Red States.
Red people in Blue States.
Wouldn't matter. .

Someone's vote in SD would count just as much as someone's vote in NY

Do we really need the Electoral College anymore?

Opinions?

aircarver
10-30-2012, 11:34
No.

.

G29Reload
10-30-2012, 11:39
Then every vote would really count.

Blue people in Red States.
Red people in Blue States.
Wouldn't matter. .

Someone's vote in SD would count just as much as someone's vote in NY

No it wouldn't. Large population centers and all their urban influence would drown out other parts of the country where there is still some sanity.

The Framers were wise indeed. Nothing but foolishness to dump the electoral college.

pmcjury
10-30-2012, 11:42
No but the electoral college votes should not be all or nothing within a state. If the popular vote is split 70/30 that should be reflected in the electoral college

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

Flintlocker
10-30-2012, 11:45
Here's an example of the biggest advantage Republicans get out of the EC. Are you sure you want to give that up?http://i.imgur.com/opY2j.jpg

concretefuzzynuts
10-30-2012, 11:48
Not unless you want NY City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta and Philadelphia deciding the election for you.

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 11:52
Certainly not. It keeps 50 states determining who is POTUS.

czsmithGT
10-30-2012, 11:57
No but the electoral college votes should not be all or nothing within a state. If the popular vote is split 70/30 that should be reflected in the electoral college

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

Seems like that would be pretty much the same as dumping the electoral college. I think we should keep it for the same reasons it was originally implemented. I also think we should go back to having state legislatures name the state's US Senators. And finally, we should limit campaigning and campaign fundraising to the six months prior to election date.

Syclone538
10-30-2012, 12:09
Seems like that would be pretty much the same as dumping the electoral college. I think we should keep it for the same reasons it was originally implemented. I also think we should go back to having state legislatures name the state's US Senators.
...

+1
The states need more power in relation to the fed gov, not less.

Just to be clear because I know some statist authoritarian is going to say "see, you like a powerful gov too." All forms of government in these U.S. need less power, but I would not choose to take power away from states without first taking a lot of power from fed gov.

tslex
10-30-2012, 12:12
Kind of thinking a tie in the EC would be interesting (and not completely impossible).

In that case the House elects the POTUS (and the slight R majority would choose Romney) and the Senate elects the VP (where Biden would win).

Can you imagine anything more entertaining than four years of a Romney/Biden administration?

concretefuzzynuts
10-30-2012, 12:20
Kind of thinking a tie in the EC would be interesting (and not completely impossible).

In that case the House elects the POTUS (and the slight R majority would choose Romney) and the Senate elects the VP (where Biden would win).

Can you imagine anything more entertaining than four years of a Romney/Biden administration?

I'll add another twist. Since it in a presidential election and write in votes count, who's to say they wouldn't write in BHO as VP? This opens up the chance of BHO being president again under a couple of different circumstances.

1. In the event of a Romney death.

2. And Obama can legally run again in 2016 as a VP candidate.

MZBKA
10-30-2012, 12:23
Yes, we should give it up.

People here arguing for the electoral college are arguing we should keep it because it helps keep their party in power. I can't think of anything more un-American.

concretefuzzynuts
10-30-2012, 12:27
Yes, we should give it up.

People here arguing for the electoral college are arguing we should keep it because it helps keep their party in power. I can't think of anything more un-American.

Our system of government is set up as a Representative Republic. The Electoral College is part of that.

Vic777
10-30-2012, 12:30
If you want the New York Dumocrats and the California Filmmakers to be controlling the Country (and destroying it), sure, get rid of the Electoral College. You must be a lieberal living off my taxes.

Vic777
10-30-2012, 12:32
Yes, we should give it up.

People here arguing for the electoral college are arguing we should keep it because it helps keep their party in power. I can't think of anything more un-American.Like you don't want the Dumocrats in power so you can live off my taxes and hard work! Lieberals lie to themselves as much as they lie to honest Americans.

pmcjury
10-30-2012, 12:45
Seems like that would be pretty much the same as dumping the electoral college. I think we should keep it for the same reasons it was originally implemented. I also think we should go back to having state legislatures name the state's US Senators. And finally, we should limit campaigning and campaign fundraising to the six months prior to election date.

I don't think they are the same thing at all. It still keeps the electoral college votes per state the same, which keeps high population states from completely over ruling lower population states, but let's the minority within a state still be heard.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

Gundude
10-30-2012, 12:48
Yes, we should give it up.

People here arguing for the electoral college are arguing we should keep it because it helps keep their party in power. I can't think of anything more un-American.There is the distinct possibility next week that Romney will win the popular vote and Obama the EC. We'll then see how many fans it still has here.

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 12:53
It is still the best way. Each state votes for its electors. The majority still rules, state by state.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 12:55
I don't think they are the same thing at all. It still keeps the electoral college votes per state the same, which keeps high population states from completely over ruling lower population states, but let's the minority within a state still be heard.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

2 states have apportionment of EC reps, the other 48 are "winner take all. It would be a definate improvement if more would swing to a representative apportionment. In Oregon and washington States it usually runs about 60/40 or closer with the Dems winning and taking all the votes. A change would also be beneficial to the third parties.

czsmithGT
10-30-2012, 12:55
In that case the House elects the POTUS (and the slight R majority would choose Romney)

Not exactly. The representatives of each state have one vote, so the person to win would be whichever party has the most either Repub majority states or Dem majority states in the House. Probably would still end up being Romney but it isn't a simple matter of which party has the most representatives.

Flintlocker
10-30-2012, 12:55
There is the distinct possibility next week that Romney will win the popular vote and Obama the EC. We'll then see how many fans it still has here.

Nate Silver has the chances of that at 5.7% which is actually pretty significant.

czsmithGT
10-30-2012, 12:56
I'll add another twist. Since it in a presidential election and write in votes count, who's to say they wouldn't write in BHO as VP? This opens up the chance of BHO being president again under a couple of different circumstances.

1. In the event of a Romney death.

2. And Obama can legally run again in 2016 as a VP candidate.

The 12th Amendment doesn't allow write ins for whom the Senate may elect as Vice President.

concretefuzzynuts
10-30-2012, 13:00
The 12th Amendment doesn't allow write ins for whom the Senate may elect as Vice President.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Flintlocker
10-30-2012, 13:07
The 12th Amendment doesn't allow write ins for whom the Senate may elect as Vice President.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-0)

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1)President Joe Biden / Vice President Joe Biden?

ALL HAIL JOE BIDEN

http://i.imgur.com/pz8Uf.gif

czsmithGT
10-30-2012, 13:13
President Joe Biden / Vice President Joe Biden?

ALL HAIL JOE BIDEN



Biden isn't being voted for as president. Under the tie scenario he could not be one of the three highest vote getters for president to be voted upon by the House.

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 13:15
Biden isn't being voted for as president. Under the tie scenario he could not be one of the three highest vote getters for president to be voted upon by the House.

Is mostly GOPers! :cool:

Guss
10-30-2012, 13:16
No it wouldn't. Large population centers and all their urban influence would drown out other parts of the country where there is still some sanity.
...
And how is that different from what we have now?

Guss
10-30-2012, 13:19
We have too much internal contentiousness as it is. With a minority-supported president, we only add to the nation's problems.

Flintlocker
10-30-2012, 13:19
Biden isn't being voted for as president. Under the tie scenario he could not be one of the three highest vote getters for president to be voted upon by the House.

"And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President"

Of course, this is all in jest. :cool:

Gundude
10-30-2012, 13:21
I don't think they are the same thing at all. It still keeps the electoral college votes per state the same, which keeps high population states from completely over ruling lower population states, but let's the minority within a state still be heard.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2Let's say a state votes 70-30, as in your example. Say 70% republican 30% Democrat. It has 4 electoral votes. How should the electors be split? 3 Republican and 1 Democrat?

Now say it splits 60-40. 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats?

Goaltender66
10-30-2012, 13:23
Nate Silver has the chances of that at 5.7% which is actually pretty significant.

The people who put on Deadliest Warrior have more reliable predictions than Nate Silver. :upeyes:

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 13:28
We need to keep the EC. Besides, the HR would never pass such an amendment.

Flintlocker
10-30-2012, 13:42
The people who put on Deadliest Warrior have more reliable predictions than Nate Silver. :upeyes:

Well, it certainly seems to be the policy of the GOP and their surrogates to go after the guy with the most accurate statistical polling analysis of the 2008 election. The stench of fear among the right is palpable and they take most obvious approach; attack.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 13:45
Well, it certainly seems to be the policy of the GOP and their surrogates to go after the guy with the most accurate statistical polling analysis of the 2008 election. The stench of fear among the right is palpable and they take most obvious approach; attack.

Coming from the guy who was shotgunning up threads with every poll that showed an Obama lead??

:rofl::rofl:

Sure Cupcake, keep talking maybe you can convince yourself.

tslex
10-30-2012, 13:46
There is the distinct possibility next week that Romney will win the popular vote and Obama the EC. We'll then see how many fans it still has here.

This does seem possible.

If it happens, it will be interesting to mine GT for posts from the 2000 election to see if the folks who said "It's the electoral college, cry babies, W's president, tough noogies" and the folks who said "But the popular vote is the will of PEOPLE and W stole the election" are all on the same side of the issue they occupied back then.

Given the paucity of intellectual honesty hereabouts (and, well, everywhere) that'd be interesting, dontcha think?

Goaltender66
10-30-2012, 13:49
Well, it certainly seems to be the policy of the GOP and their surrogates to go after the guy with the most accurate statistical polling analysis of the 2008 election. The stench of fear among the right is palpable and they take most obvious approach; attack.

Um, even Silver is downplaying the predictive power of his magical model (which is just a gussied up Monte Carlo simulation with a bunch of Silver's bias baked in, namely deweighting polls he doesn't agree with on a visceral level and relying more on older polls that he likes more).

I note you didn't mention 2010 and how his magical model biffed 15% of the races. :upeyes:

The reality is Nate Silver is overly reliant on state polls for his magical model...state polls which, just in the last 4 years, were wrong in Indiana, North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado. But hey, don't worry, Nate Silver is never wrong. And as you crow about 2008, those state polls got Indiana and North Carolina wrong, and Silver biffed one of them (which puts him at the same predictive level as a coin flip). Then fast forward to 2010, Silver got Nevada AND Colorado wrong.

Nate Silver has all the predictive power of a liberal poli sci professor who sucks at math.

tslex
10-30-2012, 13:49
We have too much internal contentiousness as it is. With a minority-supported president, we only add to the nation's problems.

Did you make this same argument in 2000?

Honestly just asking. Gore had half a million more popular votes than W.

But while there was plenty of fighting over the vote in FL and where that state's EC votes should go, no one really made the argument that W should lose b/c of the popular vote deficit.

Handy link: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

tslex
10-30-2012, 13:52
Nate Silver has all the predictive power of a liberal poli sci professor who sucks at math.

:rofl:

Flintlocker
10-30-2012, 14:04
Um, even Silver is downplaying the predictive power of his magical model (which is just a gussied up Monte Carlo simulation with a bunch of Silver's bias baked in, namely deweighting polls he doesn't agree with on a visceral level and relying more on older polls that he likes more).

I note you didn't mention 2010 and how his magical model biffed 15% of the races. :upeyes:

Nate Silver has all the predictive power of a liberal poli sci professor who sucks at math.

"Deweighting" the polls he doesn't agree with? Of course, it's all clear now. He wouldn't possibly weight the polls based on sample size, robo-calling, repeat call methodology, cell phones, or any other metric... it's all about Silver's personal bias. Thanks for clearing that up.

I wonder if you have any sense of the difference in statistical modelling of 535 separate races with far less polling compared to modelling one race with the most robust polling data in history. I'd guess you do, but admitting the difference would certainly get in the way of your Silver scold.

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 14:15
The EC has worked just fine for the entire history of this nation.

ModGlock17
10-30-2012, 14:16
No but the electoral college votes should not be all or nothing within a state. If the popular vote is split 70/30 that should be reflected in the electoral college

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

How would you split 51% vs 48% in a state with 3 electorals ?

amazon
10-30-2012, 14:21
geez, not this again.

Is this after we finally decide to burn the Constitution? I know we're all ready doing a fine job of shredding it.

But dump the EC? No. That's called "mob rule".

Syclone538
10-30-2012, 14:29
You would just have to round, the math isn't hard.

Zombie Surgeon
10-30-2012, 14:36
America is a Republic not a democracy. No electoral college means America becomes a democracy which means the rule of the mob.

Gunboat1
10-30-2012, 14:38
Keep the Electoral College - the Founding Fathers were brilliant and the need still exists as much today as then.

Get RID of liberal trolls like Flealicker. America and GT will be far better off.

IndyGunFreak
10-30-2012, 14:49
No it wouldn't. Large population centers and all their urban influence would drown out other parts of the country where there is still some sanity.

The Framers were wise indeed. Nothing but foolishness to dump the electoral college.

Totally agree. "The Framers" were wiser than any politician we currently have to implement something like the EC, to see that everyone has an equal voice.

Goaltender66
10-30-2012, 14:51
"Deweighting" the polls he doesn't agree with? Of course, it's all clear now. He wouldn't possibly weight the polls based on sample size, robo-calling, repeat call methodology, cell phones, or any other metric... it's all about Silver's personal bias. Thanks for clearing that up.

Silver took a 17 day old CBS/NYT poll in Colorado a higher weight than a Rasmussen one done just a day or two before Silver ran his magical model. This when in 2010 he gave both Gallup AND Rasmussen higher pollster ratings than CBS/NYT. :upeyes:



I wonder if you have any sense of the difference in statistical modelling of 535 separate races with far less polling compared to modelling one race with the most robust polling data in history. I'd guess you do, but admitting the difference would certainly get in the way of your Silver scold.

I do know the difference, as does Silver..but Silver addresses it all by simply ignoring it in his magic model. A simple Monte Carlo simulation replicates 90% of Silver's results.

You are alarmingly ignorant of the methodology of your hero.

muscogee
10-30-2012, 16:18
Without the the Electoral College Gore would have been President.

pmcjury
10-30-2012, 17:20
How would you split 51% vs 48% in a state with 3 electorals ?

The winner gets 2 the loser gets one. If the percentage split doesn't work out to split the electoral college votes into whole numbers you round up in favor of the winner

I think the most important part of the electoral is keeping high population density states from controlling the fate of the entire country, and it does a good job of that. What it sucks at is making sure everyone's vote counts. I vote out of principle only, because in our current system makes my vote meaningless.


Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

G29Reload
10-30-2012, 17:58
And how is that different from what we have now?

The electoral college insures proper proportionality.


There's no point in even arguing this stupid argument.

The process is enshrined in the Constitution and for a reason. You couldn't change it if you wanted to, its not yours to change. It would take an Amendment, and that's not going to happen.

NEXT!

/thread

G29Reload
10-30-2012, 17:59
Without the the Electoral College Gore would have been President.

All the more reason why its a great thing!

railfancwb
10-30-2012, 18:10
Keep the Electorial College and return the appointment of Senators to state legislatures...i.e. reverse the 17th Amendment. Move back toward the Republic we once had.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

MZBKA
10-31-2012, 20:31
Like you don't want the Dumocrats in power so you can live off my taxes and hard work! Lieberals lie to themselves as much as they lie to honest Americans.
If anything, you're living off of my tax money.

I want a Government for the people by the people. The Electoral College gets in the way of that.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 21:06
If anything, you're living off of my tax money.

I want a Government for the people by the people. The Electoral College gets in the way of that.

Funny the folks you are quoting in that first sentence weren't too keen on direct democracy.

Sporaticus
10-31-2012, 21:18
Democrats want to, that should tell us something.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 21:23
Democrats want to, that should tell us something.

Yup. Couldn't be a better reason to keep it.

Diesel McBadass
10-31-2012, 21:32
Id say dump or reform, im sure most of us are sick of florida and ohio deciding the president. The idea was to keep certain states from having too much power but the opposite happened, just a few swing states have all the power as all the others are set to go one way or the other.

If it had a system like maine or nebraska with a split vote i may like that. It would be good for candidates to go to states that they generally may not, a dem in texas or rep in cali, meeting the people there and learning the issues. The winner takes all system sucks

Diesel McBadass
10-31-2012, 21:32
Democrats want to, that should tell us something.

funny the college is in their favor with several big states going dem, cali and new york is a huge start for them.

MZBKA
10-31-2012, 21:44
Funny the folks you are quoting in that first sentence weren't too keen on direct democracy.
Do you think abolishing the electoral college is the same thing as a direct democracy? Eesh

countrygun
10-31-2012, 21:53
Do you think abolishing the electoral college is the same thing as a direct democracy? Eesh

for the Dems aboloshing it would give even more weight to dead or illegal alien voters, a large part of their base, so I'd rather keep it.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 22:00
Do you think abolishing the electoral college is the same thing as a direct democracy? Eesh

Yes..pretty much the very definition of it

Diesel McBadass
10-31-2012, 22:10
Well, it seems to keep certain states from having too much power you make a system where certain states have too much power.....seems so stupid that eurodriver and flintlocker would have made it up.

Seriously, its a horrible system, in a 2 party race you only need 22% of popular vote to win

muscogee
10-31-2012, 22:49
Why not go to a parliamentary system? You wouldn't have to wait 4 years to change the government. There would be less gridlock. Right now, I'm sick of both parties. With parliamentary system I could hopefully have a variety of representatives to choose from.

G29Reload
10-31-2012, 22:49
Seriously, its a horrible system,

Seriously, you are so much smarter than the Founding Fathers.:upeyes:


22% to win huh? You're as drunk as your avatar.

certifiedfunds
11-01-2012, 05:36
Why not go to a parliamentary system? You wouldn't have to wait 4 years to change the government. There would be less gridlock. Right now, I'm sick of both parties. With parliamentary system I could hopefully have a variety of representatives to choose from.

Gridlock is good and it is by design.

HexHead
11-01-2012, 05:44
Can you imagine anything more entertaining than four years of a Romney/Biden administration?

Wouldn't be much different than when LBJ was Kennedy's Veep.

Diesel McBadass
11-01-2012, 06:58
Seriously, you are so much smarter than the Founding Fathers.:upeyes:


22% to win huh? You're as drunk as your avatar.

there is a nightmare scenario with certain states being won by a certain margin you can get 270 with only 22 percent of vote.

Like the romney/biden admistration scenario. won't happen, but possible.

snewsoG22
11-01-2012, 07:16
Hypothetically, you could get to 270 electoral votes with less than a single % of the popular vote.

Syclone538
11-01-2012, 08:36
Gridlock is good and it is by design.

We need a heck of a lot more gridlock.

I'd like to see an amendment where if you want to pass a new law, you have to repeal an old one.

certifiedfunds
11-01-2012, 08:37
We need a heck of a lot more gridlock.

I'd like to see an amendment where if you want to pass a new law, you have to repeal an old one.

Agreed

aircarver
11-01-2012, 08:48
We need a heck of a lot more gridlock.

I'd like to see an amendment where if you want to pass a new law, you have to repeal an old one.

Works for me, too ...

.

PVolk
11-01-2012, 09:37
I'm not a fan of the Electoral College when it goes one way and the popular vote goes another. It seems fair to award the win to the one with the most votes, right?

I also don't follow how abolishing the EC gives any state an advantage greater than it already has. Some mentioned high population states like California and New York would "run elections". As it stands, those two blue states carry the most electoral votes of all fifty. Just those two states alone are 1/3 of Barry's needed 270. So, they are already the most influencial in the election. How would eliminating the EC change anything there? Imagine if 30% of those two states citizens voted republican and those votes actually counted toward their candidate instead of being shadowed entirely by the majority of the state.

I frusterates me that I live in a state that hasn't been red since 1988. No matter which way I vote, Barry will get 17 votes from my state. I think I'd feel better if the split of actual votes went to their respective parties rather than 100% to one. Then I can feel that my vote actually counts for something.

Diesel McBadass
11-01-2012, 09:46
my state is one vote south district, one vote north, 2 for winning state overall. Id say it would be nice if all did this.

F350
11-01-2012, 11:29
Then every vote would really count.

Blue people in Red States.
Red people in Blue States.
Wouldn't matter. .

Someone's vote in SD would count just as much as someone's vote in NY

Do we really need the Electoral College anymore?

Opinions?

OK; you're in the NW; you want your political influence to be 0?

If the Electoral College were done away with do you think any politician would waste time campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado etc??

The country would be controlled by the New York area, Philadelphia, Chicago and Kalifornia. Ask the people in southern Illinois if they like being controlled by Chicago or if they might like a 1 vote per county Electoral College type system. The only thing that is keeping the whole country from going to the dogs like Kalifornia IS the Electoral College.

nmk
11-01-2012, 12:48
This does seem possible.

If it happens, it will be interesting to mine GT for posts from the 2000 election to see if the folks who said "It's the electoral college, cry babies, W's president, tough noogies" and the folks who said "But the popular vote is the will of PEOPLE and W stole the election" are all on the same side of the issue they occupied back then.

Given the paucity of intellectual honesty hereabouts (and, well, everywhere) that'd be interesting, dontcha think?

It would be really fun to watch. And really sad.

TheJ
11-01-2012, 13:00
"Whatever respect may be due to the rights of private judgment, and no man feels more of it than I do, there can be no doubt that there are subjects to which the bulk of mankind are unequal, and on which they must and will be governed by those with whom they happen to have acquaintance and confidence. The proposed Constitution is of this description."

PVolk
11-06-2012, 23:45
The EC still seems useless to me. Obama blew Mitt away with electoral votes, but just finally and barely crept by in the popular vote.

I can't think of more fair reasoning than the person with the most individual votes, wins. A system to skew the "scoring" of voting heavily in either direction seems unscrupulous.

Diesel McBadass
11-06-2012, 23:48
With EC, my vote will never matter. Im a republican in a blue state. At least with popular vote, the 80% of americans that get avoided in the EC get their voice heard. Politicians dont spend all their money in 10 states they have to care about all 50

ICARRY2
11-07-2012, 00:39
I like the idea of an electoral college determined by congressional districts instead of by states.

JRH
11-07-2012, 00:43
Yes, we should give it up.

People here arguing for the electoral college are arguing we should keep it because it helps keep their party in power. I can't think of anything more un-American.

Should've dumped it 12 years ago!
Electoral and the elected!

countrygun
11-07-2012, 00:49
I like the idea of an electoral college determined by congressional districts instead of by states.

That is the correct method but unfortunately it is up to the States themselves and in a State like mine that, and it did it again, usually goes around 60/40 that is enough in the state legislature to prevent a change. As an initiative measure on a ballot it could never beat the advertising the city liberals could put out against it.

Third party fans should be pushing it for their States. It would be the biggest thing they could do to affect National elections.

G29Reload
11-07-2012, 00:51
The EC still seems useless to me. .

It was designed by people way smarter than you, is enshrined in the constitution and hopefully will stay that way.

RyanBDawg
11-07-2012, 01:18
Would have made zero difference tonight..

But yes, I would like to see a straight line popular vote for president.

You would have to amend the constitution to do that of course..

certifiedfunds
11-07-2012, 08:23
Well, it was designed for a republic but since we've long since slit its throat and shot it in the head , sure whatever method the unfettered majority prefers.

Personally I think a text message vote like American Idol would be great.

PVolk
11-07-2012, 08:30
It was designed by people way smarter than you, is enshrined in the constitution and hopefully will stay that way.
Neato. Maybe someone way smarter than me can actually give good argument as to how the EC trumps popular vote in being the best system to elect the president.

You aren't helping...

Would have made zero difference tonight..
It wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it would have made a difference. Barry would have won by 2% rather than 20%. That matters to everyone who went out to wait in line to voice their opinion even though they already knew their state was predetermined to go for the opposite candidate.

Diesel McBadass
11-07-2012, 08:41
unless i move out of my state my vote will never, i repeat never, matter. Same for all republicans in blue states, dems in red states. 95 percent of campagn funds were spent in only 10 states. 4 out of 5 states dont matter in an election cycle. A small number of states hold all the power due to the electoral college

railfancwb
11-07-2012, 09:25
Then every vote would really count.

Blue people in Red States.
Red people in Blue States.
Wouldn't matter. .

Someone's vote in SD would count just as much as someone's vote in NY

Do we really need the Electoral College anymore?

Opinions?

Actually the vote of the person in SD counts more than that of a person in a more populous state - mathematically speaking. Not that it matters...


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

PVolk
11-07-2012, 09:26
It's quite ironic reading the posts on page #1. Such as:

"Large population centers and all their urban influence would drown out other parts of the country"

Well, isn't that exactly what we saw yesterday? Chicago drowns out the 65% of Illinois counties that voted Romney. Detroit drowns out the 70% of Michigan counties that voted Romney. Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, and Cincinnati decide blue for Ohio when practically the entire rest of the state votes red. Dade County decides for all of Florida.

It's no surprise that the densely populated areas have a heavy pull. They will with the EC system and they will with the popular vote as well. The difference lies with the percentage of pull. While Romney won most of his states by a healthy margin, there are 11 states that Obama won by only a narrow margin of 4% or less and he earned 141 electoral votes from those heavily divided states. Had we been using the popular vote, the two nominees would have been neck and neck after those 11 states, rather than 141 - 0.

nmk
11-07-2012, 09:33
Would have made zero difference tonight..

But yes, I would like to see a straight line popular vote for president.

You would have to amend the constitution to do that of course..

How many more people would vote if their states were actually in play?

RyanBDawg
11-08-2012, 13:57
How many more people would vote if their states were actually in play?

Probably not that many. It was the horrific choice in candidates that made most people not care about voting.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

PVolk
11-08-2012, 14:36
Probably not that many. It was the horrific choice in candidates that made most people not care about voting.
There are a few reasons why most non-voters didn't vote, and that's only one of them. But make no mistake- The EC does discourage many voters. I went to the polls knowing that my vote wouldn't make a damn bit of difference and that my state would be giving 16 EC votes to Barry regardless of how I voted. But I decided to vote anyway only because I would have loved to see Mitt win the popular vote to help show how broken the EC system is in the country of today.

cajun_chooter
11-08-2012, 16:07
hell no we don't need electorial vote... its too easy to minipulate... look back when G. Bush ran for 2nd term..he trailed the majority of vote ... but still won Florida...
isn't that amazing ?

series1811
11-08-2012, 16:34
hell no we don't need electorial vote... its too easy to minipulate... look back when G. Bush ran for 2nd term..he trailed the majority of vote ... but still won Florida...
isn't that amazing ?

The Constitution is an amazing document. Even if you don't understand the reason behind everything in it.

kirgi08
11-08-2012, 17:43
2 ec members per state,no matter the population.'08.

certifiedfunds
11-08-2012, 17:55
2 ec members per state,no matter the population.'08.

I like it. Tie breaker?

Ruble Noon
11-08-2012, 17:58
I like it. Tie breaker?

Duel.

certifiedfunds
11-08-2012, 18:04
Duel.

Love it!!

RyanBDawg
11-08-2012, 18:09
hell no we don't need electorial vote... its too easy to minipulate... look back when G. Bush ran for 2nd term..he trailed the majority of vote ... but still won Florida...
isn't that amazing ?

No he didn't. When he ran against Gore, Gore won the popular vote by a few hundred thousand but lost in the EC..


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

cajun_chooter
11-08-2012, 18:25
The Constitution is an amazing document. Even if you don't understand the reason behind everything in it.

the kenyan negro reigning from the white house does not believe in the constitution... already he is working to ban the second admendment... by signing the NATO small arms treaty... do you understand what is behind the NATO small arms treaty ????? he also does not like the 1st admentment... how long before he bans the constitution all together ?

now we see what will take place when the parasites out number the hosts in the U.S.

Gpruitt54
11-08-2012, 19:59
This topic was bound to come up. Citizens United was the best thing since sliced bread, until it does not work in buying an election; as previously thought, and the electoral college is great, until a Republican gets his balls handed to him by way of an electoral college land slide.

Gee, a republican lost a presidential election, maybe we should do away with elections while we’re at it.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

kirgi08
11-08-2012, 20:21
The .gub not elections.'08.

Diesel McBadass
11-08-2012, 23:50
yeah, id like my vote to mean something someday, its worthless under the current system. Dont even know why i bother voting. Theres enough local issues to put my vote on but my state is so democratic ill always be overridden.

MartinRiggs1987
11-09-2012, 02:49
Then every vote would really count.

Blue people in Red States.
Red people in Blue States.
Wouldn't matter. .

Someone's vote in SD would count just as much as someone's vote in NY

Do we really need the Electoral College anymore?

Opinions?yey! One tally to tamper with rather than 50. There was a reason why the founders didn't trust direct democracy. They feared the mob and the fancies that come with it. Tailored to men like Obama. Cheers!

muscogee
11-09-2012, 07:51
the kenyan negro reigning from the white house

This racist crap really needs to stop.

certifiedfunds
11-09-2012, 08:18
This racist crap really needs to stop.

Racist = Bad

Marxist = Good?

cajun_chooter
11-09-2012, 08:46
This racist crap really needs to stop.

Racists ? hardly... i am only stating facts... would you rather i call him a half breed from kenya ?

Diesel McBadass
11-09-2012, 09:00
I think wed rather destroy him on failed policies and real issues then result to name calling. Its like people calling him a muslim. No need to resort to that, we have real ammo with jeremiah wright.

cajun_chooter
11-09-2012, 09:31
I think wed rather destroy him on failed policies and real issues then result to name calling. Its like people calling him a muslim. No need to resort to that, we have real ammo with jeremiah wright.

what do you mean .. by "its like people calling him a muslim" ??? gee whiz he has said numerous times he is a muslim... it if walks like a duck and looks like a duck ... it prolly is a duck !!!

Diesel McBadass
11-09-2012, 09:48
Muslim sympathizer sure but he is a christian who spent 20 years in the congregation of an anti american racist preacher. use our our real ammo, we have enough

muscogee
11-09-2012, 12:50
Racists ? hardly... i am only stating facts... would you rather i call him a half breed from kenya ?

What do his race and the nationality of his father have to do with anything. Why did you bring it up?

certifiedfunds
11-09-2012, 13:35
What do his race and the nationality of his father have to do with anything. Why did you bring it up?

Perhaps you should be asking that of the mass of black folks who voted for him because of his race??

Diesel McBadass
11-09-2012, 13:51
blacks vote democrat overwhelmingly