Why do we use the electoral college system to elect presidents? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why do we use the electoral college system to elect presidents?


Annoyedgrunt
11-07-2012, 17:08
I don't really get this.

Every election, all we hear is "It's close, he really needs to win Ohio and Florida" or "If he doesn't win California, he can fuhgettaboutit."

Rhetorically speaking, why even let anyone else vote, then, who aren't in Ohio, Florida or California, or the other "swing states", if it always seems to come down to these states?

And on the other side of the coin, you have people in states like Idaho (4) or Montana (3) who, by the very fact of those low electoral counts, say "Well, there's no point in me voting, it won't make a difference."

What is wrong with using just the popular vote? On Election Day, each person gets one vote, they get tallied up, and he with the most votes wins. Seems easy enough... :dunno:

Ragnar
11-07-2012, 17:15
The Electoral College was designed to prevent mob rule. With the popular vote, in theory the big states would swamp the vote from the small states. That wouldn't be fair representation of their interests.

The truth is that you don't want to live in a real democracy. It would suck harder than what we have now.

fnfalman
11-07-2012, 17:17
The Electoral College was designed to prevent mob rule. With the popular vote, in theory the big states would swamp the vote from the small states. That wouldn't be fair representation of their interests.

Yep.

It's funny but when Dubya won, the libtards were whining about why majority votes didn't win the day. My take is that the libtards are about as well educated as the neocons when it comes to American civics.

fnfalman
11-07-2012, 17:18
What is wrong with using just the popular vote? On Election Day, each person gets one vote, they get tallied up, and he with the most votes wins. Seems easy enough... :dunno:

So, you don't mind that the New Yorkers and the Californians to speak for you and your wants?

thetoastmaster
11-07-2012, 17:19
Without the electoral college Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would choose every president. Can you imagine the trash they would endorse every cycle?

For more on the topic, Google "Urban Archipelago".

OctoberRust
11-07-2012, 17:19
Yep.

It's funny but when Dubya won, the libtards were whining about why majority votes didn't win the day. My take is that the libtards are about as well educated as the neocons when it comes to American civics.


beat me to it. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

JW1178
11-07-2012, 17:23
The Electoral College was designed to prevent mob rule. With the popular vote, in theory the big states would swamp the vote from the small states. That wouldn't be fair representation of their interests.

The truth is that you don't want to live in a real democracy. It would suck harder than what we have now.

Designed to maybe but doesn't because the big states do still swamp the small states. Still, the electorial is proportionate to the population of the state, so it's basically the same thing. In fact, it makes Obama look like he won both elections by a large majority, but in fact, he one by just about 2%.

If we were allowed to vote for all major laws, the AWB would have never passed, the Iraq war II would have never happened, Obamacare would have never happened. Bush would have not been elected if we went by popular vote, and I think it's safe to say that we have Obama, because of Bush. Who knows, it might have been worse, but really, how?

Annoyedgrunt
11-07-2012, 17:23
The Electoral College was designed to prevent mob rule. With the popular vote, in theory the big states would swamp the vote from the small states. That wouldn't be fair representation of their interests.

The truth is that you don't want to live in a real democracy. It would suck harder than what we have now.

Without the electoral college Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would choose every president. Can you imagine the trash they would endorse every cycle?

For more on the topic, Google "Urban Archipelago".

OK. In that light, it makes a bit more sense.

Z71bill
11-07-2012, 17:28
Imagine every election that was close - causing 50 state wide recounts - the legal challenges would never stop.

Give the framers some cred - they got it right.

JW1178
11-07-2012, 17:32
Here is another factor, can't remember the exact numbers or the source, but you can add it up. Kind of extreme, but somehow, it's possible.

We have two candidates: Candidate A and Candidate B.

Candidate A wins 100% of the popular vote in the states he wins. Well, he wins the wrong states, and doesn't quite make it to 270.

Candidate B wins just a hair over 50% in the states he wins and manages to win the states with the largest amount of electorials per population and manages to get just enough states to cross that 270 line. (Even if he had 100% of the popular vote in those states, he would have still lost the popular vote)

Literally, in this extreme scenereo, Candidate B wins the election with less than 25% of the votes.

Annoyedgrunt
11-07-2012, 17:33
Yep.

It's funny but when Dubya won, the libtards were whining about why majority votes didn't win the day. My take is that the libtards are about as well educated as the neocons when it comes to American civics.

I believe I've just been insulted.

Fisticuffs at dawn? :fist:

ray9898
11-07-2012, 17:34
Disappointing....this is the same argument proposed by the other side when Bush won but lost the popular vote.

Z71bill
11-07-2012, 17:35
Designed to maybe but doesn't because the big states do still swamp the small states. Still, the electorial is proportionate to the population of the state, so it's basically the same thing. In fact, it makes Obama look like he won both elections by a large majority, but in fact, he one by just about 2%.

If we were allowed to vote for all major laws, the AWB would have never passed, the Iraq war II would have never happened, Obamacare would have never happened. Bush would have not been elected if we went by popular vote, and I think it's safe to say that we have Obama, because of Bush. Who knows, it might have been worse, but really, how?

Do the math again - small states have a larger voice in the electoral college then they would if it was just add up all the votes.

Side note -

How many votes do you need to be elected senator from North Dakota - how may votes to be elected senator from California?

eb07
11-07-2012, 17:58
Mob rules = three wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner

HerrGlock
11-07-2012, 18:03
"The People" were never really meant to elect federal offices with the exception of the House. "The People" tell "The State" how they would like their state to vote then "The State" takes that suggestion and actually casts the vote via the electoral college

czsmithGT
11-07-2012, 18:20
I think the electoral college system needs to be enhanced, not destroyed. But the majority of people in the US think it should be eliminated. Elimination would probably make it somewhat easier for a third party to gain traction. It would be somewhat interesting if we changed the system such that the candidate who won the most states would be elected- wonder how that would change campaigns LOL?

fnfalman
11-07-2012, 18:22
I believe I've just been insulted.

Fisticuffs at dawn? :fist:

Shirley, you jest!!!

czsmithGT
11-07-2012, 18:22
Imagine every election that was close - causing 50 state wide recounts - the legal challenges would never stop.

Give the framers some cred - they got it right.

Things have changed since there were 13 states, though. Even with the electoral college system today the small states don't have much of a say compared to be big ones.

HollowHead
11-07-2012, 18:25
There are apartment complexes in most cities that have more voters than Wyoming has in total population. That's why. HH

Bruce M
11-07-2012, 18:27
I have to think that at least a little bit of it also had to do with the fastest communication at the time was a letter which took more than a couple days to get from the north end of the new states to the south end of the new states.

wrenrj1
11-07-2012, 18:28
Ask yourself why we go to Iraq and Afghanistan and establish free governments yet we don't establish them like our own system.

Dennis in MA
11-07-2012, 18:30
Without the electoral college Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would choose every president. Can you imagine the trash they would endorse every cycle?

For more on the topic, Google "Urban Archipelago".

Scary website. And if it was written 8-10 years ago, frighteningly accurate.

Here is another factor, can't remember the exact numbers or the source, but you can add it up. Kind of extreme, but somehow, it's possible.

We have two candidates: Candidate A and Candidate B.

Candidate A wins 100% of the popular vote in the states he wins. Well, he wins the wrong states, and doesn't quite make it to 270.

Candidate B wins just a hair over 50% in the states he wins and manages to win the states with the largest amount of electorials per population and manages to get just enough states to cross that 270 line. (Even if he had 100% of the popular vote in those states, he would have still lost the popular vote)

Literally, in this extreme scenereo, Candidate B wins the election with less than 25% of the votes.

That's rare. Near impossible.

Do the math again - small states have a larger voice in the electoral college then they would if it was just add up all the votes.

Side note -

How many votes do you need to be elected senator from North Dakota - how may votes to be elected senator from California?

Good points.

Bottom line is I don't think LA, NY and Chicago controls popular vote. Look at this one. 2.5million people difference. If 1,250,001 people changed their vote, it would have gone Romney.

Bottom line - alba ma won both popular and electoral - both times. Points are moot.

samurairabbi
11-07-2012, 18:31
Here is another factor, can't remember the exact numbers or the source, but you can add it up. Kind of extreme, but somehow, it's possible.

We have two candidates: Candidate A and Candidate B.

Candidate A wins 100% of the popular vote in the states he wins. Well, he wins the wrong states, and doesn't quite make it to 270.

Candidate B wins just a hair over 50% in the states he wins and manages to win the states with the largest amount of electorials per population and manages to get just enough states to cross that 270 line. (Even if he had 100% of the popular vote in those states, he would have still lost the popular vote)

Literally, in this extreme scenereo, Candidate B wins the election with less than 25% of the votes.
This actually happened ... in the 1860 election. Lincoln/Republicans won the electoral college with only 40-plus percent of the popular vote, against THREE opponents. Most people do not realize that, because of Lincoln voting distribution among the states, he would have still won even of all those voting for his opponents had united in voting for a SINGLE person.

czsmithGT
11-07-2012, 18:31
Ask yourself why we go to Iraq and Afghanistan and establish free governments yet we don't establish them like our own system.

Free governments in Iraq and Afghanistan- that's a real knee slapper. What a waste of lives and money.

stevelyn
11-07-2012, 18:32
"The People" were never really meant to elect federal offices with the exception of the House. "The People" tell "The State" how they would like their state to vote then "The State" takes that suggestion and actually casts the vote via the electoral college

Exactly, and one of the worst things we did was to change appointment of US Senators from the state legislatures to direct election. That truely is one body that's now unaccountable to the people.

ICARRY2
11-07-2012, 18:34
I would like the electoral college to be based upon congressional districts and not the states.

bchandler
11-07-2012, 18:38
Think of it as the STATES voting for president, not the people directly. You have to remember that this country is founded on the idea of separate and independent states, tied together with a small, but binding federal goverment. We are almost supposed to be like 50 little independent countries with a common interest that is the federal government. In this context the electoral college makes sense. Each state elects the president separately, then the states "fight it out" with their votes proportional to their population.

Obviously and unfortunately, though, the federal government has become far larger than intended. Most of our taxes fund the federal government, not our own states, and the fed is far more powerful than our state governments. In this context a popular vote makes more sense, or even a parliamentary system. Electoral college is still in the constitution, but the founding fathers did NOT design it to work with the kind of country we have today.

samurairabbi
11-07-2012, 18:45
I would like the electoral college to be based upon congressional districts and not the states.

That might be scarier than the current state-based system. A close election would then be decided by, say, only twenty-odd swing congressional districts out of the 435 total. The l voters in OTHER districts would become unimportant.

ICARRY2
11-07-2012, 18:57
That might be scarier than the current state-based system. A close election would then be decided by, say, only twenty-odd swing congressional districts out of the 435 total. The l voters in OTHER districts would become unimportant.

I would also include that which ever candidate wins the popular vote for that state would then win the additonal two electoral votes awarded for the senators.

This method, in my opinion would better represent the actual will of the people. And while I don't have any evidence to back up the following statement, I have heard in the past this method actually favors the GOP by winning gop districts in heavily democratic states like CA and NY.

mjb03bolt
11-07-2012, 19:12
I would like the electoral college to be based upon congressional districts and not the states.

I believe that is actually closer to the truth than you think. Each state gets 2 electoral votes to start with and then the rest for each state are determined by congressional reps. Thats why Cali. has 55 and Texas 39 and Utah 3. Not positive on the exact process but I believe it is based on Congressional Representatives.
mjb

ysr_racer
11-07-2012, 19:24
Without the electoral college Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would choose every president. Can you imagine the trash they would endorse every cycle?



Isn't the electoral college tied into the state's population? So they kinda do right now, right?

ysr_racer
11-07-2012, 19:26
Not positive on the exact process but I believe it is based on Congressional Representatives.
mjb

and isn't that based on the state's population?

certifiedfunds
11-07-2012, 19:41
"The People" were never really meant to elect federal offices with the exception of the House. "The People" tell "The State" how they would like their state to vote then "The State" takes that suggestion and actually casts the vote via the electoral college

*This*

Before anyone asks why, last night proved that "The People" can't be trusted to make a prudent choice.

certifiedfunds
11-07-2012, 19:45
Obviously and unfortunately, though, the federal government has become far larger than intended. Most of our taxes fund the federal government, not our own states, and the fed is far more powerful than our state governments. In this context a popular vote makes more sense, or even a parliamentary system. Electoral college is still in the constitution, but the founding fathers did NOT design it to work with the kind of country we have today.

The bold cannot be overstated. Federal politics should not be a main focus of our day to day lives but rather a passing interest every couple of years. The real problem in all of this is that we've tolerated the federal government growing well beyond its constitutional bounds to the point that it regulates ever moment of our lives and thus becomes a day to day focus. All power and money flow from DC. It wasn't supposed to be this way.

devildog2067
11-07-2012, 19:49
Designed to maybe but doesn't because the big states do still swamp the small states. Still, the electorial is proportionate to the population of the state, so it's basically the same thing.

No, it's not.

California has 66x times the people that Wyoming does. It has ~18x the electoral votes.

srhoades
11-07-2012, 20:01
The founders purposely enacted a Republican (as in representative) form of government instead of a pure democracy. If you want to see what happens the closer you get to a pure democracy read about the the state of our nation under the Articles of Confederation. It was a mess.

I would argue it is not the democrats that are taking down the country, but that we keep inching closing and closing towards a pure democracy and way from a Republic.

certifiedfunds
11-07-2012, 20:18
The founders purposely enacted a Republican (as in representative) form of government instead of a pure democracy. If you want to see what happens the closer you get to a pure democracy read about the the state of our nation under the Articles of Confederation. It was a mess.

I would argue it is not the democrats that are taking down the country, but that we keep inching closing and closing towards a pure democracy and way from a Republic.

Repeal the 17th Amendment

Wyoming
11-07-2012, 20:19
There are apartment complexes in most cities that have more voters than Wyoming has in total population. That's why. HH

Yes. It is really nice to be able to go into a Senator's office and actually be able to talk to a real human being about a Federal problem. The best part is you will get a help.

Restless28
11-07-2012, 20:22
Yes. It is really nice to be able to go into a Senator's office and actually be able to talk to a real human being about a Federal problem. The best part is you will get a help.

Wyoming sounds nice.

HollowHead
11-07-2012, 20:32
Wyoming sounds nice.

The wind will kill you. HH

HollowHead
11-07-2012, 20:37
Yes. It is really nice to be able to go into a Senator's office and actually be able to talk to a real human being about a Federal problem. The best part is you will get a help.

I remember being able to ask Al Simpson or Craig Thomas to pass the salt at breakfast at the Irma in Cody. That was representative government. HH

Z71bill
11-07-2012, 20:50
Things have changed since there were 13 states, though. Even with the electoral college system today the small states don't have much of a say compared to be big ones.

Which state did the presidential candidates spend more time campaigning in -

California or Iowa?

:wavey:

czsmithGT
11-07-2012, 20:53
Which state did the presidential candidates spend more time campaigning in -

California or Iowa?

:wavey:

California was never in doubt as to whether they would vote solidly Democrat. Why would any Republican spend a dollar campaigning there?

Z71bill
11-07-2012, 21:02
California was never in doubt as to whether they would vote solidly Democrat. Why would any Republican spend a dollar campaigning there?

So how important are the voters opinions in California VS Iowa?


How much time would a candidate spend in CA if it was just who ever gets the most votes wins?

You have the correct answer in your post - but are not smart enough to see it - :upeyes:

czsmithGT
11-07-2012, 21:06
You have the correct answer in your post - but are not smart enough to see it - :upeyes:

I am smart enough to know not to gratuitously insult people who express their opinions. And for the record, I have said that I think the electoral college system needs to be modified.

Magnus2131
11-07-2012, 21:09
NEOCONS!!!!!! It had to be said.

certifiedfunds
11-07-2012, 21:21
NEOCONS!!!!!! It had to be said.

:rofl:

It was overdue

Bullman
11-07-2012, 21:22
Without the electoral college Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would choose every president. Can you imagine the trash they would endorse every cycle?

For more on the topic, Google "Urban Archipelago".

The problem I see with this statement is that when I watch the election results, they show me a map of some state like Ohio and it is red for the most part, except those places where Cleveland, Cincinatti, Columbus, Toledo and so forth are located, those counties are blue. then they show you a map of Florida, which is mostly red except for places like Miami, Orlando and so on... are located. The big cities decide it, one way or another.

certifiedfunds
11-07-2012, 21:26
The problem I see with this statement is that when I watch the election results, they show me a map of some state like Ohio and it is red for the most part, except those places where Cleveland, Cincinatti, Columbus, Toledo and so forth are located, those counties are blue. then they show you a map of Florida, which is mostly red except for places like Miami, Orlando and so on... are located. The big cities decide it, one way or another.

And what we have is an urban-rural divide. It really isn't rich-poor, black-white-hispanic.

Z71bill
11-07-2012, 21:30
I am smart enough to know not to gratuitously insult people who express their opinions. And for the record, I have said that I think the electoral college system needs to be modified.

Math is not an opinion.

How many Iowa votes = one electoral vote?

How many CA votes = one electoral vote?

You say that no GOP candidate would spend money in CA - do you think this would change if it was just a popular vote?


You must have a PHD in political science. :rofl:

HollowHead
11-07-2012, 21:56
And what we have is an urban-rural divide. It really isn't rich-poor, black-white-hispanic.

If you really want to see the core of entitlements and subsidies in action, have breakfast with a bunch of farmers. HH

certifiedfunds
11-07-2012, 22:32
If you really want to see the core of entitlements and subsidies in action, have breakfast with a bunch of farmers. HH

Oh yeah. No doubt. But they vote Republican. Those are Republican entitlements.

Restless28
11-08-2012, 04:52
Oh yeah. No doubt. But they vote Republican. Those are Republican entitlements.

Shhhh. Don't tell that.

tslex
11-08-2012, 06:01
Do the math again - small states have a larger voice in the electoral college then they would if it was just add up all the votes.

Side note -

How many votes do you need to be elected senator from North Dakota - how may votes to be elected senator from California?

This.

I ran for a county-wide office in Miami-Dade County. There are 1.2MM registered voters here. That is more voters than in 15 or so states states.

Want to be governor of Wyoming -- you run to fewer voters. Senator from Montana -- fewer votes. (One reason the GOP fought so hard over the Senate race in Montana -- much cheaper to win that election than, say, Wisconsin, and you still get a whole Senator -- or you do if you're not the GOP this year where you spent billions and got no gain at all for it.)

The EC system actually establishes a "floor" for the level of influence a state has in presidential selection -- no matter how small your state, you still get 3 EVs.

tslex
11-08-2012, 06:13
No, it's not.

California has 66x times the people that Wyoming does. It has ~18x the electoral votes.

This.

Not sure why this concpet is so difficult for people.

But before you chuck out the EC, consider this, then tell me as an R (most here are Rs it seems) if you want to lose the EC, if only from self-interest:

http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n431/RobertKuntzJr/electoralcollege.jpg

Rs all loved the EC in 2000 when Gore got half a million more popular votes but Bush squeaked through the EC. This year Obama got more popular votes and had an essential landslide in the EC. (As for "no mandate," Ds made that argument in 2004 when Bush beat Kerry by a narrow margin. Rs then said "elections have consequences, tough luck." Obama beat Romney Tuesday night by the nearly the same margin. Expect to hear the same response to the no-mandate statement.)

The problem is the two party monopoly (yeah, I know, sort of a non sequitur) not the EC.

A friend of mine said this, that I like:

I see the system as it exists as two people on a carousel yelling at each other over whose horse is going faster. The only way to make changes is to get off the carousel. There are many reasons why people feel like they have to stay on the horse, even the ones who acknowledge the carousel exists. . . . In the end, if enough people get of the ride, it will stop or the guys running the ride will be forced to make concession to get people back on their horses.

MrKandiyohi
11-08-2012, 06:17
The EC is the fail-safe plan in case one candidate doesn't get > 50% of the vote (either popular in your scenario or EC in real life). The electors can come together and choose the President.

Brucev
11-08-2012, 06:44
Re: OP. It's not that hard. If you don't really grasp the rational of the EC, then you need to take a refresher course in An Introduction to U.S. Government.

Dennis in MA
11-08-2012, 07:19
No, it's not.

California has 66x times the people that Wyoming does. It has ~18x the electoral votes.

Good point. But CA still gets all it's electoral votes based on the cities. I guess there is no "perfect" system. :(

So how important are the voters opinions in California VS Iowa?


How much time would a candidate spend in CA if it was just who ever gets the most votes wins?

You have the correct answer in your post - but are not smart enough to see it - :upeyes:

Yes, it would be interesting to see campaigning in a popular-vote system. The middle of the country, save Chicago, would be ignored. It'd be the coasts that would get the push. Altho in an interwebs world, it's only ad-time that would be disproportional. It isn't like we need to go see Abe Lincoln in order to decide if we are going to vote for him.


This.


A friend of mine said this, that I like:

I see the system as it exists as two people on a carousel yelling at each other over whose horse is going faster. The only way to make changes is to get off the carousel. There are many reasons why people feel like they have to stay on the horse, even the ones who acknowledge the carousel exists. . . . In the end, if enough people get of the ride, it will stop or the guys running the ride will be forced to make concession to get people back on their horses.



LOL - I like his quote.

fnfalman
11-08-2012, 07:24
If you really want to see the core of entitlements and subsidies in action, have breakfast with a bunch of farmers. HH

The cattle ranchers in New Mexico somehow thinks that because they have grazing rights on public land, somehow they "owned" the land. Oh, and of course, they receive quite a bit of "subsidies" too.

certifiedfunds
11-08-2012, 07:57
The cattle ranchers in New Mexico somehow thinks that because they have grazing rights on public land, somehow they "owned" the land. Oh, and of course, they receive quite a bit of "subsidies" too.

Do they pay for the grazing rights?

fnfalman
11-08-2012, 07:59
Do they pay for the grazing rights?

No...it's called a "subsidy". You and I pay for their grazing rights so that they can drive $50K pickup trucks and snub their noses at welfare recipients.

certifiedfunds
11-08-2012, 08:02
No...it's called a "subsidy". You and I pay for their grazing rights so that they can drive $50K pickup trucks and snub their noses at welfare recipients.

That's exactly what I suspected.

m51
11-08-2012, 08:08
Imagine every election that was close - causing 50 state wide recounts - the legal challenges would never stop.

Give the framers some cred - they got it right.

Kinda strange isn't it, farmers are the one group that takes some of the largest government subsidies, hand outs, govt entitlement, welfare, what ever you want to call it, its a lot of money.

meleors
11-08-2012, 08:11
I would like the electoral college to be based upon congressional districts and not the states.

Each state can decide how it's electoral votes will be distributed. It does not have to be winner take all.

Maine and Nebraska do in fact award their electoral votes by congressional districts with the overall state winner receiving the additional electoral votes: http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm

certifiedfunds
11-08-2012, 08:15
Kinda strange isn't it, farmers are the one group that takes some of the largest government subsidies, hand outs, govt entitlement, welfare, what ever you want to call it, its a lot of money.

It pales in comparison to the $1.2 trillion that old people take.

fnfalman
11-08-2012, 08:17
It pales in comparison to the $1.2 trillion that old people take.

That may be true, but a billion here, a billion there...next thing we're talking about real money.

Dennis in MA
11-08-2012, 08:18
Oh now you've done it. That's the Greatest Generation. Forget the fact that the GG's are all over 90 now and the ones clammoring are under 75. LOL

certifiedfunds
11-08-2012, 08:20
That may be true, but a billion here, a billion there...next thing we're talking about real money.

I'm not defending it.

Bullman
11-08-2012, 08:24
Kinda strange isn't it, farmers are the one group that takes some of the largest government subsidies, hand outs, govt entitlement, welfare, what ever you want to call it, its a lot of money.

It pales in comparison to the $1.2 trillion that old people take.

That is because they have good lobbyists, just like the gun owners.

Z71bill
11-08-2012, 08:30
I think of it as "rationalization" --

If you are a farmer - then you are feeding everyone and that is so special that the money the government GIVES you is justified.

If you are an old person - the social security check you get every month was earned - after all you worked hard your whole life and BUILT the country. The fact you didn't save any money just means you deserve the government check even more - I mean you spent every cent you ever made and helped stimulate the economy.

If you are an uneducated 23 year old single mom with 8 kids you really believe that the government money you get is earned and deserved - after all you have 8 kids to feed - and no skills - never had a job of any kind - but you have 8 kids and having kids is the most essential thing a person can do - so give me my check - I earned it.

hamster
11-08-2012, 08:31
Since when does Al Gore post on Glock Talk? :)

I don't really get this.

Every election, all we hear is "It's close, he really needs to win Ohio and Florida" or "If he doesn't win California, he can fuhgettaboutit."

Rhetorically speaking, why even let anyone else vote, then, who aren't in Ohio, Florida or California, or the other "swing states", if it always seems to come down to these states?

And on the other side of the coin, you have people in states like Idaho (4) or Montana (3) who, by the very fact of those low electoral counts, say "Well, there's no point in me voting, it won't make a difference."

What is wrong with using just the popular vote? On Election Day, each person gets one vote, they get tallied up, and he with the most votes wins. Seems easy enough... :dunno:

Philippe
11-08-2012, 08:32
It's rigged....

fnfalman
11-08-2012, 08:34
If you are an uneducated 23 year old single mom with 8 kids you really believe that the government money you get is earned and deserved - after all you have 8 kids to feed - and no skills - never had a job of any kind - but you have 8 kids and having kids is the most essential thing a person can do - so give me my check - I earned it.

You never know that one of dem chilluns may be another Eistein or Bill Gates.

Bullman
11-08-2012, 08:37
I think of it as "rationalization" --

If you are a farmer - then you are feeding everyone and that is so special that the money the government GIVES you is justified.

If you are an old person - the social security check you get every month was earned - after all you worked hard your whole life and BUILT the country. The fact you didn't save any money just means you deserve the government check even more - I mean you spent every cent you ever made and helped stimulate the economy.

If you are an uneducated 23 year old single mom with 8 kids you really believe that the government money you get is earned and deserved - after all you have 8 kids to feed - and no skills - never had a job of any kind - but you have 8 kids and having kids is the most essential thing a person can do - so give me my check - I earned it.

If she has 8 kids, she has some skills:whistling:

Fox184
11-08-2012, 08:37
And what we have is an urban-rural divide. It really isn't rich-poor, black-white-hispanic.

That combined with Union/Non Union areas.

Lazy R
11-08-2012, 08:45
One of the things the electoral college accomplishes is to give folks in sparsely populated areas more of a say in the vote. To wit:

Each state has an electoral vote for each senator and each congressman. The congressional districts represent about 700,000 people.

So here in Montana, with 1,000,000 people, we have 3 votes.

Let's compare that to a state with 14 million people. They have 20 congressional districts and 22 electoral votes.

The larger state has one electoral vote for every 636,000 people. The smaller state has one electoral vote for every 333,000 people.

Evens out the playing field in a small way. I believe the founders in part did this knowing that geography was important to represent too, not just warm bodies.

Also, I understand that another factor was that the states sent their electors, who were to be learned men, to Washington to cast the votes for their state with power of discretion--they could cast their vote contrary to the state's citizen vote if they got to DC and found that the candidate was a crook. This in the day before news communications were very good. (kind of like now:supergrin:)

The electoral college is comprised of real people who do travel to DC to cast their electoral votes. It is done later after the election, I believe in early December. Just a formality now but still is part of the process.

walt cowan
11-08-2012, 08:48
I don't really get this.

Every election, all we hear is "It's close, he really needs to win Ohio and Florida" or "If he doesn't win California, he can fuhgettaboutit."

Rhetorically speaking, why even let anyone else vote, then, who aren't in Ohio, Florida or California, or the other "swing states", if it always seems to come down to these states?

And on the other side of the coin, you have people in states like Idaho (4) or Montana (3) who, by the very fact of those low electoral counts, say "Well, there's no point in me voting, it won't make a difference."

What is wrong with using just the popular vote? On Election Day, each person gets one vote, they get tallied up, and he with the most votes wins. Seems easy enough... :dunno:

over 200 years ago it worked well but, with today's gerrymandering, hacked electrionic voting machines, outright voter fraud and who is allowed to vote...well...it ain't worth a frack.:upeyes:

fnfalman
11-08-2012, 08:49
over 200 years ago it worked well but, with today's gerrymandering, hacked electrionic voting machines, outright voter fraud and who is allowed to vote...well...it ain't worth a frack.:upeyes:

Because there had never been voting frauds before, right?

samurairabbi
11-08-2012, 08:53
You never know that one of dem chilluns may be another Eistein or Bill Gates.
... but then, one of dem chilluns may be another Charlie Manson.

Diesel McBadass
11-08-2012, 08:56
Its to protect us from the tyranny of the majority, duh. The founding fathers were genius! If we didnt have a electoral college population centers would decide the election. Certain states would have all the power!

Imagaine a system where candidates only focus on a small number of states and leave a majority of Americans out of the picture. Traveling to a couple of states over and over and not traveling to meet people in the other states and hear what they want. Who could have that!

walt cowan
11-08-2012, 08:57
Because there had never been voting frauds before, right?

yes there was fraud but, not on the scale or the acceptance of it as today. so you fine with hacked voting machines, gerrymandering and letting anyone vote? :dunno:

Taurus851
11-08-2012, 08:59
does it matter? Romney lost both

oldman11
11-08-2012, 08:59
Because it's easier to fudge the results.

Diesel McBadass
11-08-2012, 08:59
So, you don't mind that the New Yorkers and the Californians to speak for you and your wants?

Those states together give 1/3 of the needed 270 to dems automatically each election. Limit their power. A republican has to win more swing states to win than a dem with the current system.

fnfalman
11-08-2012, 09:34
Those states together give 1/3 of the needed 270 to dems automatically each election. Limit their power. A republican has to win more swing states to win than a dem with the current system.
Then don't lose out at heavily populated states.

Texas has plenty of people and almost universally voted Republicans. You don't hear Democrats crying about that.

Bruce M
11-08-2012, 10:57
This.

I ran for a county-wide office in Miami-Dade County. There are 1.2MM registered voters here. That is more voters than in 15 or so states states.

....

Hmm interesting. By chance did you leave your Mercedes outside in a less than desirable neighborhood, report it stolen, move to Australia and now do you wear a powdered wig?

Bullman
11-08-2012, 11:06
... but then, one of dem chilluns may be another Charlie Manson.

and I would say much more likely than the Einstein/Bill Gates outcome.

oldman11
11-08-2012, 12:11
Then don't lose out at heavily populated states.

Texas has plenty of people and almost universally voted Republicans. You don't hear Democrats crying about that.
1. From the latest count there are more Dems than Repubs in Texas.
2. Repubs won way more states than Dems, but the 3 big crime centers in the US (NY, Chicago, Calif) are all heavy Democrat; so that is where the Dems win their elections from.

SCHADENFREUDE
11-08-2012, 12:17
The constitution has been carved up enough. That is why we're in the state we are today. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it is wrong. It means you don't get it.

Furthermore, what would it matter if there was no electoral college? Obama won both that and the popular vote. Do you think that if the electoral college was gone that magically Mittens would have won?

People need to stop. The founding fathers were much smarter than we are. Hell they knew this was the outcome. It was fun while it lasted.

harlenm
11-08-2012, 12:23
I would like the electoral college to be based upon congressional districts and not the states.

This is the way it should be done. The person that wins each district gets that vote, and the person who overall wins the state gets the 2 senate votes.

This will make states like NY and CA distribute their votes equally. Look at NY, almost no county outside of NYC voted for Obama. One big city in a state rules that state.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Spiffums
11-08-2012, 12:34
The Electoral College was designed to prevent mob rule. With the popular vote, in theory the big states would swamp the vote from the small states. That wouldn't be fair representation of their interests.

The truth is that you don't want to live in a real democracy. It would suck harder than what we have now.

But the big states have more Electoral Votes than the small states.

SC Tiger
11-08-2012, 12:35
Here is another factor, can't remember the exact numbers or the source, but you can add it up. Kind of extreme, but somehow, it's possible.

We have two candidates: Candidate A and Candidate B.

Candidate A wins 100% of the popular vote in the states he wins. Well, he wins the wrong states, and doesn't quite make it to 270.

Candidate B wins just a hair over 50% in the states he wins and manages to win the states with the largest amount of electorials per population and manages to get just enough states to cross that 270 line. (Even if he had 100% of the popular vote in those states, he would have still lost the popular vote)

Literally, in this extreme scenereo, Candidate B wins the election with less than 25% of the votes.

I am not sure but I believe some states allow for the electors to "split" their votes. So, if a state has 10 electors and candidate A wins 60% of the state and candidate B wins 40%, then the state can give 6 votes to A and 4 to B. I'm not certain about that but I think it can happen.

I remember in 2004 one elector for one state said he would not cast his vote for Bush regardless of how the state's populace voted. Personally I believe that elector should have been replaced right then.

PVolk
11-08-2012, 12:41
Without the electoral college Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would choose every president.
How is that any different from now? Those cities have ALL of the pull for their states. And just those three states accounted for almost 40% of Barry's needed 270.

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.

I would like the electoral college to be based upon congressional districts and not the states.
That would at least be an improvement.

samurairabbi
11-08-2012, 15:51
This is the way it should be done. The person that wins each district gets that vote, and the person who overall wins the state gets the 2 senate votes.


Maine and Nebraska do that now.

Wolfgang
11-08-2012, 16:18
Electoral College is used because the average voter is not smart enough to vote.

czsmithGT
11-08-2012, 16:22
Electoral College is used because the average voter is not smart enough to vote.

That was one of the founding father's original intents, but it doesn't work with today's demographics and election system.

SC Tiger
11-08-2012, 16:24
This is the way it should be done. The person that wins each district gets that vote, and the person who overall wins the state gets the 2 senate votes.

This will make states like NY and CA distribute their votes equally. Look at NY, almost no county outside of NYC voted for Obama. One big city in a state rules that state.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

I think California would surprise a lot of people with how "red" most of that state really is (outside of SF, LA and a few other big cities).

Wolfgang
11-08-2012, 16:31
That was one of the founding father's original intents, but it doesn't work with today's demographics and election system.

hahaha, you think the voters are smart? After the past 2 elections?

hahaha

Pass soma dat juice to me! hahahaha:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Bren
11-08-2012, 16:31
The Electoral College was designed to prevent mob rule. With the popular vote, in theory the big states would swamp the vote from the small states. That wouldn't be fair representation of their interests.

The truth is that you don't want to live in a real democracy. It would suck harder than what we have now.

The number of electors is based on population, so that idea doesn't make a lot of sense.

czsmithGT
11-08-2012, 16:40
hahaha, you think the voters are smart? After the past 2 elections?

hahaha

Pass soma dat juice to me! hahahaha:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Never said today's voters are smart, far from it. What I said was the electoral college in today's system does nothing to protect us from idiot voters.

czsmithGT
11-08-2012, 16:45
The number of electors is based on population, so that idea doesn't make a lot of sense.

It isn't strictly based on population because the number of electors is based on the number pf representatives (which is pretty much based on the state's population) plus each state getting two electors for it's senators regardless of population.

So Wyoming is over-represented in number of electors per resident versus California. But I do think the protection of small population areas being overwhelmed by large population areas is less today than when the system was originally implemented.

czsmithGT
11-08-2012, 16:48
http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

"It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

ldn0125
11-08-2012, 17:00
I haven't seen anyone post this link. It wouldn't change the outcome of the election but would change the electoral college as we know it.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php

czsmithGT
11-08-2012, 17:20
I haven't seen anyone post this link. It wouldn't change the outcome of the election but would change the electoral college as we know it.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php

The states can do as they so choose as far as how they cast their electoral votes. A national bill such as proposed is unconstitutional no matter how much they have "discussed" it.

Diesel McBadass
11-08-2012, 22:27
Ive decided it doesnt matter, my vote will never count in a presidential election ever. Due to this stupid electoral college. Im a conservative in a blue state. Ive never voted for a person to federal office who won. I will fight against the electoral college my entire life, i hate the system.

czsmithGT
11-08-2012, 22:44
Ive decided it doesnt matter, my vote will never count in a presidential election ever. Due to this stupid electoral college. Im a conservative in a blue state. Ive never voted for a person to federal office who won. I will fight against the electoral college my entire life, i hate the system.

Obama won the popular and electoral vote in Maine. So I fail to see where the electoral college made any difference to your vote.

Diesel McBadass
11-08-2012, 22:47
Obama won the popular and electoral vote in Maine. So I fail to see where the electoral college made any difference to your vote.

maine will always vote democrat. So my vote is worthless for every election.

droidfire
11-08-2012, 22:50
Click-by posting based on thread title alone, need sleep so didn't read the thread...

Answer in a nutshell is basically people are stupid, can't be trusted to make intelligent decisions, and before the dawn of the information age was an attempt to ensure the people actually making decisions did so in an informed manner.

Bullman
11-09-2012, 08:15
maine will always vote democrat. So my vote is worthless for every election.

You could move to Oklahoma, not a single county voted democrat, every county went red.

Diesel McBadass
11-09-2012, 08:29
You could move to Oklahoma, not a single county voted democrat, every county went red.

and your senator seems like he hates needless spending, and blocks crappy bills. Seems pretty cool. But i will stay in this state. I grew up here and i will try and do everything i can to keep this state in the right direction

thetoastmaster
11-09-2012, 19:04
Here's the simple advantage to the electoral college. California's population is 37,691,912 and has 55 electoral votes. Wyoming's population is 568,158 and it has 3 electoral votes. So California has 685,307 people per elector. Wyoming has 189,386 per elector.

The only fault with the electoral college is that we have made electors vote according to the will of the majority of the state. There is nothing in the Constitution that says they have to vote with the majority, and certainly nothing about "winner takes all". Those are conventions of tradition.

certifiedfunds
11-09-2012, 20:17
Here's the simple advantage to the electoral college. California's population is 37,691,912 and has 55 electoral votes. Wyoming's population is 568,158 and it has 3 electoral votes. So California has 685,307 people per elector. Wyoming has 189,386 per elector.

The only fault with the electoral college is that we have made electors vote according to the will of the majority of the state. There is nothing in the Constitution that says they have to vote with the majority, and certainly nothing about "winner takes all". Those are conventions of tradition.

Certainly helps to keep the 3rd parties out.

thetoastmaster
11-09-2012, 20:22
Certainly helps to keep the 3rd parties out.

One reason why I will never be an elector. I'd cast me vote for the best person for the job, and the majority be damned.