The Electoral College

[Shadowstrike]

So, that was alot to read, and frankly to be honest I didnt read it all, except for the first few posts, by TDF and Selphie...

I remember recently having a talk with someone about the Electoral College (this is odd by the way because, im not usually a thinker like this, outloud anyways)

But what I recall saying to him was that the EC was founded when the population of our country was really low... as in NOT what it is today, heh... and it was established to give those in the less populated states an equal say in who was elected... (or something like that) But now that the country is more densly populated and we are (as a whole) more educated, the EC is not as useful to us as it once was. And in some cases an even flawed program in our government. i.e. the 2000 Election--Gore vs. Bush--10 rounds no disqualifications or count-outs no hitting below the belt... blah blah... Heh...

So, personally, I think that, as needed as it once was, it will eventually be shut down... hopefully sooner than later.

And basically that is all... now back to my mindless drivel....

Guhhhhhhhh......

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by postalblowfish7

again - what the **** are you talking about? did you not see my popular vote stats? clinton DESTROYS bush in the popular votes. here, let me post it again so maybe it'll sink into your thick skull:
...
clinton not only got the majority BOTH years he ran, his reelection was a hands down landslide. get your facts straight bro.

Alright, let me explain this again.

Majority:
1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.
2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes.

For Clinton to have had a majority, he would have had to win more than half of the total votes -- that's over 50% of the total votes cast.

I repeat. Clinton never won more than fifty percent of the total popular vote. His winning more votes than his most powerful opponent doesn't matter, because for him to win a majority of the votes, he would have to win more votes than did all of his opponents combined. Try pulling your head out of your ass next time you want to insult, otherwise it just comes out muffled. You had me at first, and I admitted that I misspoke -- this time, you do some research. Primarily, on the definition of the word majority, and the fact that while Clinton never won more than 50% of the Popular Vote, Bush did win more than 50% of the Popular Vote -- that's a majority -- in 2004.

Now, back on topic... The Electoral system doesn't create any more problems than it avoids. All too many times the 2000 election is brought up -- it was close in one state, and they recounted and found Bush to be the winner. If it was all direct-voting, where each and every vote counted towards the election, that would have been an even bigger clusterf*** (for lack of a better word), as the close elections -- like the 2000 election -- would have to be recounted all over the country. Which would have led to even more corruption, and an even longer wait for the result.

[Taco]

La la la... I have to give my speech tomorrow... it's nowhere near being done... I haven't even started on writing it yet... nor do I know what position I want to take, yet. But it is my intention, by the end of this post, to have made a decision. So...

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Now, back on topic... The Electoral system doesn't create any more problems than it avoids. All too many times the 2000 election is brought up -- it was close in one state, and they recounted and found Bush to be the winner. If it was all direct-voting, where each and every vote counted towards the election, that would have been an even bigger clusterf*** (for lack of a better word), as the close elections -- like the 2000 election -- would have to be recounted all over the country. Which would have led to even more corruption, and an even longer wait for the result.

But wasn't Gore the clear winner of the popular vote that year, anyway? So would they have really had to recount everything, if the system went by direct voting? And couldn't they just recount the votes that came from a particular area where they thought the problem had occured, too? Or were the ballots already placed with every other ballot from around the country? Although I imagine every state's ballot has different measures on it, so it wouldn't have been hard to figure out which ones were coming from Florida...

Although I don't know what to say to the mob rule part... I stand by my thinking that California and Texas probably wouldn't agree with each other. Nor, if you got another big state, such as Florida, would they necessarily agree with California, either. California is only one state, after all. If the nominees only tried to win over votes from California... they'd be in trouble. Is the population of California bigger than the population of the rest of the country, combined?

I think the country, as a whole, probably seemed to think that Gore was a slightly better candidate than Bush, in 2000. Then in 2004, the country probably thought that Bush was a better candidate than Kerry. I don't think we need help from an Electoral College anymore to sort things out for us. Maybe what we really need is different policy for each area... which we already have, because each state already has governing power over itself, anyway, and that power can't be taken away. Somehow, I don't see a representative of a nutjob state coming into power as a contender for president.

Then again, there's that whole "Congress won't pass it" thing. If the people push for it enough, and vote for representatives and congressmen who will do something about it, eventually their voices would be heard.

I realize it's not a serious problem, with Bush losing popular but winning electoral in 2000 only being the third example of it's kind, but maybe we should make sure it doesn't happen again, anyway. And even with the "your vote doesn't matter not matter what" idea, the way things are now, the majority doesn't always win. Maybe the slight majority should have a voice over the slight minority, even if they are only slightly in the majority.

...then again, there is this idea that the majority of the people of today are stupid... but I think I'll ignore that little detail for my speech, and just go for the "against Electoral College" stance. It's only one speech, after all, and I can change my mind afterwards.

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Taco Del Fish

But wasn't Gore the clear winner of the popular vote that year, anyway?

Gore had Bush in Popular Votes by half a million, but when you have a hundred million people voting, that's still only half of one percent. And there have been closer elections.

So would they have really had to recount everything, if the system went by direct voting?

Why wouldn't they? Sure, it might not be very close, but if the margin of error is 0.5% or more, that would be at least one election changed. With a direct democracy, every vote would help influence the outcome. Which means each and every voting district, in each and every state, also makes a difference -- which means all votes would have to be recounted in the case of a close election. It also means that corruption would have much more of an influence.

Although I don't know what to say to the mob rule part... I stand by my thinking that California and Texas probably wouldn't agree with each other. Nor, if you got another big state, such as Florida, would they necessarily agree with California, either. California is only one state, after all. If the nominees only tried to win over votes from California... they'd be in trouble. Is the population of California bigger than the population of the rest of the country, combined?

I used California as an example because it's the largest (population-wise) state, and it's got the most liberal court system in the nation -- and it's getting worse and worse. Let's go way out on a limb here and say that, since California attracts liberals and repels some conservatives (which it indeed does), eventually, California will vote 100% Democrat. California controls 55 of the Electoral Votes and contains 33,000,000 people. Let's also say that -- because, in this illustration, California would be even more extreme -- the 25,000,000 or so registered voters do vote. That's half of the needed votes to win a Presidency. But with the Electoral College system, whether a party won 12,000,001-11,999,999 or 25,000,000-0, the candidate would get 55 Electoral Votes, and that's it -- only 1/5 the amount needed to win.