The Electoral College

Taco · 03-02-2006, 01:39 AM

The US Electoral College, to be specific. Specifically, whether it should be abolished, in favor of something else (direct voting, possibly?) Selphie wanted me to make this thread, for some reason. I guess because she was too tired to make it herself, and she wants to hear all of your opinions on this. She's writing a paper on it, that's due at Midnight... tonight. (We'll see how many replies we can get in before then, eh? Heh.) As for myself, I can probably benefit from this somewhat by doing my persuasive speech on it. I'll probably mostly use the links at the bottom of that wikipedia page, for which I've provided to you a link to, there.

...normally, I would stay out of the Intellectual Forum... but. Selphie begged me to make this thread... so...

I hadn't really thought much about this topic until tonight, although I had remembered that it got a lot of people upset after the 2000 election, when Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the Electoral Vote. After reading through that page, and another page about Electoral Colleges in general, I'm a bit confused as to what I think the decision should be, as to whether or not the college should be abolished. On one hand, you have the interest of the small states, and on the other, you have the interest of the larger-populated states. The people from the rural areas throughout the states might get overshadowed by the interest of these bigs states if popular vote is all that is needed. Big cities obviously won't have the same interest as the small rural towns... Then again, should the small town, with its smaller population, have the same weight behind them as that of the big city, which has more people to consider, or take care of?

As things stand, in most states, the person who wins the popular vote there gets all the electoral votes, except in Maine and Nebraska, where apparently the popular vote of each district earns one vote for that candidate. It has been suggested that this method be used everywhere, but evidently this method makes it easier for the loser of the popular vote to win, and the smaller states get an even bigger advantage.

Evidently, the electoral method makes it easier to recount the votes in case a recount is needed (such as the case was in 2000) but it also causes for a greater likelihood that a recount would be needed, due to the "Swing Vote" states that could have a very close popular vote.

Another benefit of the college is that if someone in a state makes a bunch of fraudulant votes, the inflation for that candidate will only effect that one state from which these votes are coming from. Whereas in a direct election, those fake votes would cause an inflation for that candidate across the entire country.

Something else in favor of the Electoral vote is that apparently, it's really hard to to amend the Constitution. There have been 700 tries to amend the Constitution, so that the Electoral College would be abolished. In... 1970? such a bill was brought forth, and it was passed by the House, and accepted by the President, but rejected by the Senate, where it received a majority vote, just not 2/3 of the vote. So in 2000, when Hillary and others tried to get the college abolished again, ?Congress? didn't even consider it.

The majority of the people in the country, however, feel that the Electoral College should be abolished. Or at least according to several polls sited on that Wikipedia site (that's where I got most of this.) Claims against this are that the College disenfranchises voters from big cities, who's votes are made less meaningful. Such as one year, the 7 smallest states, with a combined population of 3,119,000 populous, had the same voting power as the state of Florida, which had a population of 9,614,000. 21 Electoral Votes, each. However, Electoral supporters might argue that Florida is one state, and its 21 Electoral voters will all go the same way-with the popular vote of the state, while those others are obviously 7 states, with 3 voters each, might not all go the same way.

I also read about a bunch of alternatives for the Electoral College. The one that appeals to me the most is the Popular Vote Bonus method, in which the winner of the popular vote would get the electoral votes they earned, plus half again the electoral votes of their most populated state (Half of California, Gore's biggest state, would have given him 27 electoral votes, I think, and the win.)

I don't know. This issue definitely isn't an easy one. It's also late, I'm tired, and I have to go to school in the morning, and my mind is a little clouded right now, so... please give me your opinions. Maybe someone else can see things more clearly than I can right now. I really don't have a strong opinion either way, however.

Wuv, Yer Mom

SelphieTilmitt · 03-02-2006, 09:15 AM

Yes, that's right, I begged...Well, technically, I didn't I just told him I loved him, called him sweetie, darling, honey and batted my eyelashes....Sometimes, it pays off to be a girl...sometimes...

I really do have an opinion on this matter, I believe that the Electoral College should be abolished. Think about it for a second now kids....The Electoral College was established when what, 5% of the population of the United States were literate? It was established to protect our country, and the people that actually COULD read. Now, however when the people who aren't literate don't usually register to vote...And only 35% of the people REGISTERED even actually VOTE. I think it's time to do away with the Electoral College. I think it's time to let majority rule, Yes, while smaller states and rural areas wouldn't get the same representation. The opinions of those people would be expressed. And, if most people want something to happen, if the MAJORITY of the country wants someone in office, then so be it. But I think it is so many kinds of wrong that in days and times like this, when a person loses the popular vote, and still runs our country...Its just not cool. Granted, this same person won the popular vote and the Electoral College THE SECOND TIME AROUND. That could be becasue most people don't like to "betray" their current leader, especially in the middle of "war" (even if it's not declared.)

You could go many ways in this topic...But I do believe that it's time to either completly do away with the Electoral College...or somehow revise it. I don't care how hard it is to amend the Constitution...that's a whole other matter to attend to.

lessthanthree

PS. I so totally love Tele/Fish boi because he did this for me! : )

postalblowfish7 · 03-02-2006, 09:26 AM

i think that the electoral college is a fairly brilliant idea... assuming that each state has a clearly defined political sway - the problem is now-a-days it's all a mix up. i live in ohio, my county went for kerry - everyone around me went for bush, it was super super close - but they ended up giving the entire state to bush. it does sort of feel like your vote counted for nothing when your state just counts for the other side even though you didn't vote for them. i would be all for either splitting the electoral votes, or just going by popular vote. if either of these systems would've been in place during the '04 election, bush would've lost. but i'm not trying to turn this into a a political debate, back on topic.

i just think there was a time when the electoral college could sort of 'simplify' the election process - but things are so ruthlessly split down the middle these days i just don't think it works any more. i wouldn't be holding my breathe for any major election reforms any time soon though...

Sasquatch · 03-02-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SelphieTilmitt

But I think it is so many kinds of wrong that in days and times like this, when a person loses the popular vote, and still runs our country...Its just not cool. Granted, this same person won the popular vote and the Electoral College THE SECOND TIME AROUND.

Clinton never won the Popular Vote. That's right, Bill Clinton won the Electoral Vote twice, and never the Popular Vote, if my memory serves me correctly.

I think the Electoral College is a great idea, really. It works great, and the only time people have a problem with it is when they think back to a candidate that they wanted to win, who won the Popular Vote but lost the Electoral Vote. However, most people don't realize that this happens often, and with both parties. The Electoral College helps to avoid mob rule. This country is not a Democracy, and never has been -- it's a Republic. This system avoids the ideas of a few whacko states -- like California (or, on the other side of the coin, maybe Texas) -- from determining foreign and domestic policy for the entire country.

You'll always have people complaining that their vote doesn't count. If it was all direct vote, then chances are your vote wouldn't count because the difference would be thousands or millions of votes. In a looser Electoral system -- like where each county or district gets its own votes -- chances are your vote wouldn't count because the difference would be many more than one "Electoral" vote. Our current Electoral College is a happy medium.

In America, a hundred million people vote for the President. The reality is, your vote usually doesn't really count.

postalblowfish7 · 03-02-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Clinton never won the Popular Vote. That's right, Bill Clinton won the Electoral Vote twice, and never the Popular Vote, if my memory serves me correctly.

no, that's wrong.

1996 popular vote
Clinton: 47,402,357
Dole: 39,198,755

source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/summ.htm

1992 popular vote
Clinton: 44,909,806
Bush: 39,104,550

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_1992

sorry, not trying to get all off topic - but someone had to shut Sasquatch up

and i still think that the system is breaking down, and it's time for a change. it's just TOO close these days - the last two elections have been absolutely ridiculous, with results extremely close to the margin of error. if the electoral votes had even been split by popular votes in the individual states, a clearer decision would have been made. one way or the other, democrat or republican, the whole not knowing election results till the next day 50/50 split thing is really getting old. if the country is this divided, i think a new system would benefit our election process.

Taco · 03-02-2006, 03:57 PM

You don't consider that begging? Okay... whatever.

Heh. Tired...

Anyway, I have considered a lot of what has been said, and I went back and I did a bit more research on the topic again. Now I have some questions: How important is it that the United States is a "Republic," and not a "Democracy?" What would the exact difference be, if our government were to change from a Republic to a Democracy, and would they be good or bad? I didn't know for sure what either were, so I went back to check the definitions out.

By definition, a Republic is a non-monarchic government in which the citizens or the electorate make the rules, and there is a constitution that will protect against absolute power of the few, and to protect those whom it governs. However, almost every kind of government that is not a monarchy has declared themselves a "republic," however, so the definition is pretty loose.

We are a republic with the presidential system, where the president is also the head of state (other countries have a president, but they also have a prime minister, who actually calls the shots; the president is more of a ceremonial position, or an advisory roll. I'm not clear as to how the prime minister gets their position, however.) Actually, I guess by definition, we are a Federal Republic; the federation part being that we are a united group of regions, and while each of the regions governs themselves, there's also a central government to unify them. So within these states, there is a kind of democracy: majority rules, as far as I understand, as to where the votes go for the president, certain bills, etc, etc. We also have senators, electoral voters, and representatives who represent the state, and who we vote for, so we are a representative democracy. We also have a bit of liberal democracy in there too, I think, in that we have laws that protect against minorities.

So really, we are a form of Democracy. We are also a form of Republic, but the term "republic" could mean just about anything.

Sasquatch also argued against "mob rule," and cited that we could have one huge state, such as California or Texas, calling the shots for us. Do all the big states have the same intentions, however? Texas is, after all, a generally Republican state, while California is generally a Democratic state. You might also argue that the smaller states might a different view than those big states, but their population still might not match up (anyone know how the populations for each state?) If several of the larger states don't agree with that one state, however, the numbers would definitely be against the one crack-pot state. I would think... If not, and the big states all agree... the smaller states would still have their own self-government, to some extent. I'm not sure what that extent is, but it can't fully be taken away from them.

Although I'm pretty sure I'm missing something important, here... I'm still not decided yet. I've been on this issue for a while now, though, so I'm gonna take a break. I'll be back.

Wuv, Yer Mom

SelphieTilmitt · 03-02-2006, 04:38 PM

It's not begging...It was just playing my advantages and knowing I would win in the end. I still love you, so you know. : )

Not turning this topic into a political debate is going to be difficult. If you look at the logistics of the situation....The Electoral College in the way it is set up right now...doesn't work. It pisses too many people off around election time. For me, it pisses me off all the time. How could something that was established two hundred plus years ago still be in practice today? And not only in practice but being enforced?!?!

I still haven't completely formed my opinion on this topic yet...well, I have, I just have to back it up on paper and make it look all special and up to University standards!! I have to put the final touches on my paper now...well a couple hours ago, but I had to come back and rant a little.

Sasquatch....you are a complete moron, do some damn research before you come into the INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION FORUM and make remarks like you did in this thread!! Watch CNN, or the news, or take a damn history class! I dont' believe that someone could make such a statement. Did you watch the 2000 Election coverage on TV? After the results were in and it showed that GWB did not win the popular vote, but won the Electoral vote they said OVER AND OVER this was only the SECOND TIME IN HISTORY that a president lost the popular and still became president.

EDIT: GET A NEW MEMORY!!

I'm off my soapbox and back to my paper, I'll deal with you later, and don't think I won't!!

Sasquatch · 03-02-2006, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by postalblowfish7

no, that's wrong.

1996 popular vote
Clinton: 47,402,357
Dole: 39,198,755

source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/summ.htm

1992 popular vote
Clinton: 44,909,806
Bush: 39,104,550

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_1992

Whoops. Forgive me, that was wrong -- I meant that Bush had managed to get a majority of the Popular Vote, something Clinton never did. My mistake.

Quote:

and i still think that the system is breaking down, and it's time for a change. it's just TOO close these days - the last two elections have been absolutely ridiculous, with results extremely close to the margin of error. if the electoral votes had even been split by popular votes in the individual states, a clearer decision would have been made. one way or the other, democrat or republican, the whole not knowing election results till the next day 50/50 split thing is really getting old. if the country is this divided, i think a new system would benefit our election process.

How do you know splitting up the Electoral votes wouldn't just make more elections closer? The 2000 election was close, yes, but Bush came out the clear winner. The 2004 election wasn't very close, and Bush was the obvious winner. (Unless you buy into the BS concerning "rigged" voting machines in Ohio -- Kerry saw that Gore almost stole an election, and he figured he'd try it himself.) As for not knowing election results until the next day -- all it takes is staying up a few hours to know. It doesn't take that long for it to be all tallied up, and though it may take a while to get 100% confirmation, they'll usually know soon after polls close who's expected to win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SelphieTilmitt

Not turning this topic into a political debate is going to be difficult. If you look at the logistics of the situation....The Electoral College in the way it is set up right now...doesn't work. It pisses too many people off around election time. For me, it pisses me off all the time. How could something that was established two hundred plus years ago still be in practice today? And not only in practice but being enforced?!?!

Really? Like the Constitution, you mean? Oh, so outdated and obsolete! [/sarcasm]

The Electoral College works just fine. It's worked for more than two hundred years, just fine. I'm sure it'll continue to work well into the future, just fine. There's absolutely no reason to change it. Oh, sorry, you get pissed off at it -- let's change the Constitution.

Quote:

Sasquatch....you are a complete moron, do some damn research before you come into the INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION FORUM and make remarks like you did in this thread!! Watch CNN, or the news, or take a damn history class! I dont' believe that someone could make such a statement. Did you watch the 2000 Election coverage on TV? After the results were in and it showed that GWB did not win the popular vote, but won the Electoral vote they said OVER AND OVER this was only the SECOND TIME IN HISTORY that a president lost the popular and still became president.

Now now, quit your bitching. I already admitted that I misspoke. Bush won a majority of the Popular Vote, something that Clinton didn't do. Thank you both for, err, "correcting me" on that.

SelphieTilmitt · 03-02-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Whoops. Forgive me, that was wrong -- I meant that Bush had managed to get a majority of the Popular Vote, something Clinton never did. My mistake.

and...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Now now, quit your bitching. I already admitted that I misspoke. Bush won a majority of the Popular Vote, something that Clinton didn't do. Thank you both for, err, "correcting me" on that.

In the 2000 Elections...Bush DIDN'T win the majority of the popular vote! Again, with the speaking without the research and the brain waves.

Taco · 03-02-2006, 07:03 PM

...but he did win the majority of the popular vote during the 2004 elections, dear... and insulting the opposition probably isn't the most constructive way to argue your case

I see that voters would feel disenfranchised no matter what, but is it better when a minority, or a majority of the voters feel disenfranchised? I don't really see why a mob rule would be bad. I also feel that the popular vote should hold a bit more weight in elections. However, I do remember that splitting the electoral votes would cause the loser of the popular vote to win, more often. Or something. Somehow. Dot.

Wuv, Yer Mom

SelphieTilmitt · 03-02-2006, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco Del Fish

...but he did win the majority of the popular vote during the 2004 elections, dear... and insulting the opposition probably isn't the most constructive way to argue your case

I never said he didn't win the majority in the 2004 Elections...Actually, I said nothing about the 2004 Elections....

Well, I wouldn't have insulted the opposition had he done his research, as I stated before...DEAR.

I think I have made my "decision" on what my final opinion is. The way that the Electoral College stands right now, is ineffective. Something needs to be done, because when the Electoral College was established it was a different time. I don't know what needs to be done, because I haven't studied the intermost workings of the Constitution and of Congress' decision making.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~

On a lighter note, I just e-mailed my paper out...WELL before midnight. It was sent at 9:22pm. I'm so damn proud of myself...considering I STARTED the damn thing at like 4:45pm! : ) I have my happy face on now...at least for a little while!