electoral votes

The electoral voting system a thing that confuses me. I dont know why it is set up like that. I think that whoever has the majority of the votes should win, but it has to be a clear majority.

Personally, I think its a load of shit that a candidate can win without the majority of the votes.

I want to know some of your opinions on this electoral college deal.

EDIT: also, please post your reason for your selection, if you would.

Bad idea for modern times.

I think it could be done away with in these times, but first, they would have to devise better methods of counting the votes. With today's computers, I'd perhaps like to see thumbprints placed on the ballots, and real enforcement of election rules, with severe punishment of violaters.

with severe punishment of violaters
Like sending them to Iraq!

Ugh. the Electoral College is bs. Though your vote may count in theory, in practice, it doesn't mean squat. I agree that the system is antiquated, and in dire need or a revamping or outright removal. When the forefathers set up the whole process, they set it up to operate based on a population that was largely uninformed about the issues. Sure, the people had a right to vote, but in the end, the electoral college system allowed the actual voting to be determined by more "educated" individuals. In today's society, the populace at large is far more educated in the issues, and therefore (presumably) far more entitled to making a valid, informed decision - directly. And yet, the Electoral College system is still a barrier preventing this example of democracy in its truest form, that of one ballot = one direct vote, from being realized.

--For anyone puzzled as to how the EC system can decide a president contrary to what the popular vote actually decrees, I can give a simple, but excellent example.

:grinno: = Candidate A :iceslolan = Candidate B
______
| 100 | --> State 1 (population 100) votes 51 for A || 49 for B
|_____ | (4 electoral votes)

______
| 100 | --> State 2 (population 100) votes 51 for A || 49 for B
|_____ | (4 electoral votes)

____
| 50 | --> State 3 (population 50) votes 20 for A || 30 for B
|___| (2 electoral votes)

:grinno: (A) = 8 electoral votes, 122 popular vote
:iceslolan (B)= 2 electoral votes, 128 popular vote

:iceslolan wins the popular vote, but loses the election DESPITE being elected by the majority of the citizens.
:grinno: wins the election, even though the people said otherwise.

^ excellent example indeed.

Wow candidate A and B are allmost exactally the same except they shake in oposing directions, could this be carried over to the real candidates?

What the hell has happened to civics education these days??!!
The electoral college is in place to give EVERY state a voice. If it didn't exist our elections would be made by 3 or 4 states.

like......Florida and Ohio?

it's undemocratic.... complete B.S.

If bush wins the popular vote then he should be president. No mater what anyone thinks of the majourity (even if they are republican :tongue:), they still get to decide their own leader.

Totally defeats the purpose of democracy. What's the point when the majority does not win?

And as for giving every state a voice, we're electing the president as a nation, not as individual states.

ok so when's someone going to do something about getting rid of it?

ok so when's someone going to do something about getting rid of it?

As soon as what happened to Gore in '00 happens to a Republican.

What, losing an election?

losing an election against the people.

un-democracy.

i tend to agree, when both parties have been stung by the loophole then maybe it will be fixed.

As soon as what happened to Gore in '00 happens to a Republican.
What, losing an election?
No, winning one!

No.

Gore: Pop. Vote: 50,994,086
Bush: Pop. Vote: 50,461,092

You do the math stud.

If Gore had won, he'd be President instead of an aged hippy

Thats the point, he won but wasn't elected president!

If Gore had won, he'd be President instead of an aged hippy

Better than an aged coke-addict ex-criminal.

oh boy. here comes that whole minimum IQ to vote demonstration!

seriously, there should be compulsary voter (political) education in democratic countries to make sure that people who have the power to vote understand the issues and the history... they should have to pass before they can vote!

IQ test for voting? It's hard enough for a lot of democratic voters to remember who they were told to vote for on the way to the polls.

If Gore had won, he'd be President instead of an aged hippy

^^^ from MR Obvious.

The electoral college is an integral part of the American government system. Without it states rights would be pretty much non existant in most states reguarding voting as only a couple of states would matter. When going off of a pure democratic process why would Ohio matter when you should be focusing on NY and CA.

The electoral college is an integral part of the American government system. Without it states rights would be pretty much non existant in most states reguarding voting as only a couple of states would matter. When going off of a pure democratic process why would Ohio matter when you should be focusing on NY and CA.

Thats where I disagree. I think that is there were no electoral college, there would be no need for state specific results. Of course there still would be, but you would campaigning to the people of the United States, urging them as a country to vote for you. Not campaigning for the people of Iowa, or Montana. The country would be united in the election, rather than divided by states.

Ummm Thats Great But Its Still Undemocratic.

Democratically Everyones Votes Would Be Equal. And Yes There May Be More Campaigning Done By Both Candidates In Larger Places, But If You Ignored The Small Ones You'd Lose Their Votes And They May Be The "swing" You Need

But thats the thing, the candidates would not ignore the smaller ones. They would think like you, and address the smaller populations. Look up on google or something how many times Bush or Kerry visited Wyoming, and thats only 3 electoral college votes.

A few things.

Because of the electoral college, the popular vote is not always indicative to the level of voter support anyone has. Republicans in California and New York as well as Democrats in Texas and Georgia don't vote because they are vastly outnumbered. If they did show up, who knows what the final tallies would be.

The states pick the president. There is no federal law that requires or expects people to vote for the electors. The states pick their electors. Each state has wisely chosen to let the people determine the electors. The electoral college is a way to give voice to small states.

To change the law will require a two thirds majority of the states to agree with it. This is unlikely as all the small population states would lose their voice. There is no way Alaska, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Wyoming, North and South Dekota, Idaho, Utah, Maine, West Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire or Montana would give it up (among others).













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Excellent explanation YOGS, and it should be a comfort to everyone that our elections aren't focused on New York, California, Texas, and Florida.
like......Florida and Ohio?
Those and a couple of others were the swing states THIS time. This changes for every election and is simply what happens every time. In 1984 it was NY, NJ, CA, and WA...
it's undemocratic.... complete B.S.
No, to have our elections completely controlled by large populous states every time would be complete BS!
Besides, we are NOT a democracy. We are a representative republic!
Totally defeats the purpose of democracy. What's the point when the majority does not win?
See above answer...
And as for giving every state a voice, we're electing the president as a nation, not as individual states.
WRONG!! States rights (10th amendment, remember) dictate that each state sends representatives to speak on their behalf in every national vote.
Seriously, there should be compulsary voter (political) education in democratic countries to make sure that people who have the power to vote understand the issues and the history... they should have to pass before they can vote!
Then Republicans would be undefeatable!! :grinyes:

The electoral system, needs to be revamped, rather than done away with completely. The electoral votes per states should be split by the candidates, rather than having all of them handed to the winner. In colorado, which has 9 electoral votes, all of them when to Bush. Did 100% of colorado vote for Bush? No. So why did he get 100% of the elctoral votes? Because the electoral system as it is in our state sucks.
What should have happened was that 5 votes went to Bush and 4 votes went to Kerry. Appart from actually making the system fair, this also keeps people from getting into the mindset that their vote isn't worth horse manure, if they're not the voting with the majority.
Bush, a lover of all things stupid came to our state, and told them not to vote for smart electoral system - even though our state is largely conservative and even if the old system had been abolished (which thanks to his brain poison it hasn't - at least for now anyway) he would have still won anyway.
As it stands, the system makes running for president like playing a game, than being elected by the public.

what this system needs is proportional representation and instant run off voting.

cant appeal to the majority...you dont win, but small states still get a voice. yay for smart voting.

The electoral system, needs to be revamped, rather than done away with completely. The electoral votes per states should be split by the candidates, rather than having all of them handed to the winner. Isn't Maine's system like that. I swear I saw a reference to that last night on CNN.

If it were set up like that then I would see it as a better system than it is now.

TS out

The electoral system, needs to be revamped, rather than done away with completely. The electoral votes per states should be split by the candidates, rather than having all of them handed to the winner. In colorado, which has 9 electoral votes, all of them when to Bush. Did 100% of colorado vote for Bush? No. So why did he get 100% of the elctoral votes? Because the electoral system as it is in our state sucks. .
That would essentially do the same thing as popular vote, eliminate the STATE voice. This system is set-up to allow individual states to cast a number of votes, based on districts, for the President. America is made up of 50 INDEPENDENT states (as in United STATES) each with their own Govenor, congress, and Senate.
You as an individual cannot throw 3 votes to one candidate and 5 to another splitting your ballot, and neither can your state.
It's really a brilliant system if you think about it...
Electoral college FAQ (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/questions.html)

No I think it's vermont that divides it's votes, of course it's vermont so all of them went to kerry ;). I think it should either all be like that or be the popular vote.

Isn't Maine's system like that. I swear I saw a reference to that last night on CNN.

Yes, Maine and Nebraska are set-up that way.
Maine and Nebraska also get the least federal funding for road-building, schools, infrastructure, and education simply because it's citizens no longer count in federal politics. If you aren't a voting "block" you have little voice in Washington D.C... United, we are much stronger!!!

Ummm Thought About It. Still Failing To See The Brilliance.

who cares about the voice of the state? its the voice of the PEOPLE we are talking about. take ohio. 51/49 Bush/Kerry. The electoral votes should be split 11/9 Bush/Kerry.

each representative in the state should get 1 electoral vote, same for each senator.Each representative shall cast their electoral vote for whichever candidate is the majority winner in their respective district.

That would be more fair. And more logical, since not one single state is 100% Bush or 100% Kerry.

That would be more fair. And more logical, since not one single state is 100% Bush or 100% Kerry.
Well, if it's any comfort to you 2000's election is one of onely 3 in our 228 years that the majority winner didn't win.... Non-issue.

Its about feeling that your vote counted for more than your state, I know it sucks to live in MA or TX because your vote won't matter in the scheem of things since they are definately going to go Democrat and Republican respectively.

Well, if it's any comfort to you 2000's election is one of onely 3 in our 228 years that the majority winner didn't win.... Non-issue.

Lets see... I am not going to assume that each district will have the same number of people... impossible. Each representative has their share of people to represent, and when a state gives all their electoral votes to one candidate... that is not fair representation. Quite simple. I am sure the people that voted for Kerry, in the states that gave Bush the electoral votes are quite pissed off. They werent fairly represented.

Seeing as the electoral college consists of the 50 senators, and the 488 representatives, giving a candidate all the electoral votes from an individual state isn't exactly fair. I dont disagree with the electoral college, it just needs to be changed around.

The electoral system, needs to be revamped, rather than done away with completely. The electoral votes per states should be split by the candidates, rather than having all of them handed to the winner. In colorado, which has 9 electoral votes, all of them when to Bush. Did 100% of colorado vote for Bush? No. So why did he get 100% of the elctoral votes?

The president is elected by the states, when one candidate has a majority of the votes in the state he wins the state and all of its electoral votes. That is the way it should be.


http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm


http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/

Its The Way It Is.

Its The American Way.

That Might Make It The Way It Should Be In America.

That Does Not Make It The Right Way Though.

I dont disagree with the electoral college, it just needs to be changed around.
The only thing you would do is turn it into a poopular election, which would be bad. I've tried to explain why this would hurt us all but all I can do is say, research the electoral system.

I give up... believe what you want to believe. this country is fucked up enough already.

i still think popular vote is the only way to have a democracy that is not corrupt.

i still think popular vote is the only way to have a democracy that is not corrupt.
For the last time......
The UNITED STATES is not a DEMOCRACY!!!!!!
It is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC!!!!

Do you know the difference??!! :eek7:

always with the US this US that... i don't give a fuck!

regardless of what the US is, democracy requires everyones votes be equal and counted.

you do have a good point the US (and most other countries people call democracies) is NOT a democracy... and so it would be nice if the media and polititians stopped trying to sing the praises of a democratic system when they aren't in one!

regardless of what the US is, democracy requires everyones votes be equal and counted.


Everyone's votes are equal and counted.

i'm assuming you are referring to the US.

in which case everyone (who votes) vote is equal and counted at a state level.

then the minority group from each state is neglected.... so therefore federally it has no value and is not counted.

the minority groups could easily make up the majority of the state. and if there were more parties or votes were split between more candidates it is quite conceivable that the vast majority of the population would have their votes discarded. (note: this majority would have not voted for the successful candidate, rather they would have voted for a mixture of other possible candidates)

in different states with different populations and different numbers of electral votes, each vote (from the majority and minority groups) is worth a different amount federally.
some state with 500K pop and 3EV means 1EV per 166K people.
another state with like 30M pop and 55EV means 1EV per 545K people.

that means that the in the first state your vote is worth 3 times as much as a person from the second state.

now. That is how i reach the conclusion that this system does not make every persons vote equal or make them count.

please attempt to explain how they are equal and inclusive because i'd love to know.

i'm assuming you are referring to the US.

in which case everyone (who votes) vote is equal and counted at a state level.

then the minority group from each state is neglected.... so therefore federally it has no value and is not counted.

the minority groups could easily make up the majority of the state. and if there were more parties or votes were split between more candidates it is quite conceivable that the vast majority of the population would have their votes discarded. (note: this majority would have not voted for the successful candidate, rather they would have voted for a mixture of other possible candidates)

in different states with different populations and different numbers of electral votes, each vote (from the majority and minority groups) is worth a different amount federally.
some state with 500K pop and 3EV means 1EV per 166K people.
another state with like 30M pop and 55EV means 1EV per 545K people.

that means that the in the first state your vote is worth 3 times as much as a person from the second state.

now. That is how i reach the conclusion that this system does not make every persons vote equal or make them count.

please attempt to explain how they are equal and inclusive because i'd love to know.


It sounds like you want everyone to be happy well you can't pleae everyone. We work on the majority of people rule. The only way for the majority and minority to be counted the way you want is to have only one person running for elected office.

Your EC example is wrong we have 531 EC votes and we have 531 congressmen and senators. Each EC vote goes for each congressal district and each senate district.. Each district should have the same number of people so that would mean each vote is equal.

no. by abolishing the stupid hypocritical EV system a popular vote could determine nationally from as many applicants as wanted to stand. Hard concept, but it really is a fundamental of voting. as i've said before, voter education should really be compulsary.... you score a fail.

and you're a little confused about your EV system cause each vote does NOT have the same number of people behind it.

go away and read.
http://www.aimlesswords.com/archives/20040526/the_us_electoral_college/

you have FAILED to show that votes are equal, and you have not even attempted to show that all votes are counted as your original statement explicitly said.

as it turns out. In this election, Bush deserved to win, he had the support of the people, and the EV system fortunately reflected that. In the last election his win was a farce on democracy.... most people voted against him but the minority that voted for him effectively had votes that were worth more. The system is a FAILURE.... i guess it suits you.

Your EC example is wrong we have 531 EC votes and we have 531 congressmen and senators. Each EC vote goes for each congressal district and each senate district.. Each district should have the same number of people so that would mean each vote is equal.

there are 538 electoral votes, thats why 270 are needed for a majority win. California has 53 reps, and 2 senators. Assuming they have 30 million people, each representative has 566,000 people. Michigan has 15 reps, and a total population of 10 million approximately, so that would be 666,667 people per rep. I am sure that California has more than 30 million, so you get the point. You are right, each rep (approx) counts for about the same number of people. Population shifts, expansions etc. cant be accounted for right away. With the population expanding, I would assume that certain states would get more reps.

There is something that a few people are ignoring. Its the STATES that pick the president - not the general population. The only federal election is for the President and the states chose who they want to lead them. Each states is represented by its portion of the congressional delegation. As I said before, each state wisely asks its citizens (instead of letting the governer pick) to vote for its electors. Though its presented as voting directly for the president, it isn't.

To many people in this country did not pay attention in civics. To many people inside and outside this country are making to many assumptions. Heres a some information for those who want to know how it works instead of pretending they know
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/vote/presidential_elections.shtml
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment12/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxii.html
http://users.aristotle.net/~hantley/hiedlegl/constitu/amend23.htm













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

so california and michigan are close... unless Alaska has like 1.5 million people then their votes are a little out....
reps count approximately the same number of people... but votes are NOT equal. alaska should have 1 vote for its 600k odd people. not 3.

so california and michigan are close... unless Alaska has like 1.5 million people then their votes are a little out....
reps count approximately the same number of people... but votes are NOT equal. alaska should have 1 vote for its 600k odd people. not 3.

You get one electroal vote for the 600K people and 2 votes for the senators which equals 3 total electraol votes.

I want the electorl college gone. A month before the election, the GOP and DNC were dead even, and our arrogant, snobbish limo-liberal delegates said, "we're still voting for Kerry because Kerry is what Hawaii REALLY wants."

i know why the small states have 3 times the voting power. the fact is in those states your vote counts for more... its the way it is in the american system, it's not democratic, and i know i know... America is a republic not a democracy.

Let's end this head-banging thread!! We'll start it again in 3.5 years anyway!! :banghead:

Links have been posted in how the system works. Why it works and how it can be changed. We've gone round and round enough times.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)