WWTBAM Bored

I hope I spelled that correctly.

Any hoo, it may be front and center tonight.

I see where some on this board think it should be abolished for one reason or another.

I would like to see a thread of pro-electoral and anti-electoral college reasons. If for no other reason that to be able to explain it to those who may be upset by the results tonight.

I for one like the electoral college. We are not a single political entity. We are union of separate political entities who's (or is it whose?) individual identities and autonomies should and must be protected. We are the United States. So Iowa, Utah, and Montana are as important to the union as California, Texas, and Florida.

I like the way the Founding Fathers set us up.

BackInTex wrote:I hope I spelled that correctly.

Any hoo, it may be front and center tonight.

I see where some on this board think it should be abolished for one reason or another.

I would like to see a thread of pro-electoral and anti-electoral college reasons. If for no other reason that to be able to explain it to those who may be upset by the results tonight.

I for one like the electoral college. We are not a single political entity. We are union of separate political entities who's (or is it whose?) individual identities and autonomies should and must be protected. We are the United States. So Iowa, Utah, and Montana are as important to the union as California, Texas, and Florida.

I like the way the Founding Fathers set us up.

The Electoral College makes my vote absolutely useless....

10 miles and a river away from me, votes for the Presidency will actually make a difference because Missouri could go either way....

I don't figure that my vote is actually going to decide a nationwide election, but when my vote means less than other peoples votes in other states do, that irritates me.....

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:I hope I spelled that correctly.

Any hoo, it may be front and center tonight.

I see where some on this board think it should be abolished for one reason or another.

I would like to see a thread of pro-electoral and anti-electoral college reasons. If for no other reason that to be able to explain it to those who may be upset by the results tonight.

I for one like the electoral college. We are not a single political entity. We are union of separate political entities who's (or is it whose?) individual identities and autonomies should and must be protected. We are the United States. So Iowa, Utah, and Montana are as important to the union as California, Texas, and Florida.

I like the way the Founding Fathers set us up.

The Electoral College makes my vote absolutely useless....

10 miles and a river away from me, votes for the Presidency will actually make a difference because Missouri could go either way....

I don't figure that my vote is actually going to decide a nationwide election, but when my vote means less than other peoples votes in other states do, that irritates me.....

lb13

It's like Gratuitous Voting!

Boring Mini wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:I hope I spelled that correctly.

Any hoo, it may be front and center tonight.

I see where some on this board think it should be abolished for one reason or another.

I would like to see a thread of pro-electoral and anti-electoral college reasons. If for no other reason that to be able to explain it to those who may be upset by the results tonight.

I for one like the electoral college. We are not a single political entity. We are union of separate political entities who's (or is it whose?) individual identities and autonomies should and must be protected. We are the United States. So Iowa, Utah, and Montana are as important to the union as California, Texas, and Florida.

I like the way the Founding Fathers set us up.

The Electoral College makes my vote absolutely useless....

10 miles and a river away from me, votes for the Presidency will actually make a difference because Missouri could go either way....

I don't figure that my vote is actually going to decide a nationwide election, but when my vote means less than other peoples votes in other states do, that irritates me.....

lb13

It's like Gratuitous Voting!

At least gratiutous voting is an actual crime..... or at least it's supposed to be......

I will try to outvote Kay.....

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

Boring Mini wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote: The Electoral College makes my vote absolutely useless....

10 miles and a river away from me, votes for the Presidency will actually make a difference because Missouri could go either way....

I don't figure that my vote is actually going to decide a nationwide election, but when my vote means less than other peoples votes in other states do, that irritates me.....

lb13

It's like Gratuitous Voting!

At least gratiutous voting is an actual crime..... or at least it's supposed to be......

I will try to outvote Kay.....

lb13

I can hear you!!

kayrharris wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:

Boring Mini wrote: It's like Gratuitous Voting!

At least gratiutous voting is an actual crime..... or at least it's supposed to be......

I will try to outvote Kay.....

lb13

I can hear you!!

Funny, I don't say my posts out loud....

Maybe that is the gnawing of wires you hear.......

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

kayrharris wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote: At least gratiutous voting is an actual crime..... or at least it's supposed to be......

I will try to outvote Kay.....

lb13

I can hear you!!

Funny, I don't say my posts out loud....

Maybe that is the gnawing of wires you hear.......

lb13

Keep that flea infested squirrel away from me!

kayrharris wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:

kayrharris wrote: I can hear you!!

Funny, I don't say my posts out loud....

Maybe that is the gnawing of wires you hear.......

lb13

Keep that flea infested squirrel away from me!

He just took a bath last week.

I even used the wire brush on him.....

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote: The Electoral College makes my vote absolutely useless....

10 miles and a river away from me, votes for the Presidency will actually make a difference because Missouri could go either way....

I don't figure that my vote is actually going to decide a nationwide election, but when my vote means less than other peoples votes in other states do, that irritates me.....

lb13

How so? Say we don't have an electoral college and Obama wins by 37 million votes. Do i say my vote didn't count?

Just because your vote wasn't on the winning side, whether it is a semi-final or a championship doesn't mean it is useless

BackInTex wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote: The Electoral College makes my vote absolutely useless....

10 miles and a river away from me, votes for the Presidency will actually make a difference because Missouri could go either way....

I don't figure that my vote is actually going to decide a nationwide election, but when my vote means less than other peoples votes in other states do, that irritates me.....

lb13

How so? Say we don't have an electoral college and Obama wins by 37 million votes. Do i say my vote didn't count?

Just because your vote wasn't on the winning side, whether it is a semi-final or a championship doesn't mean it is useless

If there were no electoral college, my vote would be the same as a vote in Texas, or a vote in Missouri, or a vote in Iowa, et. al.

With the electoral college, my vote is only counting towards the total in my state. Thus, if my state leans heavily one way or the other, my vote is for all intenstsand purposes useless.... while votes in states where the race is tight are actually critical in determining who will get the precious EC votes....

I wouldn't mind the EC id it weren't "winner take all", but in its present form it's another reason I tend towards apathy....

lb13

kayrharris wrote:Our election process does need to be fixed. I seldom admit it,
but I almost agree with lb!!

If you admitted you agree with me more often, I wouldn't be so upset that you post so much......

lb13

kayrharris wrote:Our election process does need to be fixed. I seldom admit it,
but I almost agree with lb!!

I'm still reeling from the shock of finding out he was registered to vote! He'll get bounced from the NAP fer sure!

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote: The Electoral College makes my vote absolutely useless....

10 miles and a river away from me, votes for the Presidency will actually make a difference because Missouri could go either way....

I don't figure that my vote is actually going to decide a nationwide election, but when my vote means less than other peoples votes in other states do, that irritates me.....

lb13

How so? Say we don't have an electoral college and Obama wins by 37 million votes. Do i say my vote didn't count?

Just because your vote wasn't on the winning side, whether it is a semi-final or a championship doesn't mean it is useless

If there were no electoral college, my vote would be the same as a vote in Texas, or a vote in Missouri, or a vote in Iowa, et. al.

With the electoral college, my vote is only counting towards the total in my state. Thus, if my state leans heavily one way or the other, my vote is for all intenstsand purposes useless.... while votes in states where the race is tight are actually critical in determining who will get the precious EC votes....

I wouldn't mind the EC id it weren't "winner take all", but in its present form it's another reason I tend towards apathy....

lb13

I feel the same as lb. Everybody's vote only counts if everybody's vote is counted and they all count the same.

As it is now, some votes count more than others depending on the state. And some people's votes aren't even counted at all because they won't count. In a popular vote, every vote counts.

Electoral College = All votes are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Boring Mini wrote:

kayrharris wrote:Our election process does need to be fixed. I seldom admit it,
but I almost agree with lb!!

I'm still reeling from the shock of finding out he was registered to vote! He'll get bounced from the NAP fer sure!

If the politicians knew I always vote for losers, I'm sure I'd be disenfranchised..... or at least bribed to vote against them....

I actually like voting, even if I don't take it very seriously.....

I shoulda voted for the squirrel...........

Dammit!

lb13

Get rid of the Electoral College because . . .

1. For me, I live in what is basically a one-party state. Whether I vote for a member of that party for president or not, the result is something of a foregone conclusion.

2. There was a map in last Sunday's New York Times that showed how much votes in different states count relative to one another. Because there are a minimum of three electors per state, votes in very small states count more than those in bigger states. That's just wrong.

3. As a country, we don't need the uncertainty and feelings of disenfranchisement (?) that comes with an election where one candidate wins the popular vote but another wins the presidency. I know those are the rules, but sometimes rules are bad and are changed (the original plan of the 2nd place presidential candidate becoming the VP) or should be changed (the DH in baseball).

One reason to keep the electoral college - because my state is so heavily blue, we have been spared a good deal of the mailings, phone calls, and advertising around the presidential election. On the other hand, that's just a sign of how little my vote really matters (whether I vote for the blue candidate or not).

I will continue to support the Electoral College because despite all the valid complaints, the EC is the last (and I do mean last) vestige of the original Federalist system set up by our Founders. If we lose the EC, then we will no longer have the system of government under which the nation was formed. It will be a decent shadow of it (and still better than any other system in the history of humankind), but it will not be that system.

I tell you what, I'll trade you the Electoral College if you'll give me back No Direct Taxation of the People and No Direct Election of Senators.

The electoral college does give a candidate with a smaller bankroll (in this case McCain, in 2004 Kerry) an opportunity to compete. In a straight popular vote, you would see Obama saturation buying of time in NYC, Chicago, LA and other media centers to boost his totals there (a well-off Republican could do the same thing in another election). But by strategically campaigning in the swing states and less expensive markets (Richmond and Charlotte are a lot less expensive to advertise in), McCain has a chance this year.

trevor_macfee wrote:Get rid of the Electoral College because . . .

Because there are a minimum of three electors per state, votes in very small states count more than those in bigger states. That's just wrong.

So you disagree with the structure of the Senate?

littlebeast13 wrote:I wouldn't mind the EC id it weren't "winner take all", but in its present form it's another reason I tend towards apathy....
lb13

So, would you prefer that the electoral college functioned more like the way that Nebraska and Maine do it? (Each Congressional District has a winner, and then overall state winner gets two votes)

Granted, it looks good for small states like NE and ME, but it loses its appeal if the loser of the overall state vote in CA, TX, or NY can get more total EC votes based on narrowly winning several districts.

Small states will never allow the Electoral College to disappear, as we do not want the President to be chosen by voters in California and New York. There is the fear of what type of candidates might arise if they do not have to care what the people in the Midwest think, for example.

trevor_macfee wrote:3. As a country, we don't need the uncertainty and feelings of disenfranchisement (?) that comes with an election where one candidate wins the popular vote but another wins the presidency. I know those are the rules, but sometimes rules are bad and are changed (the original plan of the 2nd place presidential candidate becoming the VP) or should be changed (the DH in baseball)

This has happened only 4 times in the nation's history...only once since 1888.

Jeemie wrote:

trevor_macfee wrote:3. As a country, we don't need the uncertainty and feelings of disenfranchisement (?) that comes with an election where one candidate wins the popular vote but another wins the presidency. I know those are the rules, but sometimes rules are bad and are changed (the original plan of the 2nd place presidential candidate becoming the VP) or should be changed (the DH in baseball)

This has happened only 4 times in the nation's history.

That's four times too many.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I will continue to support the Electoral College because despite all the valid complaints, the EC is the last (and I do mean last) vestige of the original Federalist system set up by our Founders. If we lose the EC, then we will no longer have the system of government under which the nation was formed. It will be a decent shadow of it (and still better than any other system in the history of humankind), but it will not be that system.

I tell you what, I'll trade you the Electoral College if you'll give me back No Direct Taxation of the People and No Direct Election of Senators.

Cal and I agree totally on something - and give the 10th amendment a little weight while you are at it.

Bob Juch wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

trevor_macfee wrote:3. As a country, we don't need the uncertainty and feelings of disenfranchisement (?) that comes with an election where one candidate wins the popular vote but another wins the presidency. I know those are the rules, but sometimes rules are bad and are changed (the original plan of the 2nd place presidential candidate becoming the VP) or should be changed (the DH in baseball)

This has happened only 4 times in the nation's history.

That's four times too many.

There were extenuating circumstances in three of them (maybe all 4 if you think Bush finagled 2000).

1825- John Quincy Adams won the popular vote AND the electoral vote, but not a majority of electoral votes, so the election went to the House.

1877- Hayes basically bargained with the Democrats for them to award him all the disputed electoral votes. Most modern historians think Tilden won the election. Such chicanery probably wouldn't happen today.

1888- Harrison won based on vote tampering in close states like Indiana. Today, most historians consider 1888 to be the most fraudulent election in history.

1825 couldn't happen today (or stands a miniscule chance of happening) with the two-party system. And 1877 and 1888 were marked with deceit and chicanery.

The system generally works, and prevents elections from being decided by the large coastal cities.

And Cal and BiT are correct- we are a FEDERALIST system, not a homogeneous democracy (despite all attempts to eliminate the last remaining structures of federalism).

I agree with BiT, but I have a different reason for supporting the EC- although the reminder that this is an election by the states is a good one.

In countries that have a parliamentary system, like the UK, one party has to be in power. They do this either by getting members of their party elected to a majority of the seats in parliament, or by forming a coalition with smaller parties.
The party in power either has to appeal to a majority of the electorate, or they have to accomodate the minority party to form a coalition. The system has built in the assumption that the ruling party has to accomodate the will of the people, either by getting voted in or by coming to agreements with parties that a substantial number of the people have voted for. As a practical matter, it requires any party who wants to be in power to compromise- either in its own platform or subsequently, with a partner in the coalition. This keeps extreme views from coming to power, and the country is governed, more or less, from the center. (I realize this doesn't happen all the time, every time, but that's the way it tends.)

In the US, we don't have a parliamentary system. Legislators are elected by district or state, and the legislators represent (or should) their local interests, one would hope with an enlightened respect for the national interest. But they are, up and down elected locally, so it is all the more important that the executive represent the will of the country as much as possible.

Which is why it would be bad for the US to have a president who only represented one segment of the population. And, I'm not talking just geographic. Would it be possible for someone to be elected who was only looking out for the interests of the urban population, or just the rural population? Or maybe manufacturing interests or high tech or agriculture?

If we had popular election of the president, it is possible someone could run on a platform and say, "We are only looking out for the cities. If you live in a city, vote for me," and win. Or appeal to some other large group or group to the exclusion of other economic or demographic group.

Such a narrow appeal is much harder in the Electoral College system. A candidate has to win different states- some rural, some urban, for instance. And, even more important, a candidate must win states that have different demographic groups within them. A naked appeal to one interest group will not work in many states, and in the EC system, you don't win a state, you don't win the election.

The EC system, for all its faults, forces the candidates to develop their appeal to a wide range of people- that is, represent the American people as a whole, as much as they can. A popular vote system would not do that to the extent that the EC system does.

I live in NY, and my vote for president is proportionately about 1/3 as significant as that of someone in Wyoming. But I still think the Electoral College is a good idea.

This went long. My apologies.