What is the true purpose of the Electoral college?

Funny thing that Bush lost California aginst Gore by big a big margin, with Arnold govenor as a Republican you know who ight actually win Cali. Cali being theh most populated state carries with it the most EC votes.

Originally posted by jrod
Funny thing that Bush lost California aginst Gore by big a big margin, with Arnold govenor as a Republican you know who ight actually win Cali. Cali being theh most populated state carries with it the most EC votes.

I LOVE hearing pundits discuss and strategize the state thing. It's true, if you win California and Texas and/or NY, even by one or two popular votes, it looks like an electoral landslide.

I have always wondered why there is no RISK type game for political junkies. It would be AWESOME. Instead of war, campaign, do interviews, etc. I mean I can totally see a computer game. Raise money, pick states to advertise, visit...clock is ticking. With some elements to luck. But strategy matters. You start off knowing bad stuff (like you did coke) but try to not let it come up. Randomly assigned stuff.

Damn any programmers, or people with game contacts? This WILL be a game one day (if it isn't now). I keep being a day late and a dollar short. Help a brother out!

Even better! A NWO game where you're the shadow elite. Starting in 1776, you've got 250 years to pull it off. Political route? Corporate? Religious? Might be too hard to program, but damn that would be a fun game. How much do you contribute to Underground Stream this year Lord Rant? Assassignation que?

[Edited on 28-12-2003 by RANT]

Originally posted by RANT


I LOVE hearing pundits discuss and strategize the state thing. It's true, if you win California and Texas and/or NY, even by one or two popular votes, it looks like an electoral landslide.

See now this right here proves that the Electoral college does NOT even things up.
The only way that would be true is if every state got only one vote no matter how many people it represented.
People do not agree with each other simply because they are in the same state, which shoots the logic of all of california voting one guy and overriding the votes of several smaller states a mute point.
It is not likely to happen, never the less. Each person no matter where they live has a right to have their vote count. the electoral college prevents this from happening by turning all of the electoral votes in the state into votes for ONE party that won by the majority.
So suddenly everyone who voted for the Other guy are now a vote for the guy who won out.
NOT RIGHT
I think its a load of crap.
I think they would like us to believe it evens things out, but the above post proves that it does not.
They are telling us what they think we need to hear to accept it as the logical way to do it.

I live in a very republican state, and I voted for Gore last election, therefore my vote didn't really count since we use the EC to decide elections. Even if it would be split 51-49 percentage wise in a state those 49% of the votes might as well be thrown away since they don't count. Most people who don't vote say it's because they think their vote won't count, and they are right if they vote against the majority in their state.

Thats my point exactly Jfetch.

This is not really a system of power to the people in its true sense.

[Edited on 28-12-2003 by NephraTari]

When you, and everyone you know, and most of your town (for example) or 40 some percent of YOUR state vote for one guy...but all 15 delegates from your state go to the other.

If it were representative, they'd be split. Heck, in theory the WHOLE thing just makes a third party candidate unviable. One day, a Libertarian will win Maine, maybe a few other states. Wouldn't they like a delegate or two from the other states where they carried 10 or 20%

But the drawback is, every election will start to look like the California recall. A MINORITY of Californians elected an action hero, because THE MAJORITY split their votes among 50 other candidates.

do any states use the EC to decide elections? If not, why not? If it's such a "fair" way to decide, wouldn't states be using it beciuse of the population shifts in counties?

Some people will never understand.:bnghd:

Originally posted by DClark
Some people will never understand.:bnghd:

Perhaps some people just don't question enough.

Is it fear?

[Edited on 28-12-2003 by NephraTari]

If you are talking about me, you just didn't notice the sarcasm in my last post.

I think that whoever gets the most votes in an election should win. It may be a simple system, but it's the one that makes the most sense to me. Metropolitan areas will have more pull than rural areas, but that's as it should be. They have MORE PEOPLE.

Anyway, it's not as if all the people living in cites have to vote for a certain candidate and all the country folk have to for for a different one.

Have you people learned nothing? I live in Wisconsin, not the United States.

If there were only a popular vote, state sovereignty would dissolve, and we would all be ruled by a single government, the United States Government.

By eliminating the Electoral College, it would be a dagger in the heart of state rights and sovereignty. The final blow, killing off any purpose of the state's existence, and government.

Being ruled by those in California, Texas, and New York, does not sound like fun to me.

I think that viewpoint is a bit extreme.
You do not have to sacrifice the states to illiminate the electoral college.
The two are seperate entities with seperate purposes.
We are talking about the Electoral Collage, not the senate and house of representatives.

big difference there.

Taking an extremist viewpoint is a good way to bully a point across though when all other arguments have been exhausted.

I am from WI too, so as you can see that does not mean that all people from smaller population states feel threatened by this idea.

Being for states rights and the electoral college is being an extremist???
Just because someone disagrees with your point of view does not mean they are an extremist. What's an extremist anyways?

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
Have you people learned nothing? I live in Wisconsin, not the United States.

If there were only a popular vote, state sovereignty would dissolve, and we would all be ruled by a single government, the United States Government.

Good.

NephraTari, I will have to respectfully disagree and agree with what BeingWatchedByThem, and yes, it is a big deal, not over-dramatic, nor is it an extremist view. Its a very plausible, if not possible, scenerio.
I posted this once and will again, with its excerpts:
"Electoral College"
Link:
www.maitreg.com...


Excerpts:
"What would happen if we abolished the Electoral College?"

"This is basically common sense. What would happen when you decrease the power of government representation for a group of states? What if we abolished the U.S. Senate? This is exactly the same thing. Abolishing the Electoral College or Senate would reduce the government representation of the smallest states to make it illogical to remain in the Union. This has happened before, in 1860. I shouldn't need to remind you of the 620,000 deaths over the next five years after that. You think that was bloody? Try abolishing the Electoral College or Senate in the 21st Century. You'll see division in this country not seen since the War for Southern Independence. Only this time, the two sides are not geographically separated. Our decades of racial, religious, and political integration in this country will come to haunt us in the future. It will be then when the nation's integrity and peace are ultimately challenged. Can we divide into two nations peacefully with few problems or will the liberals insist that we fight another war? Is 10 million deaths worth a segment of the country retaining domination over the rest? Only time will tell. I hope and pray that future leaders will foresee the blood-shedding and prevent it before it's too late."


"So who would want to abolish the Electoral College if it tears the country apart?"

"The same people who want to do away with ALL states' rights. They don't understand the purpose of having states in the first place. These people would prefer living under an omnipotent centralized government. They believe that their lives will be much more secure under such rule. Those of us who oppose such government power recognize that a strong centralized government that can deliver perfect security from invading and interior forces then itself becomes the primary enemy as it controls its own power limits. If you let anyone or anything determine its own limit of power, then it will choose not to limit itself. A "secure" nation is one with a perfect balance of limited government and national/domestic defense. Any shift in either direction leaves the population at serious risk to domestic and/or foreign opposition."


This may come from one site but I would be willing to bet that the sentiments echoed above would be seen in various and numerous others information pertaining to the Electorial College and any possible scenerio revolving around getting rid of it and the consequences of doing so.


regards
seekerof

Hmm....being from the south, I start to get nervous when people start talking about "States Rights".

www.maitreg.com...


Excerpts:
"What would happen if we abolished the Electoral College?"

" This is exactly the same thing. Abolishing the Electoral College or Senate would reduce the government representation of the smallest states to make it illogical to remain in the Union.

propaganda to keep it going.
Have you considered the fact that the smallest states already have drastically less representation?
13 electoral votes in one state to 3 in another is a huge difference.
The electoral college does NOT make the balance equal.
If that were so then California would have the same number of votes as South Dakota.
The number is still greater based on population. It is a silly statement to say that it would reduce their power... they already have diminished power due to their size, the difference would be minimal.
The USA is about the PEOPLE not the state government.
again. that bit of info is meant to convince people not to question it.
I don't buy it.