It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Electorial Collage

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
-Im not sure if neone has ever posted on this, but im new so here goes.

The one thing in the media around election time is how you should vote and how it is so great and such a freedom etc. now im not doubting that it is awsome that we can vote, but at the same time, why the hell should we vote on a national level? think about it, your not actually voting, your telling someone how you think they should vote.

This has never been more clear then in the 2000 elections. Gore won the popularity vote by a good number if im not mistaken, but at the same time Bush ended up winning the election.

Now on a state level this "electorial collage" does not exist, atleast to my knowledge. And such things as levys all the way to governor are directly decided by the people, and in my states case, no chaos has happened like what happened in the 2000 elections.

So this raises the question, why is the electorial collage there? And why vote for president?




posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
The Electoral College is the only way to get true representation. Otherwise candidates would only have to campaign in a few select states. What happened in 2000 is nothing new, it has happened a couple of times in our history. It is a great system and should not be messed with. In fact the only people who question this, are the uneducated, or democrats when it works to their disadvantage.

If you don't understand this, do us a favor and stay away from the ballot box.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
do me a favor and dont tell me what to do, i asked for information and opinions to the electorial collage, not what i should do.

aside from that, i dont see why without it that only a select group of states would be campaigned for, i can see less visits etc. but still there getting votes from a person directly, that way more things such as national conventions would take place where all of america could hear what they had to say on national television etc. and less little side notes said as this state not mentioned at another state.

edit

and yes I do understand it perfectly fine, i just dont agree with it, even tho i am an independant

[edit on 9/4/2004 by Zach]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zach
do me a favor and dont tell me what to do, i asked for information and opinions to the electorial collage, not what i should do.

.

edit


[edit on 9/4/2004 by Zach]



Sorry, I gave myself a time-out and did an instant replay on myself. You are actually doing the right thing by asking questions and trying to educate yourself.

I just get upset when both sides know the rules and just because something doesn't go in favor of a certain side, that side wants to change the rules.

ALGORE did not lose because of Florida, he lost because the people of his homestate of Tennessee thought Bush would make a better President.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
its cool

ya i was for bush, so i really cant complain about that

but im not of legal age of yet, and im still deciding weather or not voting is worth my time in 4 years.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Gore still won the popular vote... he had the most numbers. Majority rules, right?

Don't worry... I voted for neither. I was for Buchanan. Anyway...

The elctorial system is, in my opinion, useless. People these days know who they want, who they wish to see. It isn't like the old days when the elec system was first used... people didn't have access to information then. Today, we are educated, we know the candidates (or at least, the top two). We no longer need to have someone decide if we are voting in our best interests or not.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Your vote means just as much in the Electoral College as it does in a general election. Imagine if just 1000 more people in Florida who didn't vote but would have voted for Gore went to the polls. This country would have a different President. While during that election, Joe Blow in Washington State can say it didn't matter if he voted, it should make him think it could during the next election. Do you want to take the chance that your state will be the next Florida 2000?

Zach, it will be worth your time. Remember there are many important local issues that need to be voted on also. Just do me a favor. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it is the Electoral College, not Collage. They are not putting together a bunch of pictures.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcgolf
Imagine if just 1000 more people in Florida who didn't vote but would have voted for Gore went to the polls. This country would have a different President.


And you are saying what, exactly? Gore still had more votes then Bush. If I rmember the numbers right, even if Bush would have had 1000 more votes, Gore still had the MAJORITY of votes.

The popular vote is different than the electorial one. One counts the numbers of actual votes, the other decides how many votes makes a vote... but to say that the one with the most votes still loses makes no sense at all.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by soothsayer

Originally posted by dcgolf
Imagine if just 1000 more people in Florida who didn't vote but would have voted for Gore went to the polls. This country would have a different President.


And you are saying what, exactly? Gore still had more votes then Bush. If I rmember the numbers right, even if Bush would have had 1000 more votes, Gore still had the MAJORITY of votes.

The popular vote is different than the electorial one. One counts the numbers of actual votes, the other decides how many votes makes a vote... but to say that the one with the most votes still loses makes no sense at all.


I'm saying that Gore would have won Florida and the election. If there were just a popular vote, the candidates would only visit large cities and metropolitan areas. If a candidate could carry a majority in NYC, LA and Chicago it would outweigh the votes of North Dakota, South Dakota,etc. The Electoral College attempts to keep this from happening.

The fact of the matter is, that both parties know how the election works. Just because some people don't think it is fair that Gore had more votes but lost isn't an argument.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:40 AM
link   
In 1964 I made an Electoral Collage for school by clipping out a bunch of stuff about the election from Time magazine and gluing it posterboard...........


Seriously, though, there's another thread about this same topic called "The Electoral College" that you should check out.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by soothsayer I was for Buchanan. Anyway...


Pat Buchanan? Cool. You're the first person I ever heard say anything, good or bad, and I'm glad it's good about the man.

If I mention Pat Buchanan, people will give me a strange look and say " who is Pat Buchanan?"

I just answer, if I've got to explain, you'll never understand.

Getting back to the Electoral College, I've never quite understood what it's purpose is either. All I know is that the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution of the United States, and we've been using it ever since.

What I do understand is that each state has appointed Electors, which differs in numbers by each states population. They in turn throw their vote for the candidate in which the states they represent.

Beats me.


Newsflash: For a detailed explanation, go to ADHDsux4me's posting on the Electoral College.

[edit on 5/9/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
It is there so rural areas are represented... Without it, people in smaller rural communities would have no say because large areas could trample them- vote-wise.

for that reason it does serve an important purpose. without it, some jerk could promise an end to all taxes for current residents of a couple states and instantly the rest of us would have nothing we could do to stop him from winning.

Not that it would be that way, but the point is you don't want someone who only wants to help a certain area and has no reason to care about anyone else.
This way they have to be voted for all over the place. There is also a minimum number of electoral votes they need incase of multiple parties all getting many.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
The electorial college was put into the system to protect the people from themselves. It was created so that people would elect a representative, and that person would vote depending on factors such as popular vote in his state and what he might know as an intelligent representative. People at the beginning of this country were not "informed" voters, but today we have the media and you can see first hand the candidate you wish to vote for. Therefore the need for the electorial college has diminished.

Also do not try to imply that the national government would raise taxes in a particular state. It is the NATIONAL government which does things in the country as a whole. Is there a federal income tax for your particular state that is ONLY for your state, NO. So don't go putting notions in peoples heads that the president would have such power as to raise taxes accordingly. (Checks and Balances)



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Just what is the electoral college?

Under Article ll of the US constitution, electors from each state not ordinary citizens are given the authority to pick the nationss leader.

How does the system work?

In 48 states its a winner-take-all-system in election day the candidate that gets the greatest number of popular votes in each state gets all the of its electoral votes.

Why such a weird system?

It was the result of a compromise. When the founding fathers were drawing up the constitution in 1787 there were not political parties and no real national media. The founders feared that uninformed citizens would simply vote for favorite sons from their own states.

James Madison and several other framers devised the elector system, they did this to chose educated and politically involved in their ranks.

Has the system worked?

Well it did but for two centuries critics have complained that the elector system is a blot on the one-man, one-vote principle that is the foundation of democracy.

But wasnt that its intent?

It certainly was, but much has changed since 1787. In todays highly polarized American the electoral college does not ensure that presidential candidates pay attention to all states, In fact, it ensures the opposite the candidates will ignore the states swing state for the win it all states.

Is that the only objection?

Well Al Gore can attest, the mathematics of the electoral college make it possible to win the popular vote but lose the election. It happen four times in our history. The victims were,
Quincy Adams in 1824
Samuel J. Tilden 1876
Grover Cleveland 1888
Gore 2000

So why dont we junk the college?

Too many people like the system.

So were stuck with it?

It looks that way.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join