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.

 

The Electoral College

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   
This antiquated system, has outlived it's usefullness. It was originally setup to balance the General Populace, VS. the original United states in electing a President.

The way the Electoral College works is this:

Your popular vote goes to the Electoral College for you state, it tallies the votes of the Public who vote there. No matter the actual numbers of votes for one canndidate, the Electoral College is the body which elects the President. The state once it's vote's have been counted then Defers to the Electoral College to make the vote for one Cnadidate or Another Based upon how it's state's majority voted. So in state X, 10,000 vote for Bush, and 8,989 vote for Kerry, the Electoral College goes hmm OK Bush won our state. On Election Day we vote for Bush to become president.

This happens in every state, we actually do not vote for our President Directly, the state's Electoral College Vote's on our Majority Voice's behalf.

In The United States, we have states which are Overwhelmingly by population's political party, either are majority on one Party or Another. It has been this way for our current politcal situation for the last 50-60 years.

For instance I live in Massachusett's, we are are a majority Democratic Party State. So regardless if a few voices pop up for Republican, the Electoral college votes for our next President based upon the majority of it's state's votes.

So it is futile to vote against the majority of your state. Our popular vote does not count.

Where our Votes actually mean something to determine a President is if we live in Swing states where neither party is the Majority polotical force.

Why do you think The Canidates are campaigning all over them, like white on rice?

In closing, with polotical issues always being hotly contested in our modern day, we need to abolish the Electoral College, and Really have our Citizens have their voices and votes directly elect our president. It is not fair to go against our country's popular opinion, by using this system anymore. Regardless if a state has a majority of one parties votes or another, these votes should be counted, as every state should count them, and count a running Tally of popular vote's. So it doesn't matter currently what the populace wants, it's how the Electoral college votes from their state.

A snippet of Fact many may not realize, Ross Perot lost the Election in 1992 by not Winning a state's Electoral College. Had we implemented a true popular vote where our Voices directly elect a President, we would now know Former President Perot. He won the popular vote across the board beating Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton, but Clinton won the State's Majority from the electoral college, and hence was our President.

-ADHDsux4me




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Since the Constitution (which stipulates the Electoral College system) was ratified over 200 years ago, nobody has managed to come up with a better suggestion of how to do things. Going strictly by popular vote, even in this modern electronic age, opens up the national election to corruption at the local level. Florida in 2000 was not unique, it was just the most recent and dramatic example. In Missouri, a dead man beat a live one, and in 1960 legions of the dead were resurrected to vote in Daly's Chicago to clinch a victory for JFK over Nixon.

Until our society reaches a state where we can guarantee 100% accuracy for popular voting results and a 0% rate of fraud, the Electoral College system should remain.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Corruption would happen with or without the Electoral College, in fact the Diebold system voting machines are a good example. A better way does exist, it is being touted by our Current infrastructure in countries we are "promoting" in Free and Democratic countires right now, the Popular vote.

To Answer another problem, Population; it is said more populas area's would have a distinct advantage in a popular vote. I actually don't see this as being a problem, how is it the government's responsibility for telling the American Voter where to live to make it fair for the rest of the Nation for voting purposes.

Hey Bob, I'm sorry we the government deem it unfair to the rest of the Voting Public for you to move to Missouri, you have to stay in Alaska. You know the rules, it is your duty and your priviledge to vote, I'm sorry you can't find work where you are, or want to follow your American Dream.

There are plenty of sources to find information on Candidate's publicy and privately now as opposed to when the Country Established this system, it is antiquated, when other laws outlive their usefullness, we abolish or amend them.

One other thing regarding corruption, which group seems more likely to be corrupted, a small group of individuals who cast a vote on a promise they will directed by the will of the public. Or the masses themselves? How far would a 5 million dollar bribe go divided amongst 10 million people, as opposed to 2 people?

*Does Step Aerobics on my Soapbox*

-ADHDsux4me



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Damned great explanation. I knew it was something like that but never paid attention to the details.

Maybe I need to get my book back out on U.S. Government and re-read it

Thanks for the great post.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me

A snippet of Fact many may not realize, Ross Perot lost the Election in 1992 by not Winning a state's Electoral College. Had we implemented a true popular vote where our Voices directly elect a President, we would now know Former President Perot. He won the popular vote across the board beating Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton, but Clinton won the State's Majority from the electoral college, and hence was our President.

-ADHDsux4me


From everything I've read, Mr. Perot did not receive more popular votes than the other candidates. You may want to check your facts.

www.presidentelect.org...
www.multied.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I could be wrong, but I was fairly certain he had won the majority Popular Vote, or he had beaten at least one of the other candidates for Raw popular vote value, as opposed to who won more states.

I appreciate the point out. More or less, it just in opinion comes down to our voices and votes should be the one's that make a president, not a small group ruled by state majority. It ends up being like the round numbers game.

If an accountant used round numbers, in the same way as electoral college votes are represented, we'd have $1.00 on the books, for $1.04 in the bank, representing the actual popular votes, or money.

I wonder how Enron dealt with round numbers compared to real figures...?

-ADHDsux4me

P.S. To the person thanking me in this thread,
I appreciate your compliment!



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   


In closing, with polotical issues always being hotly contested in our modern day, we need to abolish the Electoral College, and Really have our Citizens have their voices and votes directly elect our president. It is not fair to go against our country's popular opinion, by using this system anymore.


WRONG!

Listen - what people do not understand is this - the US is NOT - I REPEAT, NOT - a democracy.

It is a democratic REPUBLIC! The reason for this is our for fathers wanting individual states to have power. If you don't like it, go somewhere else, but it is there for reasons you just have to except.

edit: typo

[edit on 5-9-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
A Government for the People, By the People.

You can't get anymore black and white than that.


Our Founding Father's, The Great people that they were never envisioned the U.S. to have evolved to the point we are at today. Just look at other societies, their government's changed with the times, as should ours.

The founding father's hoped beyond hoped, that the United States would continue to be a Bastion of Freedom, to most extents we are still. But what are our Government looks like today is not the decentralized government our founding fathers wanted. Yes in their time, State's rights to govern, to make a less powerfull central Government was a cultural backlash against previous rulership, aka the Monarchy of England.

Now our Country, barely even looks like the original draft of our constitution, however I don't see how corruption is any worse than it was in their day, it's just better publicized. We are still a great country, we have just evolved out of our infancy, and times need to change. Hopefully these changes can be in the spirit of what our founding father's would have approved of. A government for the people, by the people.

-ADHDsux4me



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me

If an accountant used round numbers, in the same way as electoral college votes are represented, we'd have $1.00 on the books, for $1.04 in the bank, representing the actual popular votes, or money.



The Electoral College does not round up or down as your example states. It takes a majority of each state. We always complain about the power the federal government has and we say we wish our states had more power. This attempts to provide that power to the state.


Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the number of delegates to the 2004 Electoral College in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   
here's the link:

story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20040905/pl_nm/campaign_college_dc_2

It bums me out, there needs to be a change. For all of the rights we are granted, we are not even given the right to directly make a president, that's taking the power to self-govern right out of the hands of the public.

-ADHDsux4me



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   
ADHD,

American Mad Man tried to tell you something and I think you ignored him. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutionalized republic. We have been that way since the day the constitution was ratified.

You are "directly" voting for the President. You are just viewing this skewed.

Let's say you live in Kansas - look at Kansas as your country. Kansas will have a general election and the winner from that general election (i.e. the popular vote) will establish how the electoral college of Kansas will vote.

A constitutionalized republic works from the will of the people as voiced through the will of states. You are directly voting for a president.

Now, if you want to talk about the 2 times that an electoral representative voted OPPOSITE to what he was mandated to vote by the popular vote of his state, then you're talking about something worth griping about. But in over 200 years I believe this has only happened twice.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Ok, here's my view....

I watched the election this year closer than I usually do. I mean the after election results. I live in a rural, backwards state and Kerry concided before my state even calculated 40% of its votes. I also watched as what I saw as unexceptable. It appeared to me that most states cast all their elctorial votes within the hour of the polls closing. When I finish this post, I quess I'll check to see if we've finished counting our votes. Is haveing the ability to predict the future a prerequisite for being a member of the electorial college? The electorial votes may have only been cast for the wrong canidate a few times but if it continues to go like this then the chances of it happening seem to grow more likely. I have no problem with the electorial college, when it works the way it should... i.e. actually waiting for the popular votes and voting accordingly, but I don't like feeling like my vote does not count at all. Just an observation....



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   


Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the number of delegates to the 2004 Electoral College in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]
The number of delegates to the 2004 Electoral College was 537.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   



Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the number of delegates to the 2004 Electoral College in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]



it was 538



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Majic's Political Easter Eggs


Originally posted by ragster
it was 538

Correct! 535 electors corresponding to the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress, and three electors representing the District of Columbia, for a grand total of 538 electors.

Sorry JohnDoe43, only one elector away! ragster scores 500 PTS Points!


For a blast from the past, check out this source:

www.cnn.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join