Eliminate the Electoral College

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
www.huffingtonpost.com...


The Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics today.

The primary impact of the Electoral College is to give the citizens of some states more influence over the presidential election than citizens of other states. If you live in a Battleground State you are showered with attention. Your issues gain traction at the national level. You have political power. But if you happen to live in a Red State or a Blue State -- as do roughly 79% of Americans according to Nate Silver's electoral map -- then you are pretty much out of luck. Your vote doesn't matter. And when we say "your vote doesn't matter," we can actually quantify this. According to the Princeton Election Consortium a vote in Nevada this year (a small battleground state) is over one million times more likely to have an impact on this election than a vote in New Jersey (a large Blue state).

This is horribly unjust. It makes a mockery of the principal of "one man, one vote"; it doesn't matter if we all get one vote when some votes are worth more than others.


So, What do you think? Personally, I'd rather be rid of it. I live in Tennessee, the truth is this is a hard red state. The GOP could nominate Pol Pot and he would win this state. I'm sure many GOP members in California feel something similar to what I do. What's the point in voting if your vote doesn't count really? Then of course some states are more important than others. People say it's to protect "states rights"-This makes no sense as most states have laws that force the delegates to vote according to the popular vote in the state. WHy not just get rid of the middle man and have a national election determined by the popular vote?




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


The problem with a purely popular vote is that the low population states would never get any attention.

I do agree that getting rid of the electoral college is a good idea. I believe that getting rid of the winner take all approach needs to go away as well.

Maybe a system where each congressional district is determined by popular vote and the winner of each district gets one "point" and the winner of the over all popular vote of the state gets an extra 2 points. There would be the same number of points available as there are seats in congress. Winner would be the one with the most points. This way, states with large cities would not give all their electoral votes to the candidate who won in the larger cities leaving the rural voters not as well represented. Also, splitting up the points in the larger population states would put the lower population states back in play forcing more than a fly-over campaign to win their support.

Just a thought...
edit on 2-10-2012 by LevelHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
it really should come down to a simple majority vote

heck, they even let women vote now


oh, and I would pass a law no polling statin may release results until noon the next day. I think the west coast is influened by "declared winners" by the networks when the polls are still open

we can wait a day



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The electoral college is the only thing that gives a small state any standing or say in the Presidential election at all. Hence..the only reason Presidents tend to even care about bothering with many states who otherwise wouldn't hold the numbers to matter.

It's the only area of the elections system that uses it, but it was demanded in the very beginning so states like Virginia didn't just overwhelm and make outright irrelevant other states like Rhode Island. Obviously, popular vote may not match up then, in the earliest days of the nation or now. It wasn't strictly meant to and election of the single most powerful man in the nation by popular vote is literally mob rule.

It's been awhile since I did any numbers on this and as it happens, this may be the topic I pick tonight for a school animation presentation I have to get done within a couple weeks (If so, I'll share the end product with ATS of course) but I seem to recall it being around 13 for how many Metro areas any side would have to get voting with all eligible voters to essentially make everything outside that meaningless for importance to the Presidential outcome on popular total alone. It's the precise reasoning the founders used in establishing the system, actually.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The electoral college is the only thing that gives a small state any standing or say in the Presidential election at all. Hence..the only reason Presidents tend to even care about bothering with many states who otherwise wouldn't hold the numbers to matter.


Does not compute. If the electoral college was gone it wouldn't matter what the population of the state happens to be. It would be one person, one vote and to me that is better than what we have now.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

I have a better idea, lets get rid of the party system altogether!



-Lets have people run on their own beliefs and not be affiliated with a party or platform.

-Lets have candidates that speak their mind.

-Lets have candidates that don't have to be millionaires and can relate to the average American.

-Lets have candidates run that take the best ideas from all parties.

-Let's fire all the political spin doctors.

-Lets stop the bickering and partisanship in congress and the senate, and start voting candidates that don't have labels and cement platforms.

Oh, and of course get rid of the electoral college.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


That's what I was trying to allude to talking about populous states versus not so populous states. The same could be said about cities within states creating that very problem, which was why I was trying to apply that same reasoning down to the district level within each state.

Only 13 cities to win the popular vote in the US - Wow...



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Who care how states or cities are represented? If the electoral college was gone each single person would be equally represented, and I personally think that is most important. I get so frustrated with this issue because I live in Illinois. We're a blue state. I have always voted Red. Not to say this will always be my vote, but my vote only counts if I vote Blue. This election it is like why even vote if my vote isn't for Obama?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
No, don’t get rid of the Electoral College. We’ve already messed with the original intent enough by changing the Senate to a popular vote. If you do, the president will be elected by the east and west coasts and the fly over states might as well be vassal states to the coasts. They’d never get a say because between New York and California it would be a done deal.

The original idea is that the “United States” was plural, individual states that gave up SOME powers to the Federal government, such as to “provide for the common defense,” for example. The Senate was designed to give EQUAL representation for every single state, no matter what its size or population, thus Texas was no better nor more powerful than Rhode Island, Wyoming no less powerful than California.

By using the Electoral College we give at least some semblance of importance to small less populous states. You can’t win without addressing their needs, too. It’s a very slight advantage. It rarely results in an upset. See here: uspoliticsguide.com... for any election we’ve ever had.

For the vast majority of you who continually express the idea that the Federal government is too strong, that states’ rights have weakened, and that we live is an over whelming statist Big Brother dictatorship, well, if you get your way on this issue, it will only make it more so. The Electoral College has little to do with so-called "battle-ground" states. They are simply places where the vote is deemed close.

Democracy is Mob Rule dominated by people who vote for Obama because he gave them a free phone. It panders to an average IQ of 100. Give the Republic a chance to survive. Don’t get rid of the Electoral College.

And screw the left wing Huffington Post.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 

As I said, one person/one vote isn't the point for the election of the President. The whole intent was that we never be saddled with a leader that had power similar to a King or potentate. Similarly, this was back when not all states necessarily HAD to agree to this and telling the smaller states that New York or Virginia with their massive populations made them meaningless, but sign this Constitution and join the new Union, simply wasn't going to work.

I did a little looking for numbers and indeed, there are real good reasons why, for this one race and the one man given SO much power, the system is designed to mandate it be a choice of general national consensus.

This is actual turnout in recent times (Source)


Regional populations (Source)


and the most important reason why the Electoral College is really necessary? Here are the states with MORE than enough population between them to elect the President given sheer numbers alone. (Source)

And the states who'd be lucky to ever see a Presidential plane briefly pass through their radar screens while travelling elsewhere...


There are things I don't like about the system too, but for the only election of truly national meaning, it'd have to be this system or one very similar...or we can just erase the whole notion of states as meaningful things in their own right and just call it one big ...less than happy...nation. We aren't the United States if it's straight majority rule though...not for a number of them anyway.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LevelHeaded
Maybe a system where each congressional district is determined by popular vote and the winner of each district gets one "point" and the winner of the over all popular vote of the state gets an extra 2 points. There would be the same number of points available as there are seats in congress. Winner would be the one with the most points. This way, states with large cities would not give all their electoral votes to the candidate who won in the larger cities leaving the rural voters not as well represented. Also, splitting up the points in the larger population states would put the lower population states back in play forcing more than a fly-over campaign to win their support.


This is a system employed by two of the fifty states. I made a thread three years ago about the numbers had every state employed this method; Democratizing the Electoral College



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




election of the single most powerful man in the nation by popular vote is literally mob rule.

Exactly.

Restructure and reform it? YES! But doing away with the electoral college is a BIG mistake. This country is NOT a democracy. And the day you turn it into one, it will take its last breath.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LevelHeaded
reply to post by antonia
 


The problem with a purely popular vote is that the low population states would never get any attention.

I do agree that getting rid of the electoral college is a good idea. I believe that getting rid of the winner take all approach needs to go away as well.

Maybe a system where each congressional district is determined by popular vote and the winner of each district gets one "point" and the winner of the over all popular vote of the state gets an extra 2 points. There would be the same number of points available as there are seats in congress. Winner would be the one with the most points. This way, states with large cities would not give all their electoral votes to the candidate who won in the larger cities leaving the rural voters not as well represented. Also, splitting up the points in the larger population states would put the lower population states back in play forcing more than a fly-over campaign to win their support.

Just a thought...
edit on 2-10-2012 by LevelHeaded because: (no reason given)


Actually I have heard this argument before about the low populated states not recieving any attention. Well.....if you make every citizens vote the same then EVERYONE will recieve attention....not just the "battleground" states. But they are so scared of making ANY election a "most votes wins" election. Because as it stands, you can win the popular vote and still lose the election....it's a completely asinine system.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




election of the single most powerful man in the nation by popular vote is literally mob rule.

Exactly.

Restructure and reform it? YES! But doing away with the electoral college is a BIG mistake. This country is NOT a democracy. And the day you turn it into one, it will take its last breath.



Waiddaminute! Isn't that what it's supposed to be? BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE?! Essentially "mob" rule? I say hell yes do away with this antiquated unfair system and let the people actually choose who they want by popular demand....that is the entire reason we vote for crying out loud....to choose the candidate WE want not the candidate with the most "electoral" votes...it's a sham.

The electoral college is NOT for the people at all.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 





Democracy is Mob Rule dominated by people who vote for Obama because he gave them a free phone. It panders to an average IQ of 100.


Well aren't you just insulting? Your hypothesis is silly. There are plenty of people on the east and west coast who vote GOP. How is the current winner take all system fair to them? How does that represent them? It doesn't. That's the point. And how is a direct popular vote mob rule? We vote now for President and as a rule whoever wins the popular vote gets the majority of electoral votes. Isn't that mob rule? So what would we really be changing except removing the middle man?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AutOmatIc
 


I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...


Read Wrabbit2000's first post above. Mob rule doesn't work. It never has. It never will.

Thomas Jefferson said it well:

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."


edit on 10/2/2012 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Democracy is Mob Rule dominated by people who vote for Obama because he gave them a free phone. It panders to an average IQ of 100.


The average IQ is 100...so Obama panders to...everyone?

reply to post by AutOmatIc
 


The problem with the popular vote logic is that it turns New York and California into the only battleground states. No other state will seem to matter as much as those two. If direct democracy were to occur then you'd do nothing more than shift the battleground states to those that are most populated. Nebraska has a population of 1.5 million...compare that to the city of New York with 8.2 million. Why travel 400 miles trying to get 1.5 million votes when you can drive up and down the east coast and get exponentially more?

Winner-take-all is the problem, splitting the votes is the fairest way to go about elections.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Getting rid of the electoral college would not change a thing it is not the problem. It actually levels the playing field if elections were fair as originally intended. The real problem is the elites corporatists and banksters own the media and politicians, The electoral college has never gone against the popular vote. If you eliminated it the same idiots would still vote for the same idiots, the elections would still be rigged, and whoever the elites wanted in there would still get in there.

What we need to do is eliminate the federal government altogether and go back to the articles of confederation with some modifications at least for a good start!



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234


The problem with the popular vote logic is that it turns New York and California into the only battleground states. No other state will seem to matter as much as those two. If direct democracy were to occur then you'd do nothing more than shift the battleground states to those that are most populated. Nebraska has a population of 1.5 million...compare that to the city of New York with 8.2 million. Why travel 400 miles trying to get 1.5 million votes when you can drive up and down the east coast and get exponentially more?


New York State-19,465,197
California- 37,691,912

Now, that's only around 50 million people. The problem with your logic is you seem to think they are all going to be voting for the same person. That's rather unlikely. In 2008 there were 169 million registered voters. It's kind of silly to think you are going an election with only these two states. If there was a popular vote then it wouldn't matter if you lived in a state that was mostly Democrat, your vote would still count. That's the point, the system as it stands now makes voting worthless for many people who live in certain areas of the country. I don't even bother because as I said earlier, Satan would win here if he ran GOP. So what's the point? Make it fair or just don't bother saying people's votes actually count.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
The electoral college has never gone against the popular vote.!


You must have forgotten 2000.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join