|
|
|
View Poll Results: See OP
|
|
Yes
|
   
|
14 |
35.00% |
|
No
|
  
|
18 |
45.00% |
|
Don't care
|
  
|
8 |
20.00% |
 |
|
11-08-2012, 08:19 PM
|
#1
|
|
No Lifer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: ::1
Posts: 55,191
|
[POLL] If your "guy" had won the popular vote and lost because of the electoral vote,
would you be in support of getting rid of the electoral vote for the popular vote?
__________________
Stop pleasing others and start pleasing yourself.
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 08:21 PM
|
#2
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,101
|
I think we went over this during the bush years. 
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 08:33 PM
|
#3
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 34,084
|
I have neither candidate nor party, but I'll ask you a question I can. Do you support the EC as it stands and if your candidate wins the popular vote but loses the election would you want change? Does that also change if it's your opposition and if the answer to the latter is no, would you argue the point with equal force?
__________________
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Matthew 6:7
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 09:01 PM
|
#4
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 7,654
|
Regardless of who wins, I'm in support of removing the Electoral College and going with popular vote.
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 09:04 PM
|
#5
|
|
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,550
|
__________________
Webmaster, The PC Guide -- Relaunching in 2014 with all-new material!
Author, The TCP/IP Guide (getting a bit old but still lots of good free info)
"Of those who say nothing, few are silent." -- Thomas Neill
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 09:16 PM
|
#6
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 34,084
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok
|
If the EC represented the voters of the state proportionately it would be pretty close. The EC decides Presidents, but there might be a price to pay if it disregards the popular choice. I would not want to be the "winner" in that scenario.
__________________
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Matthew 6:7
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 09:49 PM
|
#7
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 5,844
|
Absolutely not. The founders set it up for a reason. However, the states themselves have become so partisan that it wasn't a national election, it was an 11 (or fewer) state election. The other thing that's concerning is that if you look county by county, the map is overwhelmingly red, but the Democrat dominance in the large cities sways the vote in alarming ways.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/...ymaprb1024.png
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 09:55 PM
|
#8
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 23,120
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearchMaster
Absolutely not. The founders set it up for a reason.
|
Their reasons don't really apply to the world of today.
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 09:58 PM
|
#9
|
|
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,550
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider
The EC decides Presidents, but there might be a price to pay if it disregards the popular choice.
|
There is no way to know when that actually happens. The closer the "sum of 51 races popular vote", the less likely it actually indicates who would have won a real PV race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearchMaster
The other thing that's concerning is that if you look county by county, the map is overwhelmingly red, but the Democrat dominance in the large cities sways the vote in alarming ways.
|
People vote. Not cows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jagec
Their reasons don't really apply to the world of today.
|
That's why we have an amendment process.
__________________
Webmaster, The PC Guide -- Relaunching in 2014 with all-new material!
Author, The TCP/IP Guide (getting a bit old but still lots of good free info)
"Of those who say nothing, few are silent." -- Thomas Neill
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 10:04 PM
|
#10
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 23,120
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok
That's why we have an amendment process.
|
Exactly. Get rid of the now-obsolete electoral college.
/edit: D'oh!
Last edited by jagec; 11-08-2012 at 10:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 10:12 PM
|
#11
|
|
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,550
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jagec
Exactly. Get rid of the non-obsolete electoral college.
|
Well, the problem is that many small states like having the EC. And it only takes 13 of them to block its removal.
There's the PV interstate compact, but that seems to be stalled.
__________________
Webmaster, The PC Guide -- Relaunching in 2014 with all-new material!
Author, The TCP/IP Guide (getting a bit old but still lots of good free info)
"Of those who say nothing, few are silent." -- Thomas Neill
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 10:16 PM
|
#12
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,231
|
I'm in support of getting rid of it regardless of whether it might cost my preference the election. It clearly increases voter apathy in solid red/blue states.
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 10:41 PM
|
#13
|
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 17,521
|
I don't think so, no. The electoral college has some decent arguments against it, but people winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college isn't one of them as far as I'm concerned. The biggest issue is more to do with how it focuses the election on an incredibly small percentage of Americans while ignoring millions of Americans in non-competitive states like California and Texas. It doesn't even do what it claims to do when protecting the small states since non-competitive small states are even more ignored than large ones.
__________________
Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas
which set this Nation apart...it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense,
we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties...which makes the defense of
the Nation worthwhile. --Chief Justice Earl Warren, US v Robel (1967)
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 10:45 PM
|
#14
|
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 17,521
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearchMaster
Absolutely not. The founders set it up for a reason. However, the states themselves have become so partisan that it wasn't a national election, it was an 11 (or fewer) state election. The other thing that's concerning is that if you look county by county, the map is overwhelmingly red, but the Democrat dominance in the large cities sways the vote in alarming ways.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/...ymaprb1024.png |
How is that at all concerning or alarming unless you don't understand population density?
__________________
Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas
which set this Nation apart...it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense,
we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties...which makes the defense of
the Nation worthwhile. --Chief Justice Earl Warren, US v Robel (1967)
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2012, 11:02 PM
|
#15
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: I'm from the internet
Posts: 10,570
|
__________________
HP TouchPad - Dual boot Android CM10 (Jelly Bean 4.12) and webOS (F4 Phantom Kernel).
Anandtech Off Topic [Archive] - May 2000-present
i7 3930k @ 3.8GHz, Asus Sabertooth X79, 32GB (4x8GB) DDR3 1866, PNY GTX 680 4GB, CM HAF 932 Advanced, CM Silent Pro Gold 1kW.
CM Hyper 212 EVO p/p, Samsung 830 SSD 128gb (boot), Windows 7 64-bit, OS X 10.8.2, Yamakasi 2703, Logitech MK320.
Last edited by SKORPI0; 11-08-2012 at 11:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2012, 12:08 AM
|
#16
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 17,802
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearchMaster
Absolutely not. The founders set it up for a reason. However, the states themselves have become so partisan that it wasn't a national election, it was an 11 (or fewer) state election. The other thing that's concerning is that if you look county by county, the map is overwhelmingly red, but the Democrat dominance in the large cities sways the vote in alarming ways.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/...ymaprb1024.png |
A bunch of crybabies..just suck it up....Romney lost that`s all there is to it!!
__________________
JohnOfSheffield -- That said, Palestine will exist when they understand that Israel exists, it's that blatantly simple!
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2012, 12:10 AM
|
#17
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 14,524
|
I've been wondering about the electoral vote.
At first I had presumed it was in place to balance out state representation the way the Senate does. But of course the big states like CA, TX, and NY all have HUGE portions tied to their population. So the EC is a representation of the popular vote and blows my previous assumption out of the water.
So it's really just a per-state winner take all. Which creates some really stupid campaigning...
I need to be convinced what its purpose is again. I've lost sight of what it's good for.
__________________
“He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2012, 12:16 AM
|
#18
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,499
|
The southern-most part of texas is a little suspicious looking to me 
But to the OP - no. It serves a purpose. It may need some adjustments because I wonder how accurate it still is at times, but getting rid of the electoral college isn't the answer.
__________________
Heatware
CO2 is evil. Stop breathing 
"I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money that you've earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." - Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2012, 12:24 AM
|
#19
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 10,874
|
I might support proportional electoral allocation, I'd have to see arguments for/against. Although a national popular vote makes sense, with our 50/50 electorate it would eventually create a nightmare recount. The legal battles that would ensue, there is no way they'd be resolved before inauguration.
__________________
You can push them out of a plane, you can march them off a cliff, you can send 'em off to die on some godforsaken rock, but for some reason you can't slap 'em
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2012, 12:31 AM
|
#20
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 14,524
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
But to the OP - no. It serves a purpose.
|
Can you explain what that purpose is?
__________________
“He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2012, 04:41 AM
|
#21
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 5,844
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaskalas
Can you explain what that purpose is?
|
So that the campaign process didn't consist of pandering to CA, TX, NY, and FL?
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2012, 05:24 AM
|
#22
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 34,084
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaskalas
I've been wondering about the electoral vote.
At first I had presumed it was in place to balance out state representation the way the Senate does. But of course the big states like CA, TX, and NY all have HUGE portions tied to their population. So the EC is a representation of the popular vote and blows my previous assumption out of the water.
So it's really just a per-state winner take all. Which creates some really stupid campaigning...
I need to be convinced what its purpose is again. I've lost sight of what it's good for.
|
As set up there is no winner take all, but neither was it prohibited. Over time parties tend to dominate in many states. The paramount function of any power based organization is to obtain and keep control. Consequently, it is in the best interest of a controlling party to have a winner take all system, not a true reflection of the vote of it's citizens. Note my state, NY. It's always blue, but thats not true of its people. This is where we go out of our way to suppress diversity. In any winner take all states, those who select a candidate who loses by even one vote are effectively disenfranchised at the national level and the winning party eliminates the contribution of those who didn't want it. A solution would be elimination of winner take all, based on the fact that it violates equal protection by eliminating ones vote at the national level. I'm not sure how to properly formulate this in legal language, but it's arguably true.
__________________
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Matthew 6:7
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2012, 05:36 AM
|
#23
|
|
Platinum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,062
|
It may not be perfect but the system we have now is just as good as any alternatives and has the benefit of being familiar.
__________________
-11
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2012, 05:56 AM
|
#24
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,153
|
The EC makes sense. If it doesn't you just need to read up on it a bit more.
If that doesn't work then look at the extremes for both a popular vote election and an EC election. They're both pretty terrible if you look at it from the extremes but the EC is better.
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2012, 07:05 AM
|
#25
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,972
|
The EC need to be gone, regardless of who won it should be by popular vote.
__________________
pcgeek11
How to annoy a liberal: Work Hard and be Happy. In the words of John Smith who saved the Jamestown settlement: Those that don't work; will not eat. We need to learn from history.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 PM.
|
