Electoral College: Keep It or Get Rid of It?

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Smaller states already get an advantage of more senators per capita. I don't think they need an additional advantage of more electors per capita.

And larger statres get more seats in the house. What's your point?

So instead of pandering to a few battle ground states, presidential candidates will need to fight for vote of every American.

No, it means they'll pander only to people who live in densely populated areas...even worse.

No, a computer program would "weigh" the difference from population densities. Not some biased "Delegates".

why are you assuming that supertool is intending to use your system?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Smaller states already get an advantage of more senators per capita. I don't think they need an additional advantage of more electors per capita.

And larger statres get more seats in the house. What's your point?

Overall, but per capita they get less or same seats.

So instead of pandering to a few battle ground states, presidential candidates will need to fight for vote of every American.

No, it means they'll pander only to people who live in densely populated areas...even worse.

People who live in densely populated areas should have as much of a vote as those living in rural areas. What a concept. And yes 10 Million people in LA SHOULD have more power than 10000 farmers in Idaho.

True, but the computer program would prevent Candidates from pandering to LA while ignoring Idaho.

 

[Draknor]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Smaller states already get an advantage of more senators per capita. I don't think they need an additional advantage of more electors per capita.

And larger statres get more seats in the house. What's your point?

So instead of pandering to a few battle ground states, presidential candidates will need to fight for vote of every American.

No, it means they'll pander only to people who live in densely populated areas...even worse.

No, a computer program would "weigh" the difference from population densities. Not some biased "Delegates".

Do you even understand how the electoral college works? Delegates are chosen by state law - and, in most states (48, I think), all of the chosen delegates are of the same party (aka the "winner-take-all" system), based on the entire popular vote of that state. There's nothing broken with the electoral college, because each state already has a weighted number of electors. If something is broken, it's the way those states' electors are chosen - and that's something to be fixed at a state level, not the federal level.

 

[Draknor]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
People who live in densely populated areas should have as much of a vote as those living in rural areas. What a concept. And yes 10 Million people in LA SHOULD have more power than 10000 farmers in Idaho.

No one argues that (or at least I don't ) - the question is, HOW MUCH more power should 10 million LA people have than 10,000 Idaho farmers? 1,000x more (ie Idaho isn't even a blip on the radar)?

The problem is "mob rule" - the oppression of the minority by the majority. If 10 million LA people decided to make it a law that the entire state of Idaho should be one big refuse lot, the 10,000 farmers wouldn't have the power to stop it. Instead, we give a weighted power to each state - California has more people, so they get more power (congresscritters & electoral college votes), but not so much as to completely render Idaho voiceless.

 

[SuperTool]

Well, Florida 2000 showed that it's not just a state issue, the federal government can also interfere in choosing electors. So if USSC ruled that winner takes all systems violated equal protection, the states would have to find other system.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Draknor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
People who live in densely populated areas should have as much of a vote as those living in rural areas. What a concept. And yes 10 Million people in LA SHOULD have more power than 10000 farmers in Idaho.

No one argues that (or at least I don't ) - the question is, HOW MUCH more power should 10 million LA people have than 10,000 Idaho farmers? 1,000x more (ie Idaho isn't even a blip on the radar)?

The problem is "mob rule" - the oppression of the minority by the majority. If 10 million LA people decided to make it a law that the entire state of Idaho should be one big refuse lot, the 10,000 farmers wouldn't have the power to stop it. Instead, we give a weighted power to each state - California has more people, so they get more power (congresscritters & electoral college votes), but not so much as to completely render Idaho voiceless.

Well, right now 30 Million Californians are powerless to stop the EPA from mandating ethanol additives that are designed to subsidize a small number of farmers in Iowa and midwest.
How is that not a dictatorship of the minority over the majority?

 

[Draknor]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Draknor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
People who live in densely populated areas should have as much of a vote as those living in rural areas. What a concept. And yes 10 Million people in LA SHOULD have more power than 10000 farmers in Idaho.

No one argues that (or at least I don't ) - the question is, HOW MUCH more power should 10 million LA people have than 10,000 Idaho farmers? 1,000x more (ie Idaho isn't even a blip on the radar)?

The problem is "mob rule" - the oppression of the minority by the majority. If 10 million LA people decided to make it a law that the entire state of Idaho should be one big refuse lot, the 10,000 farmers wouldn't have the power to stop it. Instead, we give a weighted power to each state - California has more people, so they get more power (congresscritters & electoral college votes), but not so much as to completely render Idaho voiceless.

Well, right now 30 Million Californians are powerless to stop the EPA from mandating ethanol additives that are designed to subsidize a small number of farmers in Iowa and midwest.
How is that not a dictatorship of the minority over the majority?

That's a different argument all together. 30 million CA'ians didn't vote against the ethanol additives while a couple thousand farmers from the midwest voted for them. I will say this - CA has 53 representatives, while the midwest (IA, WI, MN, ND, SD, NE) only has 26 - less than half. If CA could convince enough members of Congress that the ethanol additives were harmful, they'd get removed.

Of course, that gets into special interest groups, which, IMHO, is the REAL example of dictatorship of the minority (who have money) over the majority.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor


What dumbass started this thread anyway?

If I remember correctly, it was Hilary after the last
election.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Draknor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
People who live in densely populated areas should have as much of a vote as those living in rural areas. What a concept. And yes 10 Million people in LA SHOULD have more power than 10000 farmers in Idaho.

No one argues that (or at least I don't ) - the question is, HOW MUCH more power should 10 million LA people have than 10,000 Idaho farmers? 1,000x more (ie Idaho isn't even a blip on the radar)?

The problem is "mob rule" - the oppression of the minority by the majority. If 10 million LA people decided to make it a law that the entire state of Idaho should be one big refuse lot, the 10,000 farmers wouldn't have the power to stop it. Instead, we give a weighted power to each state - California has more people, so they get more power (congresscritters & electoral college votes), but not so much as to completely render Idaho voiceless.

Well, right now 30 Million Californians are powerless to stop the EPA from mandating ethanol additives that are designed to subsidize a small number of farmers in Iowa and midwest.
How is that not a dictatorship of the minority over the majority?

Seems to me that there has been an increase in California's corn crop. Why then wouldn't it also benefit Californians? They don't know how to make ethanol? It's far better than MBTE, it is renewable, it is relatively easy to process, it would save OIL because it can be run at atleast a 10% blend(thus reducing dependence on oil a tad). If we corn can be made into a profitable marketable product(like ethanol) would that not be an argument to end subsidies?

Anyway discussing ethanol isn't about the EC The EC should stand - I know I sure as hell don't want the coasts dictating things to us here in fly over country(not that they don't already)

CkG

 

[TheBDB]

How come statewide elections are also not done with an electoral system....to protect the rural citizens from the big cities?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Draknor

Of course, that gets into special interest groups, which, IMHO, is the REAL example of dictatorship of the minority (who have money) over the majority.

more about organization and focus than money

 

[Red Dawn]

More people would vote if we did away with the Electoral College. Back in 2000 Gore won the Popular vote by a small margin but I believe if it wasn't for the Electoral College more Republicans in states like CA, MASS and NY would have voted giving the Popular Vote to the Dub as their votes would have counted.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
More people would vote if we did away with the Electoral College. Back in 2000 Gore won the Popular vote by a small margin but I believe if it wasn't for the Electoral College more Republicans in states like CA, MASS and NY would have voted giving the Popular Vote to the Dub as their votes would have counted.

that is why is would be benificial if the electoral college was proportional by State.

However, is a staes right to determine how they wish to be represented

 

[TheGameIs21]

As posted in the original post before I knew this was here....

I have always been taught by my father that if I am really upset about how something is being done, don't just bitch about it. Actually come up with a better system and present it in an argument. Otherwise I am just bitching.

It is obvious to most people outside of the populous coast that a Popular vote isn't the answer. Outside of the Popular vote, how would you want it done if not by the Electoral?

The computer Idea is still Electoral so don't bring it back up. Also skip the multiple Electoral's in each state since there is really no end to how far down it could go... Each street gets 13 Electoral votes for their Square mile, Each square mile gets 13 electoral votes for their district, Each district gets 13 votes for their Region, Each region gets 13 votes for their state and so on and so on and so on....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
As posted in the original post before I knew this was here....

I have always been taught by my father that if I am really upset about how something is being done, don't just bitch about it. Actually come up with a better system and present it in an argument. Otherwise I am just bitching.

It is obvious to most people outside of the populous coast that a Popular vote isn't the answer. Outside of the Popular vote, how would you want it done if not by the Electoral?

The computer Idea is still Electoral so don't bring it back up. Also skip the multiple Electoral's in each state since there is really no end to how far down it could go... Each street gets 13 Electoral votes for their Square mile, Each square mile gets 13 electoral votes for their district, Each district gets 13 votes for their Region, Each region gets 13 votes for their state and so on and so on and so on....

"The computer Idea is still Electoral so don't bring it back up."

Sure, your right, let's go back to chiseling stone tablets.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
As posted in the original post before I knew this was here....

I have always been taught by my father that if I am really upset about how something is being done, don't just bitch about it. Actually come up with a better system and present it in an argument. Otherwise I am just bitching.

It is obvious to most people outside of the populous coast that a Popular vote isn't the answer. Outside of the Popular vote, how would you want it done if not by the Electoral?

The computer Idea is still Electoral so don't bring it back up. Also skip the multiple Electoral's in each state since there is really no end to how far down it could go... Each street gets 13 Electoral votes for their Square mile, Each square mile gets 13 electoral votes for their district, Each district gets 13 votes for their Region, Each region gets 13 votes for their state and so on and so on and so on....

"The computer Idea is still Electoral so don't bring it back up."

Sure, your right, let's go back to chiseling stone tablets.

Your original post in this thread clearly shows you know nothing about the reason why we have the Electoral College. Educate yourself and then come back and try to discuss this.