My Question To Everyone: Electoral College

[destrekor]

First, not sure if this belongs in P&N or OT, so I'm trying P&N first.
--------------------------------

! Read prior to voting !

So here's the thing. Everyone gets up in arms over the Electoral College seemingly disagreeing with the 'popular vote'. This people obviously don't understand our country's government, and frankly, I'd prefer they not vote for that reason. But I digress...

To understand the electoral college, is to understand that each state is represented properly based on population. If we didn't have the Electoral College, we'd essentially vote as one united State, which is a terrible idea. Each state, with its own state economy, needs to be represented individually, but would be misrepresented without the Electoral College. Say a lot of people in one state have certain life styles, either because of geographical resources/attributes, the state government has helped push a certain style of business (either by choice or accident), or over time based on certain businesses establishing themselves there. Regardless, the population, work force and economy, all come together in unique ways for each state, although many states may share the same style.

More importantly, this is a country where the government has established State and Local governments to run themselves, with the Federal government really only functioning to serve as a bridge between the states, to help set up common grounds so that all the states can interact and cooperate. Naturally, that means the states are mostly independent and their land is up to their control, except on subjects the Federal government has control over.
With that in mind, wouldn't YOU want your state represented equally, based on your STATE'S popular vote? Because that is truly how it works, and is why it is needed. The popular vote of the state determines for which candidate the electors of that state place their vote.

Is it really that hard to understand? Have our schools seriously failed our students that bad in regards to government? Actually, I want to say I doubt that is the case, because I went to a public school (with a graduating class of somewhere between 400-500) and learned all of that through my schools in government classes, required courses. Sure, it is something most people consider 'boring', and don't pay attention and don't necessarily do all that well in terms of grade. Is it really that simple of an answer? That people just fail to care, yet when it comes time to actually understand, bitch and moan about how the system fails them, when in reality it is actually representing them perfectly. Sure, their vote likely wasn't in the majority for their state, or other states just simply made their state's vote mean nothing. But an election based entirely on the entire country's popular vote would be a terrible idea and would be unfair to every state's population.

Then again, this is the time period where people are caring less about their state, as it is becoming more of just another item on a mailing address. And that is because this is a time when the Federal government is constantly growing and overseeing more and more parts of our lives that the Federal government was never granted power to control. Sure, some things have become necessary for them to oversee as the country, and world, has changed since our country was founded. But, Constitutionally, anything not stated as being a Federal government power, is reserved for the states.
So, not only are our Congressional representatives failing the populace by not upholding the Constitution, the Judicial branch is failing the Constitution, and the people are just eating it up.

Just doing a pre-election rant, before all the morons bitch and moan, judging as it may be possible that one of the candidates will have the total popular vote, but not have the Electoral vote.
And while only the people on the 'losing' end tend to bitch and moan - as the 'winning' end would have no reason to since it went their way without the total popular vote - I have a feeling more people than just the vocal ones don't actually understand the Electoral College.


Post the answers you chose and your reasoning/arguments.

(Thanks Mods)

 

[jman19]

Um, wrong forum?

 

[mugs]

To understand the electoral college, is to understand that each state is represented properly based on population.

You mean it is "proper" that the votes of residents of Wyoming count three time as much as votes of residents of California?

Say a lot of people in one state have certain life styles, either because of geographical resources/attributes, the state government has helped push a certain style of business (either by choice or accident), or over time based on certain businesses establishing themselves there. Regardless, the population, work force and economy, all come together in unique ways for each state, although many states may share the same style.

How does it make sense that the people who are in the minority in their state have no impact at all on the election?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: mugs

To understand the electoral college, is to understand that each state is represented properly based on population.

You mean it is "proper" that the votes of residents of Wyoming count three time as much as votes of residents of California?

Say a lot of people in one state have certain life styles, either because of geographical resources/attributes, the state government has helped push a certain style of business (either by choice or accident), or over time based on certain businesses establishing themselves there. Regardless, the population, work force and economy, all come together in unique ways for each state, although many states may share the same style.

How does it make sense that the people who are in the minority in their state have no impact at all on the election?

Conversely, one state - California has almost 25% of the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency.

The Ecectroal College was one of the most brialliant inventions by our Founders. They had a true fear of democracy and wanted to ensure that the "tyranny of the majority" be avaoided. So they created a constitutional republic and set up the Electoral college to ensure a representative vote.

At the time, they were afraid ofthe power of one state - New York - controlling the elections. But the overall theory was sound and has proven so many times since.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: mugs

To understand the electoral college, is to understand that each state is represented properly based on population.

You mean it is "proper" that the votes of residents of Wyoming count three time as much as votes of residents of California?

Say a lot of people in one state have certain life styles, either because of geographical resources/attributes, the state government has helped push a certain style of business (either by choice or accident), or over time based on certain businesses establishing themselves there. Regardless, the population, work force and economy, all come together in unique ways for each state, although many states may share the same style.

How does it make sense that the people who are in the minority in their state have no impact at all on the election?

So I'm assuming you're against the Electoral College, and individuality of states.
The concept of the states is for citizens to live in the state that suits their lifestyles and interests.

Wyoming is a very different place than California. (Besides the fact that California is full of socialists, which beyond stating that, this has no impact on the discussion in this thread.)
Residents of Wyoming, given the notion that they want to live their for what the state of Wyoming offers, should be represented properly.
Would you rather the states not exist, except as functioning solely as postal codes, like an extended zip-code system?
Let me guess, you're in favor of a larger Federal government and pathetically small state governments?

edit:
dphantom said it better.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: mugs

To understand the electoral college, is to understand that each state is represented properly based on population.

You mean it is "proper" that the votes of residents of Wyoming count three time as much as votes of residents of California?

Say a lot of people in one state have certain life styles, either because of geographical resources/attributes, the state government has helped push a certain style of business (either by choice or accident), or over time based on certain businesses establishing themselves there. Regardless, the population, work force and economy, all come together in unique ways for each state, although many states may share the same style.

How does it make sense that the people who are in the minority in their state have no impact at all on the election?

Conversely, one state - California has almost 25% of the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency.

The Ecectroal College was one of the most brialliant inventions by our Founders. They had a true fear of democracy and wanted to ensure that the "tyranny of the majority" be avaoided. So they created a constitutional republic and set up the Electoral college to ensure a representative vote.

At the time, they were afraid ofthe power of one state - New York - controlling the elections. But the overall theory was sound and has proven so many times since.

It wasn't just one state, it was the common folk. Remember in the Constitution they don't even mention that states are supposed to assign electors by the popular vote, the state legislatures could just choose whoever they wanted.

In short, yes I understand the electoral college, no it shouldn't continue to exist because it's dumb and renders the vote of the majority of the country useless.

EDIT: And anyone who says California is full of socialists either has never been to California or is too ignorant to know the definition of socialism.

 

[Farang]

I think the electoral college can work but having Ohio and Florida decide every election doesn't. District winner-take-all also has its problems in that it would cost much more to campaign that way, if there was a way we could break up to states a bit without going so small I think it could be beneficial.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: destrekor
Has our schools seriously failed our students that bad in regards to government?

Has they failed our students that bad in regards to English? I think they has...

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: mugs

To understand the electoral college, is to understand that each state is represented properly based on population.

You mean it is "proper" that the votes of residents of Wyoming count three time as much as votes of residents of California?

Say a lot of people in one state have certain life styles, either because of geographical resources/attributes, the state government has helped push a certain style of business (either by choice or accident), or over time based on certain businesses establishing themselves there. Regardless, the population, work force and economy, all come together in unique ways for each state, although many states may share the same style.

How does it make sense that the people who are in the minority in their state have no impact at all on the election?

Conversely, one state - California has almost 25% of the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency.

The Ecectroal College was one of the most brialliant inventions by our Founders. They had a true fear of democracy and wanted to ensure that the "tyranny of the majority" be avaoided. So they created a constitutional republic and set up the Electoral college to ensure a representative vote.

At the time, they were afraid ofthe power of one state - New York - controlling the elections. But the overall theory was sound and has proven so many times since.

Actually, they believed it would be so difficult for one individual to gain the electoral votes necessary to win that each election would, in fact, be decided by the Senate. It was a brilliant idea, but never really worked as intended.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Conversely, one state - California has almost 25% of the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency.

So is it better to give all of those 55 votes to one guy when the other guy got 43% of the votes?

The guy who won CA in 2004 received nearly 25% of the electoral votes he would have needed to win the election. The votes he received in CA would have only gotten him 11% of the way to winning the popular vote, while the other guy's votes would have gotten him 9% of the way to winning the popular vote in stead of nothing at all.

 

[jonks]

Given that the winner of the EV is almost always the winner of the PV, all the EV system does is discredit the winner in those years that the EV winner does not win the PV. And if we had PV the last 8 years would not be so fucked up. One man one vote! Hell, most people who don't vote don't because they know their state is 60/40.

Originally posted by: dphantom
Conversely, one state - California has almost 25% of the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency.

CA has almost exactly 20% of the required EV. (55/270)

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: destrekor
So I'm assuming you're against the Electoral College, and individuality of states.
The concept of the states is for citizens to live in the state that suits their lifestyles and interests.

Wyoming is a very different place than California. (Besides the fact that California is full of socialists, which beyond stating that, this has no impact on the discussion in this thread.)

And residents of Wyoming would have the right to vote in a popular election, and their votes would count the same as everyone else's.

Residents of Wyoming, given the notion that they want to live their for what the state of Wyoming offers, should be represented properly.

How is it "proper" for someone's vote to count three times as much as someone else's vote?

Would you rather the states not exist, except as functioning solely as postal codes, like an extended zip-code system?

No.

Let me guess, you're in favor of a larger Federal government and pathetically small state governments?

No. I would object less to the electoral college if the senators weren't counted, because then the votes would be divided more evenly. Counting the senators gives undeserved power to small states.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Farang
I think the electoral college can work but having Ohio and Florida decide every election doesn't. District winner-take-all also has its problems in that it would cost much more to campaign that way, if there was a way we could break up to states a bit without going so small I think it could be beneficial.

I still don't understand why Florida ends up being such a battle ground state, but I think battleground states kind of say something, something that should speak highly for my arguments about state individuality. See, with many states consistently going one way or another speaks strongly about the political environment of that state, and the things those states stand for in regards to economy and such. As a whole, those states have their way, and are basically sticking to it, either left or right.

But look to places like battleground states, specifically Ohio. Ohio is kind of a unique state in this country, specifically in regards to economy. Marketing companies constantly reference this part about Ohio, as it's almost always one of the first test markets for new products, specifically Columbus, Ohio. Why? Because it has a population that is extremely varied and votes for very specific qualities, and in general is a moderate state. So, if a candidate is Far Right, it might not win over the voters if the opposing candidate is Left but close to the center of the political spectrum. I actually have a feeling, if the Libertarian Party ever came to popularity in the country, it would likely win over Ohio voters easily. I say this just because of the number of people I've met here at The Ohio State University, almost all from various places in Ohio, who strongly favor Libertarian ideals.

If every state was a battleground state, then that might give strength to the anti-Electoral College argument, but in fact, very few battleground states really exist, and most of the states with the largest pool of Electors tend to swing decisively in one particular direction.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Actually, they believed it would be so difficult for one individual to gain the electoral votes necessary to win that each election would, in fact, be decided by the Senate. It was a brilliant idea, but never really worked as intended.

Do you mean the House of Representatives?

 

[blackangst1]

yes
yes
no

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: jonks
Given that the winner of the EV is almost always the winner of the PV, all the EV system does is discredit the winner in those years that the EV winner does not win the PV. And if we had PV the last 8 years would not be so fucked up. One man one vote!

Originally posted by: dphantom
Conversely, one state - California has almost 25% of the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency.

CA has almost exactly 20% of the required EV. (55/270)

You do have to keep in mind that the electoral college depresses votes. In states where one candidate is seen as having a guaranteed victory, less people show up to the polls.

I think you'd see some interesting things happen if we really became a one person, one vote, country.

 

[destrekor]

This whole thing of people not voting for all 3 is kind of screwing with the overall mini survey.

Originally posted by: blackangst1
yes
yes
no

Interesting. It seems most of the people voting No to question 3, also answered No to question 2, which is what I predicted.

Are you an Ohioan?

 

[Gabornski]

I everyone was just a zip code then we couldn't pick on Iowa!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
In short, yes I understand the electoral college, no it shouldn't continue to exist because it's dumb and renders the vote of the majority of the country useless.

So, then what do you propose we do exactly? If we didn't have one, presidential canadiates can simply ignore the smaller states. Eg. North Dakota

 

[Pacemaker]

I think more states should split their electoral votes, but I don't think the system should disappear completely as it forces presidents to do what is best for the country instead of just pandering to New York, LA, Chicago, and a few other very large cities.

 

[dullard]

Yes, I understand the EC. No, I don't support it because it is no longer necessary. No, I don't claim loyalty to any state. I've lived in Nebraska for 84% of my life, but I don't think it is loyal to me, nor am I loyal to it. I think Nebraska is better than many states, but I certainly don't think it is the best state. Nor do I think I have to be loyal to any state. Finally, I don't think having no state loyalty means I want a more powerful federal government.

We have local power. 2 senators per state. Small states thus already have far more power per capita than large states. I think that is enough bonus for small states, we don't need the EC to give them more bonus.

The EC was necessary before mass communications. However, the advent of radio, television, and the internet makes the EC antiquated. The EC was intended to force politicians to consider the small states. But remember that was when there was no national media and there were only a handful of states. If politicians focused only on NY, the other states could easilly band together and still win.

Not so anymore. Now, policians only have to win a few big states and all other states and territories combined can't band together and win. The 12 smallest states + Washington DC combined still pale in comparison to California. In fact, a politician could build a team of the smallest 20 states + DC and still not be able to beat the democrat's block of CA + NY. The way the EC is built now, the small states are meaningless. In order for the EC to be effective, the small states would need even a more disproportionate vote in the presidential election than they do now.

Thus, the EC actually does the OPPOSITE of what it intended. The EC doesn't put power into small states, instead it puts power into swing states. There is a significant difference there even though it is subtle. Honestly, OH and FL are just about all that matters in this election and in the past couple of elections. Instead of having representation by small states, we have representation by OH and FL.

Also, national media has eliminated the problem. A candidate debate in one state is seen by them all. In a popular vote, a candidate would have to address the issues in small states to get their millions of votes. As it is now, a candidate can ignore all small states since they are too small to matter even in the EC.

I know, I live in a small state. In the last few elections we've had one small visit by one vice presidential candidate (Palin). That's it. We've had a couple visits in the off season, but they are rare and short. That is your evidence that the EC works? Candidates completely ignoring the small states means the EC works?

Finally, the proof is in the results. The EC only had an impact in 3 elections. 3 measly elections. There have been over 50 elections, and in only 3 of them did the EC change the result. Thus, history shows it just isn't effective in accomplishing it's goals. For example, the 2000 election wasn't changed based upon small states. Instead, it was a couple medium sized swing states that impacted the election.

Either get rid of the EC, or give it real power. If no state had fewer than 10 EC votes and CA still was capped at 55 votes, THEN the EC would be useful. If not, get rid of it.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: jonks
Given that the winner of the EV is almost always the winner of the PV, all the EV system does is discredit the winner in those years that the EV winner does not win the PV. And if we had PV the last 8 years would not be so fucked up. One man one vote!

Originally posted by: dphantom
Conversely, one state - California has almost 25% of the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency.

CA has almost exactly 20% of the required EV. (55/270)

You do have to keep in mind that the electoral college depresses votes. In states where one candidate is seen as having a guaranteed victory, less people show up to the polls.

I think you'd see some interesting things happen if we really became a one person, one vote, country.

In the modern landscape of the USA, I'd say its possible the Electoral College to be disbanded at some point, but that's exactly my point in all of this: I fear that, because when that happens, at that point people would have either completely abandoned the idea of state loyalty/individuality, or the Federal government grew so large to basically negate the point of state governments. Both would be very depressing imho.
Now, if the country changes completely, that might not be a horrible situation, but it'd probably be a big mess for awhile. I have a feeling that will happen sometime in the future, at the same time as other countries uniting more strongly, in progress towards a more united world, or majority of the world at least, and it'd be at that time the US would start progress towards inner-unity, but would be so much of a mess, that I'd bet would lead to another economic mess, and the end result after the turmoil would be a better place. But at this time, it's not the right thing to do imho, because well, I'm a stubborn Statist in favor of upholding the Constitution as is.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Actually, they believed it would be so difficult for one individual to gain the electoral votes necessary to win that each election would, in fact, be decided by the Senate. It was a brilliant idea, but never really worked as intended.

Do you mean the House of Representatives?

Yes, I do. I'm a bit tired today, sorry.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

yes
no, but that does not imply I support the popular vote
no, but that does not imply I hold loyalty the country I reside in either

Originally posted by: destrekor
I have a feeling more people than just the vocal ones don't actually understand the Electoral College.

Yes, but it doesn't matter what the Electoral College really is. The Electoral College benefits small states so those in small states will support it. Popular vote benefits big states so those in big states will support it. You can't change the fact that people will do what's in their best interest.

 

[Martin]

I've found that whether its defending the EC in the states, or defending FPTP systems in English-style parliament countries, people will go to great and very creative lengths to explain why more democracy is bad.