Once and for all, Bush won in 2000 fair and square.

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Doesn't having an equal number of Senators per state protect smaller states?

Exactly. The Congress are the ones that introduce and pass the bills not the President, he just signs them into law.

The Anti EC folks here are now preaching to the Choir when talking and agreeing with eachother. Impress me, create a group and lobby for this change.

Impress us and get off of your High Horse and stop yammering the same bullsh!t over and over. We are discussing the merits of the EC vs the Popular vote and nothing more.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Doesn't having an equal number of Senators per state protect smaller states?

Exactly. The Congress are the ones that introduce and pass the bills not the President, he just signs them into law.

The Anti EC folks here are now preaching to the Choir when talking and agreeing with eachother. Impress me, create a group and lobby for this change.

The most I could expect is that states have the correct number of electoral votes allotted to them.

I posted the correct numbers in my first post on this thread.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Doboji
Because of the overwhelming populations in California and the East Coast Megalapolis, the election would be extremely biased and would snatch all voting power from enourmous swaths of land throughout the middle of the country.

Sorry to get into this thread so late, and I apologize if this point was made. Whereas I agree with you, a good argument is, "Americans are Americans. Each vote should be counted equally, regardless of what state you live in."

 

[fjord]

Disclaimer: Not having read everything above:

In our present system: If you wish to "protect" smaller states by way of a higher share of representation (total number electoral votes for that state) than the states population merits--that would probably do no harm.

The problem really belongs with the "Winner take all" concept.

The solution is quite simple: normalize the share of electoral votes for each state a candidate wins.

So, for example--say a small state has 10 electoral votes (it really merits less representation than 10, but because of its 2 Senators, it is now overrepresented), and Candidate A wins 60% of the popular vote, and Candidate B wins 30%, and candidate C wins10%.

Then:
Candidate A gets 6 electoral votes
Candidate B gets 3 electoral votes
Candidate C gets 1 electoral votes

Straight mathn No winner take all--

This way folks in Texas who don't support Bush would be able to really have their vote counted. And so in a state like California--people voting for Bush there will actually add electoral votes to the Bush column.

Everyone is represented with their vote. Big states are overall underrepresented by pop, small states are overall overepresented by pop,--but all citizens have a vote that counts.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doboji
Because of the overwhelming populations in California and the East Coast Megalapolis, the election would be extremely biased and would snatch all voting power from enourmous swaths of land throughout the middle of the country.

Enormous swaths of land is not who votes, it's registered voters. The Electoral College nullifies the votes of those who vote for the losing candidate in each state even if it is an extremely close race in those states.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Doboji
Because of the overwhelming populations in California and the East Coast Megalapolis, the election would be extremely biased and would snatch all voting power from enourmous swaths of land throughout the middle of the country.

Enormous swaths of land is not who votes, it's registered voters. The Electoral College nullifies the votes of those who vote for the losing candidate in each state even if it is an extremely close race in those states.

But if used my idea, I bet you a nickel that more Repubs would come out knowing that CA is worth 212 electoral votes.

 

[lordtyranus]

Straight mathn No winner take all--

I would be fine with this. I think Colorado already does this and it should work well.

Too bad neither party would be willing to push this through.

 

[rbV5]

And if you read the thread... you would see the arguments made by most of the pro-electoral college people about how the electoral college actually looks out for the citzens in smaller states who in a popular vote system would have no influence on the president's policy priorities.

I read the entire thread, and all your posts where you argue the same point over and over. I get what you are saying, and I disagree. The individuals in every State vote for their States representation through Congress, thats how their respective state gets their equal footing.

The President represents ALL the people of America, and should therefore be elected by the people, not by electors casting wholesale votes based on the majority of a particular State. If you vote against the majority in your state, you end up supporting the candidate you oppose..you should be able to vote with everyone that has a like mind and create a majority win regardless of where they come from as long as its America.

Thats how we elect our Statewide officials, County officials are elected within their county, district representatives are elected by their districts on and on. Same should go for the President. He should be elected by the whole of the United States...not by the individual States.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Gore won the popular vote and he won the electoral college. His victory was assured by the Supreme Coup by their stopping the vote count in Florida at a point the illegitimate Bush was ahead. A later recount of the total legal vote in Florida determined that Gore won that popular vote too and won the Florida election. The legitimate government of the United States was overthrown and the will of the people thwarted by the Supreme Thwart. The enormous disaster of the God Chimp Presidency has been a catastrophe for our nation. Our children will pay a tremendous price for that ass and those of you who support him are responsible. Enjoy your denial because you will be condemned down through history, especially by your children and grandchildren.

It all depends on who funded the study on who was the "winner".



Bush Won
Gore Won

Nope the Bush won link clearly states that Gore won. Bush only wins under various strategies that exclude legal votes. Gore won state wide with legal votes which is what winning a state means. You don't win elections by stopping a vote count or counting only some of the state. You win by having a majority of the legal votes of the whole state which is the vote Gore won.

The media burried the truth after 9/11

This is an honest suggestion for those against the Electoral system. You need to get together and form a group that will come up with a clear VIABLE option and take it to your leaders in Washington. Bitching and Moaning about this system on AT P&N will do nothing. And in all honesty.. You may even come up with a better system that will be enacted.

You can bitch and moan about policy but until you do something to proactively change the policy using the appropriate methods, nothing will change.

You can think that Gore lost illegally all you want but what does that fix for the future? Come up with a better system and propose it as a group and see where it goes.

[edit] What the hell... Here is the opening paras in that story you said "Clearly states gore won."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.

All I am saying is that both sides have stated that they won and it depends on who studied it. Just read what I copied above that I posted previously and try changing the system to be more "fair" and I really wish you luck. Like I said also... the group of you might actually come up with a better plan.

Ah for crap sake, that's what I said. If you limit the count to the 67 counties Gore lost, but votes aren't limited in an election. Anybody can say that vote counts vary and I'm sure they do, but Gore won on the whole state recount that was done. The cure for the problem I see is counting the votes, all of them that are legal.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Doesn't having an equal number of Senators per state protect smaller states?

Exactly. The Congress are the ones that introduce and pass the bills not the President, he just signs them into law.

The president also enacts executive orders, appoints judges and noone can deny he/she has a pretty significant influence on congress. To say that the congress is representative enough, would be to significantly downplay the role of the Executive branch of our government. It is as important that the executive branch be representative as it is for the legislative branch to be representative.

-Max

 

[ReiAyanami]

i'm pretty sure the Vice President has more power. in fact yesterday he said if you vote the wrong way this year, he will KILL YOU!!!

[/Darth Vader Imperial Marching theme]

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: rbV5

And if you read the thread... you would see the arguments made by most of the pro-electoral college people about how the electoral college actually looks out for the citzens in smaller states who in a popular vote system would have no influence on the president's policy priorities.

I read the entire thread, and all your posts where you argue the same point over and over. I get what you are saying, and I disagree. The individuals in every State vote for their States representation through Congress, thats how their respective state gets their equal footing.

The President represents ALL the people of America, and should therefore be elected by the people, not by electors casting wholesale votes based on the majority of a particular State. If you vote against the majority in your state, you end up supporting the candidate you oppose..you should be able to vote with everyone that has a like mind and create a majority win regardless of where they come from as long as its America.

Thats how we elect our Statewide officials, County officials are elected within their county, district representatives are elected by their districts on and on. Same should go for the President. He should be elected by the whole of the United States...not by the individual States.

Thankyou... that is a good argument. I apologize for thinking you were an asshat... you're not. And I do realize I'm sounding like a broken record🙂.

See my above post though for why I disagree with the idea that State, Local, and even Congressional representatives are enough.

I however am not as of yet opposed to some of the ideas for restructuring the EC put forward by DarkHawk and Fjord... but I need to think about them more before I'm decided on em.

-Max

 

[hysperion]

Well I read your more likely to die on your way to the voting booth in a car accident then for your vote to change the election....I tend to agree....you only think its worth voting because you've had that nailed into your head for your whole life. I personally find it to be a waste of time. The odds that my vote will ever influence a presidential election are so small that it isn't worth me wasting my time over except for the nice part about getting a lil' extra time off work. Even on the 1/1000000000 chance that my vote would have changed the election it's still gonna be a rich white guy in office either way. I may vote when hillary comes up for office just because I don't want to have to move out of this country- and for that it's worth the extra driving risk. Ever notice how polls with 1000 people have a 4 percent margin of error? Well with 100,000,000 it turns into about a .00004 margin of error.....But if you think your vote is actually gonna change the next election go ahead and do it....By the way it isn't a responsibility to vote, this is a free country.....

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Doesn't having an equal number of Senators per state protect smaller states?

Shhh. Don't confuse them with logic, it only serves to confuse the issue more. I have stated this till I am blue in the face, that is why each state has 2 senators.

That is why I have also stated that why not have all the Governors races be decided by a county by county electoral system if the EC is so wonderful? People of the Upper P in Michigan has NO representation at all when it comes to picking our Governor due to the fact that more people live in the Detroit metro area that in the entire UP alone. Is that fair, hardly, but that is why they have represenative in the Michigan house... to assure that they are not forgotten up there.

We can put this all to rest if were put on the ballot. Let the people decide (in a popular vote of course) if the EC should remain or we go to a popular system.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Doesn't having an equal number of Senators per state protect smaller states?

Shhh. Don't confuse them with logic, it only serves to confuse the issue more. I have stated this till I am blue in the face, that is why each state has 2 senators.

That is why I have also stated that why not have all the Governors races be decided by a county by county electoral system if the EC is so wonderful? People of the Upper P in Michigan has NO representation at all when it comes to picking our Governor due to the fact that more people live in the Detroit metro area that in the entire UP alone. Is that fair, hardly, but that is why they have represenative in the Michigan house... to assure that they are not forgotten up there.

We can put this all to rest if were put on the ballot. Let the people decide (in a popular vote of course) if the EC should remain or we go to a popular system.

I disagree with you. As someone who lives in an area/state that is about as unpopulated as you can get, I think the urban areas get more then their fair share of the "pie" already. You look at the problem only as it affects you. When taking into account how to fairly reperesnt an area, more then just the population of that area should be accounted for.

Since the laws that congress passes effect trade, enviroment, etc. then shouldn't a state as big as Alaska get a little more representation a small state like Rohde Island then Alaska would get just pased on population??

Besides, I think that in order to change it you would need a constitutional ammendment and that would require 2/3's of the states to ratify it and I don't think that would happen.

 

[compslckr]

and he will win again in 2k4 🙂

 

[JackieO]

I still don't understand why it shouldn't be determined by popular vote. No one in this thread has convinced me this is inherently flawed. Low population states won't have as much influence, you say? I say, so what? Just because I live in a state with 30 million people my vote shouldn't count? That sounds a little less fair to me.

 

[Tab]

Shouldn't the president appease the majority of the population? Don't we want the majority to be happy?

 

[Ferocious]

All of America's votes should count.

There should be no such thing as a battleground state.

This isn't the 18th century.

 

[blakeatwork]

Stepping into unfamiliar territory.. 😀

I've always found the US election system a tad confusing, growing up in Ireland and Canada. Whereby we use Representation by Population (which I see the EC is similar too, in a way), and vote for the candidates in our ridings, with the Prime Minister coming from the Party with the most Seats in the House of Commons. I've always wondered why the EC is arbitrary. To be honest, isn't the whole point of an election to determine exactly who the majority of people wish to see running their country/state/province/county?

Granted, while an election completely based on the Moonbeam Theory (free vote with the winner based on popularity), doesn't it just degenerate into a mud-slinging free-for-all (moreso then elections currently)? Why not a system similar to Canada, or is it based on the US desire for something not like the British (not flamebait, just a question)?

Anyways, not understanding the US election process, I'm sure I've missed the nuances.. don't flame me too badly.. 😛

 

[TheGameIs21]

The problem I see with this is that it builds in too much power. If you have a Liberal Congress and a Conservative President, they will keep eachother in check (with some political bs blocking included).

The states have a popular vote for congressional representation and the President has the EC. To me that makes for a good balance. If the Popular vote for Congress ends up loading the same party into both areas then in my opinion the country has spoken.

 

[Triumph]

post

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fjord
Disclaimer: Not having read everything above:

In our present system: If you wish to "protect" smaller states by way of a higher share of representation (total number electoral votes for that state) than the states population merits--that would probably do no harm.

The problem really belongs with the "Winner take all" concept.

The solution is quite simple: normalize the share of electoral votes for each state a candidate wins.

So, for example--say a small state has 10 electoral votes (it really merits less representation than 10, but because of its 2 Senators, it is now overrepresented), and Candidate A wins 60% of the popular vote, and Candidate B wins 30%, and candidate C wins10%.

Then:
Candidate A gets 6 electoral votes
Candidate B gets 3 electoral votes
Candidate C gets 1 electoral votes

Straight mathn No winner take all--

This way folks in Texas who don't support Bush would be able to really have their vote counted. And so in a state like California--people voting for Bush there will actually add electoral votes to the Bush column.

Everyone is represented with their vote. Big states are overall underrepresented by pop, small states are overall overepresented by pop,--but all citizens have a vote that counts.

that is all well and good but still basically defeats the reason for the electoral college in the first place.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The founding fathers wanted to neutralize the weight/influence of the high population states.

Otherwise, the Norhtern states would run roughshod over the southern plantation states by virtue of the great population difference.

Now people trying to remove the EC are esponding the same thing.

 

[Napalm]

Originally posted by: Doboji
So here we are 4 years after the Florida fiasco, and I'm still reading posts from people bztching about the fact that Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.

And I realize this was probably all discussed 4 years ago... but I feel the need to scream this one more time.

The electoral college is fair and moral, allowing the presidency to be determined by the popular vote would be immoral, unfair, and could bring this country to the brink of civil war. Because of the overwhelming populations in California and the East Coast Megalapolis, the election would be extremely biased and would snatch all voting power from enourmous swaths of land throughout the middle of the country.

Do you really think Kansas is going to be happy with absolutely no voting power whatsoever?... It is the electoral college that allows our unique form of democracy to function. If you abolish the electoral college you will immediately find yourself in a hard conflict with all the smaller states who's interests will be completely ignored.

What baffles me, is how anyone cannot see these simple realities?

-Max

This is a stupid post.

The legitimacy of Bush's Presidency is related to the question of whether he won Florida fairly or not. Many, myself included, believe that not counting votes and preventing blacks from voting affected who won Florida. If this is true, Gore was robbed of an electoral college victory by being denied Florida. The fact that he also won the popular vote simplu adds insult to injury...