Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by her209, Nov 8, 2012.
would you be in support of getting rid of the electoral vote for the popular vote?
I think we went over this during the bush years.
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?
Regardless of who wins, I'm in support of removing the Electoral College and going with popular vote.
"Winning the popular vote" means nothing in an electoral college election.
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.
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.
Their reasons don't really apply to the world of today.
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.
People vote. Not cows.
That's why we have an amendment process.
Exactly. Get rid of the now-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.
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.
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.
How is that at all concerning or alarming unless you don't understand population density?
Map by county - as of Nov 8th.
By Electoral Vote -
A bunch of crybabies..just suck it up....Romney lost that`s all there is to it!!
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.
The southern-most part of texas is a little suspicious looking to me :hmm:
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.
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.
Can you explain what that purpose is?
So that the campaign process didn't consist of pandering to CA, TX, NY, and FL?
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.
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.
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.
The EC need to be gone, regardless of who won it should be by popular vote.