• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

This shows who really should win the Presidential election.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It is possible for a president to be elected with his majority of electorals and actually lose the popular massively isn't it? Like maybe get a 20% popular vote or something? Yes, this will never happen - but technically with this system it could. Would people be pissed off then? I would hope so. We have this now - to a much lesser degree - electorals Bush may win, but loses by the popular. It is to a smaller degree, but it is still to a degree...

If somebody can agree that the 20% popular but winning by electoral is stupid then it is the same principle as rejecting an electoral president now if he loses the popular.
 
My vote shouldn't count as much as yours, Red. My State should be equally important in choosing a Federal President as much as your state should. Now you can change the EC to make it look like the US Senate with a one state, one vote. Or, you can make The EC look like the House of Representatives making a highly populated state have more of a presence/influence in this Union of States. Or you can do what the framers did and combine the two to try to level the playing field.

And actually Red, go back to class and learn a little bit about the economy outside of California. When the U.S. nonfarm related economy booms, our farmers go into a recession. When the U.S. economy sufers our farmers are booming.
 
Lets call a spade a spade shall we? The people that framed the constitution realized early on that a large percentage of the people are stupid. That may not be polically correct to say these days, but it's true. A large percentage of the people are stupid. And if you have a TRUE democracy (mob rule), the stupid would always overwhelm the rest with sheer numbers (as is the case in this election -- the stupid in the large cities overwhelm the rest of the country)

Lets face reality. Most people don't have the time or initiative to really keep track of what's going on. They rely on soundbytes and media blurbs. The average politician just keeps spouting off little sound bytes that sound good to the people, without offering serious details as to how things really function. The politician that promises the most handouts (or tax cuts) to the masses wins -- people don't realize that someone's gotta pay for all this. The people that actually work and make the money end up paying for all the entitlements and handouts going to those that feel they are somehow owed something by the country.

The electoral college keeps somewhat of a balance between the large densely populated cities and the less populated areas.
 
once again i think that this proves that people are what count, since blue sections represent the mass amount of people that live in one cluttered area

i mean the 3 people that live in the mid usa, yeah they all voted bush..

i usually see this with the caption
"a couple of tidal waves shoud take care of this"

and we can tell youre a rep whoever posted

oh well...red, color of the devil😛
 
DABANSHEE stated:

"Really Demon-Xanth, try using some logic.

If you chose to live in areas that encroaches on mountain lions you deserve to be at risk of being attacked by them. Just as when people go to the beach & enter the domain of the Great White Shark, they deserve to be at risk of being shark bait. I axcept that risk when I go to the beach. One axcepts the risk of living on a fault line or in a 'Tornado alley' - why should wildlife be consided any differently? Afterall, who was there first (even if wildlife encroaches on established residential areas its useally because of the habitat lose we are responsable for)."

When many people were moving out there mountain lions were hunted. Then the populous determined that they should not be hunted AT ALL. Since then the mountain lion population has increased because of the sudden lack of a predator. Controlled hunting would have been to maintain a stable population. It's like the rest of the state outlawing straps to attach furnature to the walls because they're unsightly while ignoring that earthquake prone areas use them to keep stuff from falling down in earthquakes.

The fish and game department's job is to find a balence and keep it there. However at least 50% of the population has no sense of why never ending growth CANNOT endure (look at the world's population, how long can that last?). Many of these people are the same that feed bears in national forests with a complete lack of respect for the animal's power. Last I checked a bear can break into a car.

I'm in no way saying that all mountain lions should be hunted, however when when a local frog was deemed endangered and had to be protected it caused another local frog to disappear from the area. Why? the endagered frogs ate the now nonexistant frogs.

Environmentalists and public opinion got MTBE into gasoline here. Now lakes have MTBE in the water because MTBE was rushed in to quell the public's desire. If adaquate studies were done to verify if it was safe by people who knew what they were talking about it might have been avoided and a better substitute could have been found.

The CARB made a ruling that 2% of all manufacturer's cars must be zero emmision vehicles (read: electric cars) because that is what the public wanted. I have yet to see an electric car on the road. Batteries often contain toxic materials and power plants STILL must generate energy.

The public is often not informed enough to make the right choice. (which is the whole reason for the electral college.) If someone fails to see a downside because of a lack of information or lack of knowledge then some long term effects can be experienced.
 
Red Dawn: The founders of our country left it upto the electoral college to vote on the president because they did feel that the general public was not well informed enough to vote.

Just something to think about.
 
I think it's clear that too many people vote ignorantly.

The problem with that is, for every person who studies the issues and candidates positions, there is at least one person who votes the way his family/union/teacher/minister/newspaper tells him to or based on superficial factors like how good he looks and talks or based on ads that accuse him of drowning kittens and wanting to sell grandma to oil companies.

I'd rather have a small group of people who know what they're voting on participate in the process than a huge group of pre-programmed drones marching on the polls to vote away the rights and wealth of others.
 
Yeh Dameon, I agree with you on electric cars, all they do is tranfer the emissions from the vehicle to the power station & battery manfacturing/decommisioning/recyclying facilty)

Really I think Hydrogen or alcohol are the future as far as cars are concerned.
 
Damnit!! I got in late on this thread. I'm going to jump in in a second, but I'm still reading posts. 😉 But first...

wyvm

<<I happen to think 99.5% is a pretty good representation of the truth>>



I'd like you to read this:

If 99.9% is good enough then....

12 newborns will be given to the wrong parents daily

114,500 mismatched pairs of shoes will be shipped/year

18,322 pieces of mail will be mishandled/hour

2,000,000 documents will be lost by the IRS this year

2.5 million books will be shipped with the wrong covers

Two planes landed at Chicago's O'Hare airport will be unsafe every day

315 entries in Webster's Dictionary will be misspelled

20,000 incorrect drug prescriptions will be written this year

880,000 credit cards in circulation will turn out to have incorrect
cardholder information on their magnetic strips

103,260 income tax returns will be processed incorrectly during the year

5.5 million cases of soft drinks produced will be flat

291 pacemaker operations will be performed incorrectly

3056 copies of tomorrow's Wall Street Journal will be missing one
of the three sections

A typical day would be 24 hours long (give or take 86.4 seconds)

George W. Bush would be the next President of the United States.
(or possibly Al Gore).

That's something I just got in my email yesterday. Yes, I know it's flippant, but it's interesting because you say that you're happy with 99.5%. 🙂
 


<< My State should be equally important in choosing a Federal President as much as your state should. >>



All states should have equal importance, but they all shouldnt have equal weight in who gets elected. THe reason why is obvious. Why should a South Dakota vote be worth more than a californians vote. You think the average person in SD or anywhere in the midwest is more 'educated' and more informed than the average person in CA? I dont think so! Where is all the technology being developed at? In the cities of course.
IMHO i think the EC should not be abolished, rather reformed. Red Dawn stated there are less people per electoral vote in the smaller states than the larger ones and that is what needs to be changed. Put equal weight to every persons vote, no matter where they live.



imhotepmp


 
<< Lets call a spade a spade shall we >>

What a Bozo. What makes you think you are so enlightened and informed?

I did not say that I am enlightened or informed. As a matter of fact, maybe I'm part of that large group of stupid people. The fact remains that the framers of the constitution set the election up this way for exactly that reason -- they were afraid the masses were not informed enough (and too stupid) to allow a total mob rule democracy. Like it or not, that's the background of it, and the more I read the papers and watch the news, the more I realize they were absolutely right.
 
imhotepmp,




<< Why should a South Dakota vote be worth more than a californians vote. You think the average person in SD or anywhere in the midwest is more 'educated' and more informed than the average person in CA? I dont think so! >>



<< My State should be equally important in choosing a Federal President as much as your state should. >>

Where did I a South Dakota vote is worth more than a Californians vote? I SAID THE STATE'S VOTE SHOULD BE EQUAL.

Secondly, if we want to insult intelligences here you LA City freak who is probably chomping on some Doritos that were a result of a farmer's intelligence and hard work, please, please, please explain to me trade exports and the impact it has on the farmer in direct relation to what the farmer's impact is on exports out of this country. And if you technologically superior freaks in California are that superior in intelligence, please tell me how the amount of bushels a farmer can produce now is over 100 times that of 100 years ago in the same area of land. Just a dumb farmer still growing it like gramps did, huh? Dumb luck, right? I'm amazed, truly amazed at how intelligent a farmer actually is. You go ahead and try to run his business for a year. I dare you!

And where is all the technology being developed?

Hmmmmm let's see:
3M- Minnesota
IBM- Minnesota
Mayo Clinic- Minnesota
Numerous Agricultural Businesses that a city boy can't understand

Nontechnological research businesses:
Gateway Computers: South Dakota
Citibank- South Dakota
Shall I go on?

 
Red Dawn: Do you know German or did you run it through Babelfish? Also, why German? Are you trying to imply that I'm a Nazi or something? If so, why?

[edit]
After re-reading your post, I guess you are trying to call me a Nazi. That's not a very nice thing to say just because you disagree with someone else's opinion.
[/edit]

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and California has 52. How does the EC give to much power to the small states? It wouuld take over 17 Wyomings to equal one California. Cali has 11% of the population and an equal amount of EC votes. As I posted earlier, it's possible to win THIRTY-NINE (39) states and still LOSE the EC vote.

Last week, I proposed that the EC be modified so that the votes would be awarded by DISTRICT with the extra 2 votes per state going to the overall winner of the state. That way, rural districts won't have their votes overruled by the big cities and candidates would be forced to pay attention to the flyover country because just concentrating on the urban areas will result in a map like we've seen and a huge loss for the guy in blue. (Regardless of who the guy blue represents is.)
 
One reason I haven't seen mentioned yet is that the Electoral College gives the media something to slobber over. How exciting would an election be if it read like a horserace?

[tv anchor mode]
And they're off. Looks like Gore's in an early lead with 56%, but here's Bush coming up around the bend with 48, now 49%, Gore's down to 51, Gore's up again, Gore's opening the gap, now 55% Gore, and Bush surges back late in the game, 49% again, Bush, Gore, Bush, Gore, ah who cares anyway.
[/tv anchor mode]
 
That's something I just got in my email yesterday. Yes, I know it's flippant, but it's interesting because you say that you're happy with 99.5%.

Oh please. Name me a way to get 100% accuracy in voting, and I will support it. For now, we need to standardize the voting process, make it as easy and obvious as possible, and for God sakes use technology at the voting booth!

The EC is Bullsh!t and those who say it's the only fair way to elect a leader are either ignorant or are afraid to give up the unfair advantage that they now hold

I could not have said it better myself. If we ran a poll of those who are &quot;supporting&quot; the EC right now, I bet 75% of them would be Republican. That is the whole damn problem with the current system is that numbskulls vote party line and not what is best for the country.



 
&quot;This shows who really should win the Presidential election. &quot;
This is the ONLY fair way, change it so EACH VOTE COUNTS THE SAME,
and it doesn't matter if you live in the cities, or the country.
Any other system gives out unfair bias on where you live.

Gore 49,921,267
Bush 49,658,276
Nader 2,756,008
Buchanan 447,927

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top