I think we should abolish it.



Cat

Abolish it!

Tanya

I think we should abolish it.



Cat


No.

See America's smaller states stand to lose if we abolish the electoral college, set in place by the founding fathers in our constitution.  Candidates would spend more time in larger states where there are a greater number of votes and, potentially, greater rewards.  Letting the easy-to-control masses in big cities soley choose the leader would be a grave mistake.  Big states also have large media markets, think television, think WABC, WOR, KNEW, WSB, WKRO, KRLA, and other huge stations in huge markets, making the masses think a certain way.  It would dominate the fall campaign.  That would make for a stylistic change: presidential elections based more on masses would spend all there time in urban areas, rather than on retail political skill in rural areas.  Why would they campaign in battleground states in this election like: Tennessee, Missouri, Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, and Wisconsin?  Why wouldn't the candidates just camp out in California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Florida?  That's the polar opposite of how the two parties choose their nominees: sizing up candidates as they go from small town, to small town, in smaller states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Remember, we went three full elections without a candidate who recieved 50% of the US popular vote.  And although Gore in 2000 did win the popular vote by 0.5%, Bush nevertheless carried 30 out of 50 states, 228 out of 435 congressional districts, and 2,480 counties to Gore's 674 counties.

So using the 2000 election as an example, the electoral college narrowly choose a winner based on his performance as the candidate with BROADER national appeal.  Come to think of it, it is a national election, not a regional one.

The electoral college was setup over 200 years ago. I seem to remember my history teacher calling the constitution a "living document". The founding forefathers knew times would change and made the constitution change-able.

Do you think they envisioned the internet? No.

Back then they had a guy riding a horse with a note in his bag. It's a lot easier to carry the votes of 10 or 12 jerks than it is to carry an entire collony worth. Hence the college.

IT'S OUTDATED! In a day with instant communication, every single vote should count!

Will the system change? probably not. Not enough people think it's broken. or if they do, then think it's broken in their favor. *cough*Bush*cough*

This is an issue where GW and I agree :o (face it, it had to happen).  The electoral college is still a viable way to insure that the smaller states have as much say in the government as the larger more populous states.  I think it was a brilliant stroke by the founders and we will not see it going away anytime soon.  It is one more way of opposing the tyranny of the majority.  We should hang on to it with one hand, in the other we should hold paper trails and voting rights.  ;)

Will the system change? probably not. Not enough people think it's broken. or if they do, then think it's broken in their favor. *cough*Bush*cough*


Bush got something like 51% of the popular vote....which sure beats the 43% that put that terror, Bill Clinton, in office for 4 years.  Thanks Ross Perot.

I say abolish it.  Its an anacronism.  It is also unfair to large states, even though they do have many more electoral votes than the small states, and get most of the attention from candidates anyway.  In 2000 Wyoming, with 3 electoral votes, had just over 43,000 votes per elector, while Mass had almost 135,000 votes per elector.  If we use Wyoming as the base line, ie each vote counts 1, than in Mass, each vote was worth .37 by comparison.  check out the entire list for 2000 at http//supak.com/election_2000/index.htm .  I think that each vote should count equally, which under the surrent system is not the case.

I say abolish it.  Its an anacronism.  It is also unfair to large states,


Oh goody.  Give more say to large states.  Under our current system, 11 states can decide the winner...11 states.  Leaving the majority of the popular vote in the other 39 states to rot. 

If we scrapped it, all the say would go to California (55), Texas (34), and New York (31.)  The candidates would never leave those three states.

The system is fine as is.  If any change is to be made, it's that each state, reguardless of size, would get 1 electoral vote.  That way California, Texas, and New York don't get to push around Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska.  Under that system, the last election would have looked like (DC included):

Bush: 31 electoral votes.
Kerry: 20 electoral votes.

26 electoral votes needed to win.

Dump the electoral college and reform elections to a federal standard.  Elections reform needs to be seen as a civil rights issue.

Dump the electoral college and reform elections to a federal standard. 


Sorry, this is a states' issue.  I know democrats love the federal government, mostly because they want government to be as far away from the people as possible, but a state can do what it wants here.  The federal government will never get involved with this one.

I say change it at least.  I think the electoral votes should be split to mirror the popular vote in that state.

Here's how I see it.  In most states all the votes go to one candidate, it doesn't seem fair.  For example, here in Utah we have 5 votes.  In the last election they all went to GWB.    Believe it or not there are actually some Dems in Utah.  I think the popular vote was 80/20 so GWB would get 4 and Kerry would get 1.  In states like California the R's would get some as well as the D's.  It seems much fairer to me, although I am sure I will be told I am wrong.

I say change it at least.  I think the electoral votes should be split to mirror the popular vote in that state.

Here's how I see it.  In most states all the votes go to one candidate, it doesn't seem fair.  For example, here in Utah we have 5 votes.  In the last election they all went to GWB.    Believe it or not there are actually some Dems in Utah.  I think the popular vote was 80/20 so GWB would get 4 and Kerry would get 1.  In states like California the R's would get some as well as the D's.  It seems much fairer to me, although I am sure I will be told I am wrong.


I believe you are right, and believe that the system does need tweaking, not scrapping.  The winner take all thing isn't fair to the voters in the individual states and doesn't accuratley reflect the voters wishes.  This is something that I believe should be considered, and I believe alot of the states will.

I say change it at least.  I think the electoral votes should be split to mirror the popular vote in that state.

Here's how I see it.  In most states all the votes go to one candidate, it doesn't seem fair.  For example, here in Utah we have 5 votes.  In the last election they all went to GWB.    Believe it or not there are actually some Dems in Utah.  I think the popular vote was 80/20 so GWB would get 4 and Kerry would get 1.  In states like California the R's would get some as well as the D's.  It seems much fairer to me, although I am sure I will be told I am wrong.



Very good point. But wouldn't having the winner be determined by a direct vote count show the same results?



Cat

While I stated my views above, this really is a pointless discussion.  It will never happen.  The tweek suggested above would be a disaster unless all the states did it.

Very good point. But wouldn't having the winner be determined by a direct vote count show the same results?

Cat


I don't know.  To me it doesn't seem like it.  Just because states like NY and CA have tons more voters than the mid-west etc.  With the electoral split vote it seems to me that more votes will count.


While I stated my views above, this really is a pointless discussion. It will never happen. The tweek suggested above would be a disaster unless all the states did it.


You're right, Carlos.  It would have to happen in all the states in order to work.

You're right, Carlos.  It would have to happen in all the states in order to work.


That is exactly it.  Though Nebraska and Maine have reformed somewhat (Bush still got all of Nebraska's electoral votes, and Kerry got all of Maine's,) no solid state would ever do it.  Do you think republicans want a system where the electoral votes split based on popular vote in states like Texas, Florida, and Ohio?  Do democrats want that system in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, and California?  Fact is, neither party is going to let it happen in a state they feel they can easily win in an election.  Neither party will make the first move.

Colorado had a proposed change, to give the electoral votes based on popular votes.  Amendment 36.  It failed miserably.  Why?  Well, Colorado has 9 electoral votes, and is a state that can go either way (though it leans republican.)  Now, in this past election, if amendment 36 passed, Bush would have gotten 5 electoral votes, and Kerry 4.  To get another electoral vote, a candidate must get 61% of Colorado's popular vote.  Thus, if Bush got 61% in this election in Colorado, and amendment 36 passed, Bush would have gotten 6 electoral votes, and Kerry 3.  And so on as the popular vote climbs.  BUT (and this is a big but,) in a swing state like Colorado, neither party stands a real chance of getting 61% of the popular vote.  So, since 5-4=1, that would basically mean Colorado would only be worth 1 electoral vote.  Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska would have bigger says.  Thus, Colorado voted down amendment 36, because if they didn't, no candidate from either party would have ever visited them again.

Thus, Colorado vote down amendment 36, because if they didn't, no candidate from either party would have ever visited them again.

Sigh.  Another case of self-interest winning out over the public interest