[splat]

Now I have seen quite a few people gripping about the electoral college.

Now lets go back to our constitution, and why our founding fathers Created it. look at it it is very interesting, and it will not be changed for the very reasons it was put into place.

Now lets just say there was no electoral college. who won the election ? No Brainer -- Gore . --- WRONG! Nobody won it it ! neither candidate had greater than a 50% of the vote that is a requirement in the constitution !( and there are very good reasons for that too! ,) even with the electroal college they have to have greater than 50% of the votes . then things would have gotten really messy and been decided by the incoming congress!

Before you go say it has out lived it's usefulness, just remeber it worked exactly how it was supposed to.


Now lets hear why people feel it is obsolete.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Well, I think that the idea was desgined so that the large masses of idiots couldnt directly vote for an idiot. This way, the electors had some semblance of control over the fledgling government.

It doesn't make sense though, because there will arise situations in which more people vote for a certain candidate (therefore the will of the people is for that candidate to be elected POTUS) but that person will still lose the election.
When you think about it, voting doesnt really make sense in the first place because lots of people end up getting ruled by a politician they don't like, while the politician still has to care for those people just as if they had voted for him.

 

[Thepagoda]

Things got really messy anyways.

My primary quam with the electoral college is that it allows for the presidential position ot be negotiated for. Case in point, unargueably the election of 1876 where the winner by vote did not serve because they had to make some deals with the south. OK, so that is one instance, but what about the 2000 election? there are the obvious problems stemming from the bipartisan system, and the electoral college seems to be helping that system stay in place. I am not a political wizard, so I don't know what the solution should be, but I think that in order for the political system to remain healthy it should change with the times. there have been amendments to the constitution to help facilitate change haven't there? maybe its time that something changed in this respect. It is not a good thing when the most powerful country in the world is ruled by a leader that at best represents 40 some percent of its citizens. Gore still beat Bush in # of votes recieved, albiet it was not 51% of the country's voters, so the electoral college isn't even representing the majority of the people. Plainly it allows candidates to focus on several key states and ignore the rest, and generally those states don't represent the rest of the union.

 

[Tenchiro]

It seems a shame that over 540,000 votes in effect did not count in the last election. That should show right there that the system does not work. If nothing else it brings up alot of room for corruption when you have politicians electing each other.

 

[Thepagoda]

I agree, politicians electing each other is not a good thing, it is asking or liars to elect other liars. Ughh... Oh well GOD BLESS AMERICA (by the way I mean a christian god)!

 

[ohio]

I'm all for the electoral college. One of the more intelligent aspects of our voting process.

I just take issue with using political connections to illegally rig elections or deny voters their constitutional right... but that's a whole 'nother debate. I'm sure shady sh!t happens on both sides, but it seems one side was better at it than the other.

 

[Spud]

I hate the electoral college.

My presidential vote in 1996 and 2000 was essentially meaningless. I lived in Alaska and Idaho which were republican locks. There was no way those electoral votes were up for up for contest. I ended up voting for Nader both times since it really didn’t matter. I would have put a lot more thought into my presidential vote if it had any bearing on the actual election of my president.

 

[LordOpie]

I think the two party system is a bigger problem, specifically the obvious and getting stupid partisan crap that's just getting worse. The other problem is that the average man has no chance in serving his country politically. I suspect many of top officials started out with good intentions, only to get beaten down by the effort required to get to their position.

 

[The Toninator]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I think the two party system is a bigger problem, specifically the obvious and getting stupid partisan crap that's just getting

two (or more) party system is GREAT! but partisan politics is destroying our country.

 

[The Toninator]

Originally posted by The Toninator
two (or more) party system is GREAT! but partisan politics is destroying our country.

oh and i am FOR the EC.

 

[Spud]

Am I blind or has anyone offered any arguments on why the electoral college should be kept? The election of 2000 was essentially settled by the U.S. Supreme Court when they ruled on the lower court appeals in Florida – giving Bush the electoral votes needed for the Presidency. Right or wrong, the election was settled in the courts, not at the voting booth. That’s proof that the electoral college works as intended?

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Spud
Am I blind or has anyone offered any arguments on why the electoral college should be kept? The election of 2000 was essentially settled by the U.S. Supreme Court when they ruled on the lower court appeals in Florida – giving Bush the electoral votes needed for the Presidency. Right or wrong, the election was settled in the courts, not at the voting booth. That’s proof that the electoral college works as intended?

The 2000 election went wrong for a variety of reasons, but the electoral college was not one of them.

In a country as large and diverse as the US it is important that the votes are represented regionally. In a popular vote, the needs of large but inpopulous states would be largely ignored despite their role being pivotal in our economy and society. Simply put, most city folk don't understand country folk.

This is the same reason the UN votes by country, not by population of each member country. Imagine a UN effetively run solely by China and India....

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by ohio
The 2000 election went wrong for a variety of reasons, but the electoral college was not one of them.

In a country as large and diverse as the US it is important that the votes are represented regionally. In a popular vote, the needs of large but inpopulous states would be largely ignored despite their role being pivotal in our economy and society. Simply put, most city folk don't understand country folk.

This is the same reason the UN votes by country, not by population of each member country. Imagine a UN effetively run solely by China and India....

So what your saying is it is all Florida's fault. I say we vote em out of the union and give Puerto Rico in their slot.

 

[Spud]

Ohio –

How about my example of Alaska and Idaho two states with large land mass, and few people? Alaska has 3 electoral votes and Idaho has 4. These states are republican locks regardless of the candidates. There is little or no effort to court these states as their electoral vote count is miniscule and secured by one party.

The electoral college negates the notion of “one man, one vote” If you live in a highly partisan state (regardless of population) your vote is irrelevant.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ohio
In a country as large and diverse as the US it is important that the votes are represented regionally. In a popular vote, the needs of large but inpopulous states would be largely ignored despite their role being pivotal in our economy and society. Simply put, most city folk don't understand country folk.

That's what the senate is for.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Spud
There is little or no effort to court these states as their electoral vote count is miniscule and secured by one party.

The electoral college negates the notion of “one man, one vote” If you live in a highly partisan state (regardless of population) your vote is irrelevant.

True, but I challenge that their electoral vote count is miniscule... it could be pivotal in a close election.

And while some states are highly partisan, that can change over time... witness the "republicanization" of the South.

It's a tradeoff, and as LordOpie pointed out the senate already insures somewhat of a voice for every state... I don't really feel that one half of one branch of government is enough, but obviously it's a judgement call.

I also realize I'm shooting myself in the foot, because given our current system and distribution of views, the electoral college gives more power to conservatives than liberals... but I still believe it's the better system for us, and that our problems more stem from bipartisan impotence, the lobbying system, and general corruption.

 

[splat]

Originally posted by Spud
Ohio –

How about my example of Alaska and Idaho two states with large land mass, and few people? Alaska has 3 electoral votes and Idaho has 4. These states are republican locks regardless of the candidates. There is little or no effort to court these states as their electoral vote count is miniscule and secured by one party.

The electoral college negates the notion of “one man, one vote” If you live in a highly partisan state (regardless of population) your vote is irrelevant.

Well Spud , I Live in Taxachussettes and it's Electroal votes are a lock for the Dems. the elctroal College, makes sure That states with Like NY and California don't control the whole elections.

Lets take an Example California which Gore won By several Million of votes and get the 51 Electoral votes, Wyoming which Bush won by about 100, 000 Votes , but only had 500,000 Voters. SO If you went by Popular vote only a small state like Wyoming would have no say.

and the Mess in Florida , well That proved Many things.

1) Voting Machines need to be taken much more serously , and can have no margin for error, ( most system now have a know .1 % error built into them) Probably something that should be federalized. Too Much room for coruption.

2) People learned there Votes count and Can make the difference. several People came forth ( well after the fact , and admitted , they voted for Bucannon , not thinking Gore had a Chance , so after the fact claimed there was a confussing balot.

3) Every State Means something ! If even the Smallest of States can make a difference. ( take New Mexico , Very close there , but Gore did not put in much time there and had New Mexico Gone the other way , it would have flipped the electoral college. )

4) I think It was sad , that the Courts had to get involved , But it wasn't going to end from either side , till it wound up there .