View Full Version : Its Time To Abolish The U.S. Electoral College
MtnBiker
09-24-2007, 10:47 AM
Its Time To Abolish The U.S. Electoral College
By
Darrell Williams
September 19, 2007
In 2000, the Electoral College and a meddling U.S. Supreme Court gave the United States a president that many consider to be the worst in our nations history. In the 2000 presidential election, Bush received 50,456,002 popular votes or 47.87%. Gore received 50,999,897 popular votes or 48.38%. Gore received 543,895 more popular votes than Bush. The American people elected Al Gore to be the next president. The Electoral College elected George W. Bush to be the next president. The ill effects of this disastrous choice are now clearly evident to our nation and particularly to the wrecked nation of Iraq.
In four presidential elections, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000, the candidates receiving the majority of popular votes did not become president. The Electoral College elected the candidate with less than the majority of popular votes. In each of these elections the will of the people was denied.
There have been many reasons and excuses for the establishment of the Electoral College system of electing the president and vice president. When our nation was first established, the state legislatures did not trust the people to choose the president. The few people who ran the early state governments were often more educated and more knowledgeable of the individuals running for office, their qualifications and the issues facing the state and national government. In our early nation only a small percent of the population was allowed to vote. The women, slaves, felons, most minorities, rural residents who lived too far away from the cities and many states also had religious restrictions. Communications between each of the states often took days. Those in the governments of each state thought that the general public was not informed enough to make good decisions about important issues. In general, this was probably partially true at that time. Because of this, the legislators created the Electoral College system to retain for themselves complete control of the election of the president. Many states did not even have presidential elections. The legislators simply choose electors to vote without any election or representation by the general public
.
This system was not intended to be a democratic system. It was always intended to be a republican system which allows a few state legislators to determine who becomes president.
One of the fundamental reasons for this system is no longer valid. This is the excuse that the general public is not informed enough about the issues or the candidates to make a wise choice. The many present forms of communications did not exist at the beginning of our nation. What once took days for messages to travel from one colony to another, now takes seconds. Radio, cable TV, internet, computers, and news satellites now provide instant worldwide information about events and people. This creates a public that is extremely well informed and capable of making excellent judgments when they are given truthful information.
There is no longer any reason to allow a few legislators in each state to choose the electors who in turn choose a president. In the present system the electors have no responsibility to represent the people. The electors are not elected by the people and have no constitutional obligation to vote for the candidate the people favor.
Its time to abolish the antiquated U.S. Electoral College system and elect the president and vice president by direct popular vote. This would be completely democratic. It would fulfill the wishes of the people.
Link (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38113)
A call to bring down our republic.
Joe Steel
09-24-2007, 12:20 PM
Link (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38113)
A call to bring down our republic.
That would be a good first step.
Then we could rewrite the Constitution and do right.
BoogyMan
09-24-2007, 12:27 PM
Link (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38113)
A call to bring down our republic.
It certainly is. It would appear that Mr. Williams doesn't understand the simple distinction between our representative republic and a pure democracy.
musicman
09-24-2007, 12:33 PM
I'm trying to decide whether the author is truly that ignorant, or if he's just hoping the READER is.
Sitarro
09-24-2007, 12:40 PM
I still say that if you can't produce proof that you are up to date with your tax bill, you shouldn't be allowed to vote, that in itself would probably erase millions of people from Gore's totals.
Mr. P
09-24-2007, 01:07 PM
I'm trying to decide whether the author is truly that ignorant, or if he's just hoping the READER is.
Both.
typomaniac
09-24-2007, 01:24 PM
It certainly is. It would appear that Mr. Williams doesn't understand the simple distinction between our representative republic and a pure democracy.
Or maybe that a representative republic these days makes about as much sense as rule by divine right. They may work in theory, but neither works in practice in this day and age.
MtnBiker
09-24-2007, 01:41 PM
Or maybe that a representative republic these days makes about as much sense as rule by divine right. They may work in theory, but neither works in practice in this day and age.
That would be a good first step.
Then we could rewrite the Constitution and do right.
US Constitution = bad
typomaniac
09-24-2007, 01:43 PM
US Constitution = bad
Not quite:
US Constitution != perfect
musicman
09-24-2007, 03:57 PM
Or maybe that a representative republic these days makes about as much sense as rule by divine right. They may work in theory, but neither works in practice in this day and age.
Do you remember the red/blue map, after the 2004 election? You know - that big RED bastard with the little blue splotches on it.
Are you saying that people who live in areas of large population density should run the affairs of this country, by virtue of the sheer weight of their numbers? That there are no differences in the needs and perceptions of big-city voters, as opposed to their country cousins?
The founders appear to have disagreed with you - and I think they were right.
BoogyMan
09-24-2007, 04:50 PM
Or maybe that a representative republic these days makes about as much sense as rule by divine right. They may work in theory, but neither works in practice in this day and age.
What exactly isn't working with our representative republic?
avatar4321
09-24-2007, 05:10 PM
The man is ignorant. This electoral college saved this nations in 2000. Without it rather than recount after recount in Florida it would have been recount after recount in every single state. It would have been 1000x easier to cheat because the process would have been so widespread no one could have monitored it. There would have been lawsuit after lawsuit over every single issue. it would have been total pandamonium.
Not to mention that this divided nation would have been sitting ducks for Al Qaeda on 9/11. And if Al Gore had managed to steal the election I cant imagine what state we would be in today.
typomaniac
09-24-2007, 05:28 PM
Do you remember the red/blue map, after the 2004 election? You know - that big RED bastard with the little blue splotches on it.
Yeah, and I also remember the map that was distorted to enlarge or shrink areas according to their relative population densities. You know - the one with almost identical amounts of red and BLUE. :)
Are you saying that people who live in areas of large population density should run the affairs of this country, by virtue of the sheer weight of their numbers?
I'm saying that people who vote should run the affairs of this country, regardless of where they live. Democracy may be a lame form of government, to paraphrase Winston, but all the others are worse.
That there are no differences in the needs and perceptions of big-city voters, as opposed to their country cousins?These days the country folk have just as many satellite channels as their urban cousins. Those of us who are active can make our needs known, thanks to the modern world.
The founders appear to have disagreed with you - and I think they were right.And I probably would have agreed with them, had I lived in the 18th century. :poke:
typomaniac
09-24-2007, 05:29 PM
What exactly isn't working with our representative republic?
Among many other things, it demotivates citizens from voting.
typomaniac
09-24-2007, 05:30 PM
The man is ignorant. This electoral college saved this nations in 2000. Without it rather than recount after recount in Florida it would have been recount after recount in every single state. It would have been 1000x easier to cheat because the process would have been so widespread no one could have monitored it. There would have been lawsuit after lawsuit over every single issue. it would have been total pandamonium.Truly idiotic. Florida's electoral votes would have gone to Gore had not the USSC given themselves a few million votes per activist justice.
Mr. P
09-24-2007, 05:54 PM
Among many other things, it demotivates citizens from voting.
Only for the uninformed, and those who don't understand the system. Those who think we live in a Democracy?
retiredman
09-24-2007, 06:00 PM
It certainly is. It would appear that Mr. Williams doesn't understand the simple distinction between our representative republic and a pure democracy.
there is no doubt that the electoral college is inequitable and gives more relative power to the voters in tiny or unpopulated states.
BoogyMan
09-24-2007, 06:17 PM
there is no doubt that the electoral college is inequitable and gives more relative power to the voters in tiny or unpopulated states.
I have heard the left decry a supposed lack of respect for the constitution of this great nation for the last 6 to 7 years, and then those same individuals who would make such claims come out against a system laid out by article 2 section 1 and the 12th amendment of that same wonderful document.
Now, who is it again that has no respect for the constitution?
What it tries to do is give equal representation.
typomaniac
09-24-2007, 06:26 PM
I have heard the left decry a supposed lack of respect for the constitution of this great nation for the last 6 to 7 years, and then those same individuals who would make such claims come out against a system laid out by article 2 section 1 and the 12th amendment of that same wonderful document.
Believing that it could be improved upon is hardly disrespect.
retiredman
09-24-2007, 06:27 PM
you need to chill, my brother. Where do I EVER disrespect the constitution?
I point out that the electoral college gives more power to to the voters in states with the smallest populations. Do you disagree with that?
BoogyMan
09-24-2007, 06:29 PM
you need to chill, my brother. Where do I EVER disrespect the constitution?
I point out that the electoral college gives more power to to the voters in states with the least population. Do you disagree with that?
Have you been one of the numerous masses on the left twisting the actions of the right and calling out disrespect for the constitution? Just wondering?
My point is that the electoral college treats states as equals.
retiredman
09-24-2007, 06:30 PM
a very simple way to make it MORE equitable would be to reduce each state's electors by two.
retiredman
09-24-2007, 06:33 PM
Have you been one of the numerous masses on the left twisting the actions of the right and calling out disrespect for the constitution? Just wondering?
My point is that the electoral college treats states as equals.
no...your point was to QUOTE me and then go off on a rant about disrespecting the constitution...your rant did not reference my quote and quoting me was gratuitous and unnecessary...and you didn't say it treated states as equals, you said it tried to provide equal representation....to whom was left unstated. It may treat STATES as equals, but it does not treat voters as equals.
Mr. P
09-24-2007, 06:35 PM
Believing that it could be improved upon is hardly disrespect.
Please bring signature into compliance. Before the signature COP stomps yer pecker.
Thanks
BoogyMan
09-24-2007, 06:38 PM
no...your point was to QUOTE me and then go off on a rant about disrespecting the constitution...your rant did not reference my quote and quoting me was gratuitous and unnecessary...and you didn't say it treated states as equals, you said it tried to provide equal representation....to whom was left unstated. It may treat STATES as equals, but it does not treat voters as equals.
manfrommaine, have you or have you not been one of those on the left crying about the right and it's supposed disrespect for the constitution?
And my point WAS that the constitution provides states equal representation by the use of the electoral college.
avatar4321
09-24-2007, 06:46 PM
Truly idiotic. Florida's electoral votes would have gone to Gore had not the USSC given themselves a few million votes per activist justice.
Yeah.... Al Gore never once won Florida. The fact that he tried to steal the election in front of everyone was quite amazing. Even Nixon had the grace not to challenge the results on Kennedy despite clear evidence of dead people voting.
Must bug Al to know that Nixon of all people showed more class.
retiredman
09-24-2007, 06:48 PM
"manfrommaine, have you or have you not been one of those on the left crying about the right and it's supposed disrespect for the constitution?"
what does that have to do with the fact that my statement did not express any disrespect for the constitution? Why did you bother to quote this:"there is no doubt that the electoral college is inequitable and gives more relative power to the voters in tiny or unpopulated states." and then go on to rant about the left disrespecting the constitution???? Would you care to dispute my actual statement or not?
I do, for the record, think that the patriot act does disrespect the constitution, but that is irrelevant to a discussion of the electoral college
"And my point WAS that the constitution provides states equal representation by the use of the electoral college."
What you SAID was:
"What it tries to do is give equal representation."
is "STATES" hidden somewhere in there using a really tiny font? My point is that the electoral college is inequitable to citizens. You dare not disagree.
BoogyMan
09-24-2007, 07:23 PM
"manfrommaine, have you or have you not been one of those on the left crying about the right and it's supposed disrespect for the constitution?"
what does that have to do with the fact that my statement did not express any disrespect for the constitution? Why did you bother to quote this:"there is no doubt that the electoral college is inequitable and gives more relative power to the voters in tiny or unpopulated states." and then go on to rant about the left disrespecting the constitution???? Would you care to dispute my actual statement or not?
I do, for the record, think that the patriot act does disrespect the constitution, but that is irrelevant to a discussion of the electoral college
"And my point WAS that the constitution provides states equal representation by the use of the electoral college."
What you SAID was:
"What it tries to do is give equal representation."
is "STATES" hidden somewhere in there using a really tiny font? My point is that the electoral college is inequitable to citizens. You dare not disagree.
You just don't get it. You claim that the right is disrespecting the constitution and yet you are here, manfrommaine, calling for a change to that same document. If you guys are going to toss out that kind of rhetoric, be prepared to receive it with pretty paper and bows when your side of the aisle starts tinkering with the constitution.
The discussion of the patriot act is entirely germane as it points out that the left wishes to become the sole arbiter of constitutional change and expects those of us with our eyes open to simply sit quietly and respect their "wisdom."
The electoral college does a fine job of representing the states for whom the electors are chosen. Is it perfect? No. Is it able to aptly serve the people of this country? You bet it is.
retiredman
09-24-2007, 07:34 PM
You just don't get it. You claim that the right is disrespecting the constitution and yet you are here, manfrommaine, calling for a change to that same document. If you guys are going to toss out that kind of rhetoric, be prepared to receive it with pretty paper and bows when your side of the aisle starts tinkering with the constitution.
The discussion of the patriot act is entirely germane as it points out that the left wishes to become the sole arbiter of constitutional change and expects those of us with our eyes open to simply sit quietly and respect their "wisdom."
The electoral college does a fine job of representing the states for whom the electors are chosen. Is it perfect? No. Is it able to aptly serve the people of this country? You bet it is.
no...you just don't get it. there is a difference between disrespecting the constitution and seeking to change it. If that were not the case, the various ways we can amend the constitution would not be written into it. Does the right disrespect the constitution when IT seeks to amend it, or is that only the left?
The left, of course, does not seek to be the sole arbiter of anything. People disagree politically. Both sides push their agendas in the public square. That is America. Is discussing the electoral college any different that discussing a flag burning amendment or a gay marriage amendment?
And again... I made the statement - AND IT IS A FACTUALLY ACCURATE ONE - that the electoral college gives more power to the votes of states with smaller populations. That is not disrespecting the constitution at all. Am I arguing that the electoral college should be thrown out? Of course not. Did I make a suggestion that would help alleviate the inequity I pointed out? Yes...a very small one. Now would you like to discuss my points and my suggestions or are you gonna continue to obfuscate? your call.
82Marine89
09-24-2007, 07:41 PM
I still say that if you can't produce proof that you are up to date with your tax bill, you shouldn't be allowed to vote, that in itself would probably erase millions of people from Gore's totals.
I also feel that if you are not a homeowner that you should not vote on anything that effects my tax bill.
retiredman
09-24-2007, 07:55 PM
I also feel that if you are not a homeowner that you should not vote on anything that effects my tax bill.
really? what about school budgets? are you suggesting that only "landed" citizens get to vote on those issues? Parents in apartments have no say?
BoogyMan
09-24-2007, 08:03 PM
no...you just don't get it. there is a difference between disrespecting the constitution and seeking to change it. If that were not the case, the various ways we can amend the constitution would not be written into it. Does the right disrespect the constitution when IT seeks to amend it, or is that only the left?
The left, of course, does not seek to be the sole arbiter of anything. People disagree politically. Both sides push their agendas in the public square. That is America. Is discussing the electoral college any different that discussing a flag burning amendment or a gay marriage amendment?
And again... I made the statement - AND IT IS A FACTUALLY ACCURATE ONE - that the electoral college gives more power to the votes of states with smaller populations. That is not disrespecting the constitution at all. Am I arguing that the electoral college should be thrown out? Of course not. Did I make a suggestion that would help alleviate the inequity I pointed out? Yes...a very small one. Now would you like to discuss my points and my suggestions or are you gonna continue to obfuscate? your call.
You have completely missed the sarcasm of my commentary manfrommaine. The whole point was to get you to see that while the left is calling the right any number of reprehensible things for seeking changes you yourselves are seeking change to the constitution. The sweet irony of being taken to task for that which you have been tarring the right seems to evade you.
The electoral college as it stands treats states as equals as is laid out in section 2 article 1 and amendment 12. The system is only inequitable if you insist on viewing the situation as one that victimizes individual voters instead of empowering the majority.
82Marine89
09-24-2007, 08:10 PM
really? what about school budgets? are you suggesting that only "landed" citizens get to vote on those issues? Parents in apartments have no say?
Yup. If my property taxes pay that school budget, then only people who own property should be allowed to vote on issues that effect our taxes.
MtnBiker
09-24-2007, 09:47 PM
The electoral college represents our republic very well.
That would be a good first step.
Then we could rewrite the Constitution and do right.
Yeah man, way right.
First Amendment:
Anyone who publically or privately opposes my Presidency shall be deported.
Second Amendment:
All schools shall teach the mandates I set forth in order to educate the new citizen.
oh wait, a dictator or two has already done that.....
wtf would you rewrite?
Yup. If my property taxes pay that school budget, then only people who own property should be allowed to vote on issues that effect our taxes.
Would it be a fair statement to say that property owners pass on some, if not all of the land taxes to renters?
manu1959
09-24-2007, 10:33 PM
Would it be a fair statement to say that property owners pass on some, if not all of the land taxes to renters?
yep.....the point of renting is to cover all costs and turn a profit....
yep.....the point of renting is to cover all costs and turn a profit....
so in a way, are renters "paying" into the tax fund as well?
the taxes on water just went up and my LL increased my rent accordingly.
Mr. P
09-24-2007, 11:05 PM
...
And again... I made the statement - AND IT IS A FACTUALLY ACCURATE ONE - that the electoral college gives more power to the votes of states with smaller populations. ....
:laugh2:
Sell that to Vermont with 3 electoral votes vs CA with 55 votes.
Are you saying Vermont has a larger population? Or are you saying 3 votes trump 55?
typomaniac
09-24-2007, 11:51 PM
:laugh2:
Sell that to Vermont with 3 electoral votes vs CA with 55 votes.
Are you saying Vermont has a larger population? Or are you saying 3 votes trump 55?
It's called mathematics, P. :poke:
A single voter in Vermont has a higher probability of changing one of those 3 votes than a single voter in California has of changing one of the 55.
MtnBiker
09-25-2007, 12:09 AM
Its a republic, that is what the electoral college is designed for.
5stringJeff
09-25-2007, 04:19 AM
there is no doubt that the electoral college is inequitable and gives more relative power to the voters in tiny or unpopulated states.
It was designed that way, to keep the voice of smaller states from being drowned out. It's one of the federalist aspects of our government, and one I think is important for us to keep. After all, our states aren't just political subdivisions of the US. They're entities with nearly unlimited political powers unto themselves, held together by what was supposed to be a limited federal government with limited powers.
retiredman
09-25-2007, 06:42 AM
You have completely missed the sarcasm of my commentary manfrommaine. The whole point was to get you to see that while the left is calling the right any number of reprehensible things for seeking changes you yourselves are seeking change to the constitution. The sweet irony of being taken to task for that which you have been tarring the right seems to evade you.
The electoral college as it stands treats states as equals as is laid out in section 2 article 1 and amendment 12. The system is only inequitable if you insist on viewing the situation as one that victimizes individual voters instead of empowering the majority.
and if you could find any posts by me that call the right anything reprehensible for seeking to legally change the constitution via the amendment process...that would be real nice.
I made an observation: the electoral college does not provide equal weight to the voters in our nation. that is a fact. (and it is especially funny to see you talking about "empowering the majority" when the majority voted for Gore)
Joe Steel
09-25-2007, 07:18 AM
US Constitution = bad
Exactly. It was written over 200 years ago for the first democracy of the modern era. It was a good first try but we can do better.
Joe Steel
09-25-2007, 07:27 AM
Yeah man, way right.
First Amendment:
Anyone who publically or privately opposes my Presidency shall be deported.
Second Amendment:
All schools shall teach the mandates I set forth in order to educate the new citizen.
oh wait, a dictator or two has already done that.....
wtf would you rewrite?
For starters, I'd establish specific duties and rights of citizens.
I'd redefine the Senate as a body to represent various interests; labor, capital, chuches, education, etc.
BoogyMan
09-25-2007, 07:34 AM
and if you could find any posts by me that call the right anything reprehensible for seeking to legally change the constitution via the amendment process...that would be real nice.
I made an observation: the electoral college does not provide equal weight to the voters in our nation. that is a fact. (and it is especially funny to see you talking about "empowering the majority" when the majority voted for Gore)
Nice obfuscation tactic manfrommaine, I asked you a question about whether or not you have made assertions that the right his disrespected the constitution to point out, yet again, the hypocrisy with which you choose your talking points.
I see, you can pull out the 2000 election, which Gore lost, to prop up your anemic argument? That is pretty funny.
retiredman
09-25-2007, 07:40 AM
Nice obfuscation tactic manfrommaine, I asked you a question about whether or not you have made assertions that the right his disrespected the constitution to point out, yet again, the hypocrisy with which you choose your talking points.
I see, you can pull out the 2000 election, which Gore lost, to prop up your anemic argument? That is pretty funny.
If either party attempts to disrespect the constitution by trying to change it in ways not set forth in the document itself, I am against it. I have NEVER suggested that the right's attempts to amend the constitution were disrespectful in any way.
and I only mention Gore because of your claims that the electoral college empowers the majority, when clearly that is not the case. It empowers sparsely populated states.
retiredman
09-25-2007, 07:44 AM
and would you PUHLEESE quit tapdancing and just answer the question:
do you or do you not agree that the electoral college gives more power to the voters in small sparsely populated states?
BoogyMan
09-25-2007, 07:56 AM
and would you PUHLEESE quit tapdancing and just answer the question:
do you or do you not agree that the electoral college gives more power to the voters in small sparsely populated states?
It is a foolish question as the EC tries to treat states as equals is power sharing. The system AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE is only inequitable if you wish to claim it victimizes individual voters.
Nukeman
09-25-2007, 08:01 AM
and would you PUHLEESE quit tapdancing and just answer the question:
do you or do you not agree that the electoral college gives more power to the voters in small sparsely populated states?
To a limitted extent, yes! But remember they may have more sway over their own electoral votes but when you have to have 10 states make the electoral votes of just 1 than you can see why they need it.
This is why the electoral college was put into place to keep large cities from making all of the decision for the whole country, It is so the "little guy (state)" can have an equal say as well.
Do you think someone in a small rural area is not entitled to have their voice heard as well as someone in a large city?? Just answer the question..
retiredman
09-25-2007, 08:03 AM
It is a foolish question as the EC tries to treat states as equals is power sharing. The system AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE is only inequitable if you wish to claim it victimizes individual voters.
I claim only that the voters in small sparsely populated states have more relative importance in the electing of the president than voters in densely populated states. I never used the word "victimized". I ask you though, why a voter in Montana ought to have more influence on the election of a president than the voter in California?
and you change your tune a bit....what you STATED BEFORE was:
"The system is only inequitable if you insist on viewing the situation as one that victimizes individual voters instead of empowering the majority."
and again.... I laugh.... and think of Gore... and laugh some more.
retiredman
09-25-2007, 08:04 AM
To a limitted extent, yes! But remember they may have more sway over their own electoral votes but when you have to have 10 states make the electoral votes of just 1 than you can see why they need it.
This is why the electoral college was put into place to keep large cities from making all of the decision for the whole country, It is so the "little guy (state)" can have an equal say as well.
Do you think someone in a small rural area is not entitled to have their voice heard as well as someone in a large city?? Just answer the question..
I absolutely think that someone is a small rural area ought to have their vote count as much as anyone else....and not one iota less...and not one iota more.
retiredman
09-25-2007, 08:07 AM
and when a state like montana can triple their number of electors simply by virtue of their statehood and a state like california only can gain a small 4% increase in THEIR electors due to THEIR statehood, that gives voters in Montana more clout than voters in California.
MtnBiker
09-25-2007, 08:48 AM
Exactly. It was written over 200 years ago for the first democracy of the modern era. It was a good first try but we can do better.
No it was not written for the first democracy of the modern era, it was for a republic, ie the electoral college.
MtnBiker
09-25-2007, 08:54 AM
The electoral college does give voters in small populated states move proportional power per vote. Which state has more influence in congress, Montana or California.
Nukeman
09-25-2007, 08:57 AM
and when a state like montana can triple their number of electors simply by virtue of their statehood and a state like california only can gain a small 4% increase in THEIR electors due to THEIR statehood, that gives voters in Montana more clout than voters in California.
I tell ya what when Montana has as much clout as California than you can say how is is disproportionate untill than it is representative of the population in the state and the number of representative that state sends to congress. You fail to realize that yes a vote may seem to have a greater impact in Montana than it does in Cali but ultimately it doesn't due to the EC.
USA Electoral College System
In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
In all, there are 538 electoral votes and the number given to each state reflects the sum of the representatives and senators it sends to Congress. It takes 270 or more electoral college votes to win the election.The biggest states - California (54), New York (33), Texas (32), Pennsylvania (23) - have the most impact on the result of the presidential election.
Usually, the result is nearly the same as it would have been if the election were direct. Yet the system has produced presidents who received a minority of the popular vote but a majority of the electoral votes, including Harry S Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams.
President Bill Clinton was also elected in 1992 with only 43 percent of the popular vote, but 370 electoral votes. Several times in recent electoral college history, a relatively small shift in voter preference in key states would have reversed election outcomes
retiredman
09-25-2007, 09:01 AM
I tell ya what when Montana has as much clout as California than you can say how is is disproportionate untill than it is representative of the population in the state and the number of representative that state sends to congress. You fail to realize that yes a vote may seem to have a greater impact in Montana than it does in Cali but ultimately it doesn't due to the EC.
I tell YA what.... if you want to disprove my statement, that would be nice.... ultimately, a vote in montana has more impact on the electoral college than a vote in california. period. If you took away the electoral votes that each state gets for their senators, and only gave them electoral votes for each representative, that inequity would not be there.
retiredman
09-25-2007, 09:04 AM
The electoral college does give voters in small populated states move proportional power per vote. Which state has more influence in congress, Montana or California.
california, of course, because of its population, it gets more representatives...and each voter in california is represented to the same relative extent that a voter from montana.... in the lower house...in the senate, voters from montana have mu ch more representation than california voters do.
MtnBiker
09-25-2007, 09:05 AM
california, of course, because of its population, it gets more representatives...and each voter in california is represented to the same relative extent that a voter from montana.... in the lower house...in the senate, voters from montana have mu ch more representation than california voters do.
See, there you go, our designed republic at work!
BoogyMan
09-25-2007, 09:05 AM
and when a state like montana can triple their number of electors simply by virtue of their statehood and a state like california only can gain a small 4% increase in THEIR electors due to THEIR statehood, that gives voters in Montana more clout than voters in California.
Disregarding the previous picking at nits and beginning with this I still want you to show me where the inequity is. You bellowed about the use of the term victimization and yet you continue to play the victimization of individuals act out as if the topic had never been broached.
Simply to show the asinine nature of the argument you are making, lets look at the number of electors per state. Do you really want to continue to strain at gnats comparing the three electors in Montana to the 55 in California?
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2004/11/29/in_depth_politics/whoswho658168_0_1_person.shtml
Alabama - 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Arkansas 6
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
D.C. 3
Florida - 27
Georgia 15
Hawaii 4
Idaho - 4
Illinois 21
Indiana 11
Iowa 7
Kansas - 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Maine 4
Maryland - 10
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17
Minnesota - 10
Mississippi 6
Missouri 11
Montana- 3
Nebraska- 5
Nevada - 5
New Hampshire - 4
New Jersey 15
New Mexico 5
New York 31
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Ohio 20
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania- 21
Rhode Island - 4
South Carolina - 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 11
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin - 10
Wyoming - 3
retiredman
09-25-2007, 09:09 AM
California has 36M citizens... therefore, if you divide that population between the two US senators, each one represents 18M citizens, or each citizen gets 1/18 millionth of a senator's vote.
Wyoming has half a million citizens. Their senators are only representing 250K.
that same inequity is played out in the electoral college.
MtnBiker
09-25-2007, 09:11 AM
California has 36M citizens... therefore, if you divide that population between the two US senators, each one represents 18M citizens, or each citizen gets 1/18 millionth of a senator's vote.
Wyoming has half a million citizens. Their senators are only representing 250K.
that same inequity is played out in the electoral college.
Again, our republic in action, it was designed that way on purpose.
Learn it, live it, love it!
Nukeman
09-25-2007, 09:17 AM
I tell YA what.... if you want to disprove my statement, that would be nice.... ultimately, a vote in montana has more impact on the electoral college than a vote in california. period. If you took away the electoral votes that each state gets for their senators, and only gave them electoral votes for each representative, that inequity would not be there.
Seeing as Montana has only 7% of the EC votes as California than I think its a little dishonest to say there votes count more. Yes it counts a "little" more for their state but ultimately in the whole EC it evens out with a state like Cali where they hold 54 votes You only need 270
If the population is smaller than the vote of a "single person" will always carry more weight. Are you saying that becuse someone running for mayor of say New York with a population of millions that each vote doesnt count as much as when a person running for mayor of a small Iowa town with a population of 200.
retiredman
09-25-2007, 09:18 AM
Again, our republic in action, it was designed that way on purpose.
Learn it, live it, love it!
I am not doubting that in the least. I merely say that our republic gives more relative power to citizens of wyoming when electing the president than it does to citizens of california.
And I wonder how, if we eliminated the electors for senators, the republic would be harmed?
retiredman
09-25-2007, 09:23 AM
Seeing as Montana has only 7% of the EC votes as California than I think its a little dishonest to say there votes count more. Yes it counts a "little" more for their state but ultimately in the whole EC it evens out with a state like Cali where they hold 54 votes You only need 270
If the population is smaller than the vote of a "single person" will always carry more weight. Are you saying that becuse someone running for mayor of say New York with a population of millions that each vote doesnt count as much as when a person running for mayor of a small Iowa town with a population of 200.
their individual votes count more. do the math. Take california's electoral votes and divide them by the population. Do the same for Wyoming.
And the mayor of New York represents more people than the mayor of Keokuk. that is a silly and irrelevant comparison.
If the votes from one borough of New York counted more than the votes from another borough, in electing the mayor, would THAT be fair?
Nukeman
09-25-2007, 09:36 AM
their individual votes count more. do the math. Take california's electoral votes and divide them by the population. Do the same for Wyoming.
And the mayor of New York represents more people than the mayor of Keokuk. that is a silly and irrelevant comparison.
If the votes from one borough of New York counted more than the votes from another borough, in electing the mayor, would THAT be fair?
If they performed it in a mini EC way than yes because it would be based on "POPULATION" for each vote...
If you remove the Senators votes than the representative numbers for each person is, Cali .00000147 Montana .000002 pretty representative I think.
If you take out the senators EC votes than Montana only has 1 vote and California has 53 is that not representative of each state??
retiredman
09-25-2007, 09:49 AM
please rephrase your last question...I am unsure what you are trying to say.
Nukeman
09-25-2007, 09:54 AM
please rephrase your last question...I am unsure what you are trying to say.If you remove the 2 senators EC votes than the proptional amount of each vote per voter is almost identicle in the EC based on population, so statisticly they are equal..
retiredman
09-25-2007, 10:09 AM
If you remove the 2 senators EC votes than the proptional amount of each vote per voter is almost identicle in the EC based on population, so statisticly they are equal..
I agree...and think that is all that needs to be done to remove the inequity in the EC. It would move us more closely to "one man, one vote".
Mr. P
09-25-2007, 10:39 AM
It's called mathematics, P. :poke:
A single voter in Vermont has a higher probability of changing one of those 3 votes than a single voter in California has of changing one of the 55.
Actually that's not true. Only Maine and Nebraska choose Presidential Electors using what is termed the "Maine Method," which makes it possible for the voters to choose Electors of different political parties and "split" the electoral vote.
BoogyMan
09-25-2007, 10:59 AM
You are aware that the number of electors is dependant on the number of representatives as well as senators, right manfrommaine?
retiredman
09-25-2007, 12:49 PM
You are aware that the number of electors is dependant on the number of representatives as well as senators, right manfrommaine?
you are able to read and comprehend post #s 53, 57, and 64 (to name a few), right boogyman?
BoogyMan
09-25-2007, 01:03 PM
you are able to read and comprehend post #s 53, 57, and 64 (to name a few), right boogyman?
Since you in post 67 referenced only senators I have no choice but to think that you don't know how the number of EC electors is arrived at per state.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=129166&postcount=61
5stringJeff
09-25-2007, 01:11 PM
I agree...and think that is all that needs to be done to remove the inequity in the EC. It would move us more closely to "one man, one vote".
And I disagree that the President should be elected by 'one man, one vote.' The states elect the President, not the People, on purpose - because states are supposed to retain power under the federal system as well, and the election of the President via the Electoral College (and formerly the election of Senators via state legislature election) is part of the states' retainer of power.
5stringJeff
09-25-2007, 01:15 PM
Exactly. It was written over 200 years ago for the first democracy of the modern era. It was a good first try but we can do better.
For starters, I'd establish specific duties and rights of citizens.
I'd redefine the Senate as a body to represent various interests; labor, capital, chuches, education, etc.
Well, at least you're honest. But, frankly, I despise your outlook on the Constitution, economics, the "duty" of citizens to the state, and the rest of your Stalinist BS. If that's how you'd like a country to be run, I suggest you try Belarus. They're about the most communist of the former Soviet states, and you'd find yourself pretty well at home there. What do you say, comrade?
retiredman
09-25-2007, 01:25 PM
Since you in post 67 referenced only senators I have no choice but to think that you don't know how the number of EC electors is arrived at per state.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=129166&postcount=61
of course you have a choice. YOu can choose to read my argument in its totality in which case it would be clear to you that I fully understood the makeup of the electoral college...OR, you could read one post out of context and play your silly immature little gotcha games.
Sad that you took the second option..
twerp. :lame2:
BoogyMan
09-25-2007, 01:43 PM
You call me immature in the same post you begin, once again, the name calling tactics you are so well known for.
That is simply precious manfrommaine. Now, how about we get back onto topic and debate the question at hand, hmm?
retiredman
09-25-2007, 01:48 PM
You call me immature in the same post you begin, once again, the name calling tactics you are so well known for.
That is simply precious manfrommaine. Now, how about we get back onto topic and debate the question at hand, hmm?
what name did I call you? you asked a stupid question that clearly showed that you had not read this thread at all and were trying to play cute little gotcha games. I called you on your stupidity. deal with it. learn from it. move on.
Like I said from the beginning.... I think that the EC could be changed...and I am fully aware and respectful of the methods available to do that. I understand that not everyone agrees with that position. fine.
I also said that the voter in Montana or Wyoming had a greater relative impact on the selection of the president than a voter from California.... you may feel that the structure of our republic requires that inequity, and I have no problem with folks who hold that opinion. I merely voiced mine.
AND...I never disrespected the constitution, regardless of the thoughts wafting over from the kiddie table.
BoogyMan
09-25-2007, 02:57 PM
what name did I call you? you asked a stupid question that clearly showed that you had not read this thread at all and were trying to play cute little gotcha games. I called you on your stupidity. deal with it. learn from it. move on.
Like I said from the beginning.... I think that the EC could be changed...and I am fully aware and respectful of the methods available to do that. I understand that not everyone agrees with that position. fine.
I also said that the voter in Montana or Wyoming had a greater relative impact on the selection of the president than a voter from California.... you may feel that the structure of our republic requires that inequity, and I have no problem with folks who hold that opinion. I merely voiced mine.
AND...I never disrespected the constitution, regardless of the thoughts wafting over from the kiddie table.
This post reminds me of a quote from Winston Churchill, manfrommaine.
"A modest little person, with much to be modest about."
When challenged you call names, when bested you call names. At least you are consistent, and I appreciate your attitude and actions bringing that stellar quote from Winston Churchill back to remembrance.
MtnBiker
09-25-2007, 03:54 PM
And I wonder how, if we eliminated the electors for senators, the republic would be harmed?
There is no need to wonder, the republic works well and will continue to do so.
typomaniac
09-25-2007, 04:40 PM
There is no need to wonder, the republic works well and will continue to do so.
Solely your opinion. On which you have no basis for judging that it works "well" if you haven't lived and worked overseas.
MtnBiker
09-25-2007, 04:47 PM
Solely your opinion. On which you have no basis for judging that it works "well" if you haven't lived and worked overseas.
There is a process to admend the constitution, has this been done in regard to our representation or electoral college? Nope, it sure has not. It is working well and will continue to do so.
typomaniac
09-25-2007, 06:15 PM
There is a process to admend the constitution, has this been done in regard to our representation or electoral college? Nope, it sure has not. It is working well and will continue to do so.
Wrong conclusion. By analogy, the fact that you haven't taken aspirin doesn't mean that you don't have a headache.
MtnBiker
09-25-2007, 06:17 PM
Right conclusion. :)
Kathianne
09-25-2007, 06:31 PM
Solely your opinion. On which you have no basis for judging that it works "well" if you haven't lived and worked overseas.
What has 'overseas' to do with our republic?
typomaniac
09-25-2007, 06:36 PM
What has 'overseas' to do with our republic?
You have no idea whether country A works well if you have no experience living in countries B, C, or D; because you have no basis for making a valid comparison.
5stringJeff
09-25-2007, 08:10 PM
You have no idea whether country A works well if you have no experience living in countries B, C, or D; because you have no basis for making a valid comparison.
Your statement is only valid if the basis for comparison is which government works best. If you want to measure whether a government is doing well, you can set objective/subjective standards and measure the government against them. Examples: do people have liberty? Does each state have a republican form of government? Is the common defense provided for? etc.
retiredman
09-25-2007, 08:13 PM
This post reminds me of a quote from Winston Churchill, manfrommaine.
"A modest little person, with much to be modest about."
When challenged you call names, when bested you call names. At least you are consistent, and I appreciate your attitude and actions bringing that stellar quote from Winston Churchill back to remembrance.
run away when the kitchen gets hot.
it is your standard M.O.
Kathianne
09-25-2007, 08:25 PM
You have no idea whether country A works well if you have no experience living in countries B, C, or D; because you have no basis for making a valid comparison.
Funny thing that, while we can look overseas and see how they are doing, and in reverse; what works for us, may not work for them.
Kathianne
09-25-2007, 08:26 PM
Your statement is only valid if the basis for comparison is which government works best. If you want to measure whether a government is doing well, you can set objective/subjective standards and measure the government against them. Examples: do people have liberty? Does each state have a republican form of government? Is the common defense provided for? etc.
This doesn't happen often, but I think I said it better, though later.
Gaffer
09-25-2007, 09:14 PM
I claim only that the voters in small sparsely populated states have more relative importance in the electing of the president than voters in densely populated states. I never used the word "victimized". I ask you though, why a voter in Montana ought to have more influence on the election of a president than the voter in California?
and you change your tune a bit....what you STATED BEFORE was:
"The system is only inequitable if you insist on viewing the situation as one that victimizes individual voters instead of empowering the majority."
and again.... I laugh.... and think of Gore... and laugh some more.
The Montana voter only has more influence when his vote is combined with the votes of 12 other states to counter the big population states.
typomaniac
09-25-2007, 09:24 PM
Your statement is only valid if the basis for comparison is which government works best. If you want to measure whether a government is doing well, you can set objective/subjective standards and measure the government against them. Examples: do people have liberty? Does each state have a republican form of government? Is the common defense provided for? etc.
Objective standards are understandable, but why subjective ones? Using those, any mountain biker can argue that any government is doing "well." :)
retiredman
09-26-2007, 06:48 AM
The Montana voter only has more influence when his vote is combined with the votes of 12 other states to counter the big population states.
mathematically, that is incorrect. In the aggregate, however, you are correct that the large number of voters in large states need to be balanced by many distinct small numbers of voters from many small states. My statement dealt with individual voters not the aggregate of voters.
Individual voter power over individual electoral votes is what I am talking about. Because each state gets two electoral votes solely because they are states, regardless of how many people live in that state, the small state voter has more individual influence over his or her electoral votes than a voter in a large state... and therefore has more individual influence over who is elected president.
DragonStryk72
10-10-2007, 06:07 PM
You just don't get it. You claim that the right is disrespecting the constitution and yet you are here, manfrommaine, calling for a change to that same document. If you guys are going to toss out that kind of rhetoric, be prepared to receive it with pretty paper and bows when your side of the aisle starts tinkering with the constitution.
The discussion of the patriot act is entirely germane as it points out that the left wishes to become the sole arbiter of constitutional change and expects those of us with our eyes open to simply sit quietly and respect their "wisdom."
The electoral college does a fine job of representing the states for whom the electors are chosen. Is it perfect? No. Is it able to aptly serve the people of this country? You bet it is.
The point of the Constitution is that it can be changed, and it is our right, our duty, to examine it to make certain that its amendment are both efficient and necessary, hence why you call the 12th an amendment. The only ones that are not allowed to be stricken are the first ten, more regularly referred to as the bill of rights.
BoogyMan
10-10-2007, 06:25 PM
The point of the Constitution is that it can be changed, and it is our right, our duty, to examine it to make certain that its amendment are both efficient and necessary, hence why you call the 12th an amendment. The only ones that are not allowed to be stricken are the first ten, more regularly referred to as the bill of rights.
It is NOT our duty to toss parts of the constitution in order to garner a political advantage which is and has always been the reasoning behind the left and its desire to create a mob rule environment.
BoogyMan
10-10-2007, 06:28 PM
mathematically, that is incorrect. In the aggregate, however, you are correct that the large number of voters in large states need to be balanced by many distinct small numbers of voters from many small states. My statement dealt with individual voters not the aggregate of voters.
Individual voter power over individual electoral votes is what I am talking about. Because each state gets two electoral votes solely because they are states, regardless of how many people live in that state, the small state voter has more individual influence over his or her electoral votes than a voter in a large state... and therefore has more individual influence over who is elected president.
If there were no electors for the state that are based on the population this ideology might hold water, but since there are electors based also on population your assertions here MFM are disingenuous. EVERY state gets the two electors plus additional electors based on their representation in the house which is population based.
REDWHITEBLUE2
10-10-2007, 07:49 PM
Its Time To Abolish The DEMOCRACT Party :dance:
JackDaniels
10-10-2007, 07:54 PM
Its Time To Abolish The DEMOCRACT Party :dance:
AND the Republican Party
DragonStryk72
10-10-2007, 08:03 PM
It is NOT our duty to toss parts of the constitution in order to garner a political advantage which is and has always been the reasoning behind the left and its desire to create a mob rule environment.
Okay, so then what about Karl Rove's plan to create a permanent republican majority?
The point you are railing against is being used by your own side, and you are merrily prancing down the trail after it. Either call both sides on their bs, or don't call either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701713.html
The article does include some memorable failings of former dems due to the same basic crap going on now.
As I've thought over it the past few weeks, I am going to a more conservative bent, which not what this bunch of cronies is using.
Personally, the electoral does need to stay, but it does also need a serious revamp, as new technologies have changed the precise numbers of how states stack up.
BoogyMan
10-10-2007, 09:30 PM
Okay, so then what about Karl Rove's plan to create a permanent republican majority?
The point you are railing against is being used by your own side, and you are merrily prancing down the trail after it. Either call both sides on their bs, or don't call either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701713.html
The article does include some memorable failings of former dems due to the same basic crap going on now.
As I've thought over it the past few weeks, I am going to a more conservative bent, which not what this bunch of cronies is using.
Personally, the electoral does need to stay, but it does also need a serious revamp, as new technologies have changed the precise numbers of how states stack up.
Nice segway into a rant about Rove! :D
The argument that the EC needs a revamp doesn't hold water. Yes there are two per state, but the rest of the electors for the state are based on house representation (read:by population).
I am not arguing for Rove no matter how you try to spin it, I am arguing AGAINST the destruction of a system of electors that works and needs no tinkering.
Such a logical fallacy is going to get your line of argumentation ventilated EVERY time.
Immanuel
10-10-2007, 09:48 PM
The man is ignorant. This electoral college saved this nations in 2000. Without it rather than recount after recount in Florida it would have been recount after recount in every single state. It would have been 1000x easier to cheat because the process would have been so widespread no one could have monitored it. There would have been lawsuit after lawsuit over every single issue. it would have been total pandamonium.
Not to mention that this divided nation would have been sitting ducks for Al Qaeda on 9/11. And if Al Gore had managed to steal the election I cant imagine what state we would be in today.
Oh, I don't know that this man is ignorant. After all, you state right here that you don't know what state our country would be in today if Al Gore had won the 2000 election but this gentleman claims that he does. He says so, right here and I quote, "The Electoral College elected George W. Bush to be the next president. The ill effects of this disastrous choice are now clearly evident to our nation and particularly to the wrecked nation of Iraq." Quite clearly this gentleman states that he knows we would be better off if Al Gore had been elected. Maybe you should be careful who you call ignorant? ;) By your own admission, this guy knows more than you. :laugh2:
Immie
PS And yes, I am only joking!
typomaniac
10-11-2007, 12:50 PM
It is NOT our duty to toss parts of the constitution ...
No, it's our right. It's called a Constitutional convention.
One day there will definitely be such a convention, and it will scrap the EC. Deal with it.
avatar4321
10-11-2007, 02:13 PM
Oh, I don't know that this man is ignorant. After all, you state right here that you don't know what state our country would be in today if Al Gore had won the 2000 election but this gentleman claims that he does. He says so, right here and I quote, "The Electoral College elected George W. Bush to be the next president. The ill effects of this disastrous choice are now clearly evident to our nation and particularly to the wrecked nation of Iraq." Quite clearly this gentleman states that he knows we would be better off if Al Gore had been elected. Maybe you should be careful who you call ignorant? ;) By your own admission, this guy knows more than you. :laugh2:
Immie
PS And yes, I am only joking!
Al Gore wouldnt have been elected. Instead we would have seen recount after recount in state after state. The entire election process would have been compromised. Votes would have been manufactured and lost on a grad scale making i impossible to determine who won.
The fact is The electorial college saved this nation from ripping itself apart.
SpidermanTUba
10-12-2007, 08:41 PM
Are you saying that people who live in areas of large population density should run the affairs of this country, by virtue of the sheer weight of their numbers?
.
Is that a serious question? You're asking 'Are you saying the majority should get to rule this country, by virtue of the fact they are the majority' ?
SpidermanTUba
10-12-2007, 08:44 PM
The man is ignorant. This electoral college saved this nations in 2000. Without it rather than recount after recount in Florida it would have been recount after recount in every single state.
Not exactly,. Gore would have won by 500,000 votes. Thats 0.5% Its doubtful a recount would have changed anything.
SpidermanTUba
10-12-2007, 08:45 PM
I have heard the left decry a supposed lack of respect for the constitution of this great nation for the last 6 to 7 years, and then those same individuals who would make such claims come out against a system laid out by article 2 section 1 and the 12th amendment of that same wonderful document.
Now, who is it again that has no respect for the constitution?
Republicans.
You seem to be under the impression that breaking the law is equivalent to changing the law. Not true.
SpidermanTUba
10-12-2007, 08:46 PM
My point is that the electoral college treats states as equals.
No it doesn't.
SpidermanTUba
10-12-2007, 08:47 PM
And my point WAS that the constitution provides states equal representation by the use of the electoral college.
No it doesn't. You don't know how the electoral college works. California gets more votes than Vermont. WHen something is more than something else, it isn't equal.
SpidermanTUba
10-12-2007, 08:48 PM
Yeah.... Al Gore never once won Florida. The fact that he tried to steal the election in front of everyone was quite amazing. Even Nixon had the grace not to challenge the results on Kennedy despite clear evidence of dead people voting.
Must bug Al to know that Nixon of all people showed more class.
Dead people vote in every Presidential election.
Gore had a perfect legal right under Florida law to request and get a recount.
SpidermanTUba
10-12-2007, 08:51 PM
You just don't get it. You claim that the right is disrespecting the constitution and yet you are here, manfrommaine, calling for a change to that same document. If you guys are going to toss out that kind of rhetoric, be prepared to receive it with pretty paper and bows when your side of the aisle starts tinkering with the constitution.
You don't get it. THere is a difference between disagreeing with something in the Constitution and trying to get the Constitution changed (what the left does) - and disagreeing with something in the Constitution and simply disregarding it (what the right does).
The discussion of the patriot act is entirely germane as it points out that the left wishes to become the sole arbiter of constitutional change and expects those of us with our eyes open to simply sit quietly and respect their "wisdom."
So if one discusses the patriot act, that implies that one wants his side to be the sole arbiter of constitutional change?
Do you realize how little sense that makes? Do you have trouble understanding what words mean?
The electoral college does a fine job of representing the states for whom the electors are chosen. Is it perfect? No. Is it able to aptly serve the people of this country? You bet it is.
Here's an idea. How about we represent the people, instead of the states?
SpidermanTUba
10-12-2007, 08:53 PM
I also feel that if you are not a homeowner that you should not vote on anything that effects my tax bill.
I think only white males older than 25 years old with at least 1 million dollars in property, no arrests or convictions for anything, and who have never paid their taxes late in their life, should be able to vote. Plus they should have to have a minimum IQ of 120, a bachelors degree from an accredited institution, and pay a $1000 poll tax.
SpidermanTUba
10-12-2007, 08:54 PM
Al Gore wouldnt have been elected. Instead we would have seen recount after recount in state after state. The entire election process would have been compromised. Votes would have been manufactured and lost on a grad scale making i impossible to determine who won.
The fact is The electorial college saved this nation from ripping itself apart.
Provide evidence of your assertions.
BoogyMan
10-12-2007, 09:16 PM
No it doesn't. You don't know how the electoral college works. California gets more votes than Vermont. WHen something is more than something else, it isn't equal.
When you grow up and learn to read Spidey, you will find, not only that you get hair in funny places, but that you will have a much better understanding of the discussion at hand.
I know exactly how the electoral college works. Each state gets two electors for being a state and gets a number of electors based on their representation in the house.
What you have done here is brought a knife to a rhetorical gunfight and your line of argumentation has been thoroughly ventilated. Come back and play when you finish that reading comprehension course.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.