Time to do away with the Electoral College...

[Revlis]

So the Country is now in Flux... Neither candidate (Criminal) has enough electoral votes to be declared president. It's time to let the American Public actually have a vote that counts. Not have their vote wiped away because a small minority in a particular state voted differently. You have something like 3 million or so republican votes in California that are worth fug all because of the Electoral Vote. Opposite is true in Florida.. WTF?

Time to let your vote be your vote... all the way to the highest office... Last election could have been smoother as well. Now this one is going to be all wrangled up in the courts... Pathetic and Embarrassing... Power hungry money grubbing politicians are going to bring America to it's knees...

 

[Belegnole]

I agree

 

[1127 TO 1299]

5 billion dollars was spent for the election!
if they would extend the duration of a term to 5 years, let say.
that is a saving of 5 billion on 5 years + all it cost to change president once. Electoral college should also be eliminated.

It's money going down the drain and votes too!

 

[04busaVA]

+2

Yeah I can see this being dragged about the legal arena for awhile.....

 

[busabrother]

Question If the electoral college vote goes away wouldn't it limit presedential candidate to only try to sway area of large constituents?

 

[Revlis]

Question If the electoral college vote goes away wouldn't it limit presedential candidate to only try to sway area of large constituents?

Would this be a bad thing? Leave the populace alone enough to decide for themselves whom to put in the house? Sounds like a fine idea to me...

But really, we are all exposed to enough Nationwide BS that a National popular Vote would be a fair and valid way of ensuring that we have a hand in our government.

Do away with this shell game of Re-districting, and other methods intended to decieve and control the vote.

So Fug it, Popular Vote straight across...

If we're really going to make things better though we have to get rid of the Party Politics, We have to get rid of Special Interest Groups, keep church and Government separate, and finally get rid of the Big Money, Big Business with Federal Influence.

Otherwise, I think the US is doomed...

We still have whats left of the Best Government system in the world, but we need some fresh direction, some real Reform or we're screwed. EU is coming, China is coming... We're going to get steamrolled if we keep messing around...

 

[moondog]

I'm with you, Rev....what a mess. When I'm in this kind of mood, I usually go riding but can't even do that....rainy day. Looks like a great time to go to the local tavern...

 

[Mrs. Revlis]

The electoral college is a horible invention.  It gives us the illusion of having a say, and then takes it away.  We would be better off without it.  So...
<span style='color:blue'><span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-familyapyrus'>Rev for Pres 2008</span></span></span>



<!--EDIT|Mrs. Revlis
Reason for Edit: None given...|1099507155 -->

 

[busahaya]

Revs got my vote.

 

[Revlis]

Umm, Pretty certain being nominated by the wife could potentially undermine my Credibility...

 

[WWJD]

I don't vote [or complain] because of the Electoral College, and the fact that no one can do what they SAY they want to do and they are too busy slinging to say anything of substance anyway. It's a joke to get all worked up about this stuff. Besides the president is just a figure head. HE doesn't decide if we go to war... he's just a guy that has to answer up to obvious decisions decided by a great number of highly skilled people in other sections of government. This go round, I heard a lot of what the other guy CAN'T do but still nothing about what either can REALLY achieve - just glossy dreams.

I'm with you Rev.... I felt the Electoral College was moronic since I first learned about it in high school in the 1800's. Yes... I'm that old

 

[pure_ego]

uhh... i don't get it.. it appears to have worked perfectly.... bush won the pop vote.. bush won the e.c. vote.. whats the problems.. it just took a few extra hours for kerry to admit it to himself and realize there was no hope.

 

[PACIFICBUSA]

MARTIAL LAW!!!!!

 

[flynjay]

The EC worked fine 200 years ago, when it took 2 weeks for information to go from coast to coast. Today's use of real time data, could really eliminate it completely.

 

[Big O]

I disagree.
If the President were elected on a popular vote:
Smaller states would not be fairly represented.  Only the most populous states would be courted by the candidates. They would skip the midwest altogether.

Minorities would not be fairly represented.  They can make a difference in some states and would not be able to if only California and New York were electing the President.

I would suggest reading this:http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf  about the pros and cons of the electoral college before suggesting the elimination of the electorate.

 

[chain]

uhh...  i don't get it.. it appears to have worked perfectly....  bush won the pop vote.. bush won the e.c. vote.. whats the problem.. it just took a few extra hours for kerry to admit it to himself and realize there was no hope.

Couldn't agree more.

Hrmm, two similar threads going on relative to this subject. OK, I'll throw in my .02 again...

Here's an informative piece on both the pros and cons of the Electoral College, just for the sake of fairness and equity.

LINK

I guess folks' consternation over the system is a moot point this go-round. President Bush has won a very convincing second term victory. Not only did he beat Kerry in the EC voting, but by a good margin in the popular vote as well. He also tallied approximately 5 million more votes this election than he did when he first won office. To put that in comparison, Clinton increased his vote in the aggregate by far less, only garnering an added ~1 million new votes in his second term.

Personally, I favor keeping the EC system.

 

[Revlis]

I disagree.
If the President were elected on a popular vote:
Smaller states would not be fairly represented.  Only the most populous states would be courted by the candidates.  They would skip the midwest altogether.

Minorities would not be fairly represented.  They can make a difference in some states and would not be able to if only California and New York were electing the President.

I would suggest reading this:http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf  about the pros and cons of the electoral college before suggesting the elimination of the electorate.

So it's better to screw millions of voters out of their ability to elect a leader? I gotta go check out your link, but I am skeptical. A popular vote would mean true majority rule. There is allready an extraordinary amount of effort put into swinging votes one way or another in the big cities, this wouldn't change.

For instance, you mention Minorities not having a fair vote? How so? This election Florida gave ALL it's electoral votes for Bush. But what about the 3.5 million or so Kerry supporters, many of which belong to one minority group or another. All of their votes, every single one, now means exactly bobo. They wasted their gas money driving to vote. How "FAIR" is that? Basically every minority in Florida, due to the Electoral College, just said AMEN to President Bush regardless of how they actually voted.... So where is the Minority representation in that?

Think about it. 3.5 million Florida voters basically got told to sit down and STFU... Their is no fairness there.

Besides, right now California and NewYork hold over 100 Electoral votes between them (I think). They already get leg humped by the candidates as it is. But instead of 40-50% of the voters on the coasts casting votes that don't matter, they would actually still be counted. That is the voice of the people, every voice matters, that is what would be fair...

 

[Mrs. Revlis]

I disagree.
If the President were elected on a popular vote:
Smaller states would not be fairly represented.  Only the most populous states would be courted by the candidates.  They would skip the midwest altogether.

Minorities would not be fairly represented.  They can make a difference in some states and would not be able to if only California and New York were electing the President.

I would suggest reading this:http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf  about the pros and cons of the electoral college before suggesting the elimination of the electorate.

They already have a narrow focus - much more attention is given to states with a large number of electoral votes.  Very little attention is given to the smaller states.  They just stop in so nobody thinks they're being ignored.

The very fact that it is POSSIBLE for the EC vote to be different from the Popular vote invalidates the usage of the EC.  

In this election, it worked out OK... but consider - at the end, votes were still not in from New Mexico, Iowa, and Ohio.  But since the combined EC votes of New Mexico and Iowa were worth less than the vote of Ohio alone... they didn't really matter.  The results weren't even in when Kerry conceded.  And consider that CA has 55 EC votes... so if the populace in CA votes 45% democrat and 55% republican.. the EC vote is 100% republican - screwing the democrats out of their vote.

The EC was useful in the past... but as said above, it is unecessary now that we can have real time results of the popular vote.



<!--EDIT|Mrs. Revlis
Reason for Edit: "my geography sucks"|1099582727 -->

 

[Big O]

So it's better to screw millions of voters out of their ability to elect a leader?       

For instance, you mention Minorities not having a fair vote?  How so?  

I don't understand how you can say the voter are getting screwed out of the ability to elect a leader.  EVERY vote counts.  Remember Florida 4 years ago when they counted everything over again?  Each one of those votes that got counted again mattered.  Every One.  Just because your candidate doesn't win doesn't mean your vote was wasted.

As far as the minority votes making a difference, I got this from the link above.
The Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes. And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those State with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, environmentalists, and so forth.
So, EVERY vote counts.

 

[Big O]

so if the populace in CA votes 45% democrat and 55% republican.. the EC vote is 100% republican - screwing the democrats out of their vote.

By that reasoning, if the popular vote of the United States was 45% democrat and 55% republican, the whole country votes republican, screwing the democrats.

The candidates must win each state, making each state valuable. Kerry got CA, WA, OR, and NY, the most populous states. Bush got the smaller states so their votes were very important.

As far a having real time results and a popular election, it would be unfair to have ANY results shown in the media until ALL the polls closed, even in Hawaii.