C
chocobo_cid
Guest
Considering the difficulties with the 2000 election and sporadically throughout American History, do you think that we should continue to use the College or should we directly elect the President?
I
Istanbul
Guest
Yes, we should definitely do one of those.
M
mythosx
Guest
My main issue is the cost of security in a direct election.
R
Reverend Love
Guest
Select candidates based on their bench press and alcohol tolerance. Both examples are true tests of leadership.
C
chocobo_cid
Guest
While that would explain Arnold, that is neither here nor there.
The direct elections are based on the popular vote, the electoral college is based on the electoral votes for a state being given out to the person that wins the majority in a state. A margin of one vote will cause every electoral vote in a state to go the the candidate with a 1-vote lead.
I actually thought this an interesting topic with more than a few possible views, so I put it into the Political Discussions forum. Please respond seriously.
The direct elections are based on the popular vote, the electoral college is based on the electoral votes for a state being given out to the person that wins the majority in a state. A margin of one vote will cause every electoral vote in a state to go the the candidate with a 1-vote lead.
I actually thought this an interesting topic with more than a few possible views, so I put it into the Political Discussions forum. Please respond seriously.
T
train
Guest
I think electoral should be broken into state-distrits where votes are allowed within in each district, and the winner of the diostrict gets the electoral votes for that district...
M
mythosx
Guest
that would be a fine solution...and would take the emphasis off the big ten states...However, the same problem could still occur...A candidate could still win popular vote and lose the electoral vote.
C
chocobo_cid
Guest
Not winning the popular vote is the only occurence in which there is any difference. The idea of winning only the electoral college is meant to indcate what the people as a whole, across the country, want. Not just the majority.
T
train
Guest
considering the districts should be equal in voter turnout size, I don't think the popular and electoral would differ...
M
Mr_Pestilence
Guest
I would prefer direct elections. As it is now, you only need to carry about 13 states to be president. Direct elections would put every vote in every state on the same level. As it is now, if you're in New Mexico, Rhode Island, North or South Dakota, Hawaii, etc., you're likely to never see a presidential candidate, because frankly, your vote doesn't count.
However, if you're in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc., you probably see so much of them you wish they'd just go away.
Plus, as long as the Electoral College exists, there is the theoretical possibility that the members could "go rogue" and vote in anyone. Granted, this isn't likely, but individual members of the EC have changed their votes instead of voting for the candidates they were "committed" to voting for.
All of that being said, I don't think it really matters - if voting made a difference, it wouldn't be legal.
However, if you're in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc., you probably see so much of them you wish they'd just go away.
Plus, as long as the Electoral College exists, there is the theoretical possibility that the members could "go rogue" and vote in anyone. Granted, this isn't likely, but individual members of the EC have changed their votes instead of voting for the candidates they were "committed" to voting for.
All of that being said, I don't think it really matters - if voting made a difference, it wouldn't be legal.
C
chocobo_cid
Guest
Point taken. Considering the political ideologies of the poeple in this country, "carrying a state" is actually rarely an issue. As the electoral votes in California usually vote Democrat and the electoral votes in the Bible belt usually vote conservative, both parties are on equal ground in that regard.
M
Mr_Pestilence
Guest
That's my point, exactly!
Dems can pretty much take NY and California for granted, while the GOP relies heavily on the south.
If you're a conservative in Cali, or a liberal in Georgia, you might as well stay home on election day. There are only about 10 "swing" states where the outcome is uncertain.
If the Presidency was decided by popular vote, every vote would count, and voting wouldn't be an exercise in frustration.
Dems can pretty much take NY and California for granted, while the GOP relies heavily on the south.
If you're a conservative in Cali, or a liberal in Georgia, you might as well stay home on election day. There are only about 10 "swing" states where the outcome is uncertain.
If the Presidency was decided by popular vote, every vote would count, and voting wouldn't be an exercise in frustration.
M
mythosx
Guest
I think you guys are overgeneralizing. California actually votes back and forth. If you look at it right now Arney is the govenor and he is GOP. Reagan was from California and He was GOP. I could go on and on.
C
chocobo_cid
Guest
In California, there was really only one conservative nominee (Arnold) that recieved barely 30% of the vote. Contrast this to Bustamante, etc. and the Democrats splitting the vote.
The biggest problem with the Democrats' political strategy is that they constantly split the vote because they're too stubborn or something with the end result of losing the election. They should learn from history, esp. some of the greatest examples of this thing happening. Look at the 1910 (?) Wilson/Taft/Roosevelt election or the 1860 Lincoln/Douglas/Breckenridge/Bell election.
Blimey.
The biggest problem with the Democrats' political strategy is that they constantly split the vote because they're too stubborn or something with the end result of losing the election. They should learn from history, esp. some of the greatest examples of this thing happening. Look at the 1910 (?) Wilson/Taft/Roosevelt election or the 1860 Lincoln/Douglas/Breckenridge/Bell election.
Blimey.
K
kirby_1111
Guest
It's ben a while since history class, but wasn't the electoral college invented to control the turnout of the vote? Lincoln, for example, lost the popular vote by around 85%...I think. However, since the electoral college was being controlled, the loophole in the system allowed him to become president. Turns out, it wasn't so bad, but it seems to be a recurring theme that the electoral college is a tool of that Grand Old Party. Now some pros and cons.
A pro of the Electoral College is that it takes into account the fact that some people don't vote. It prevents the effects of the voting majority winning over the total majority. However, it takes away from an individuals direct power to help choose the next leader.
A pro of a Majority vote is that it gives every individual equal say. A con is that not everyone votes, making figures inaccurate with the feelings of the entire majority. I personally believe that if you choose not to vote, your right to complain about any political issue is forfeit.
A pro of the Electoral College is that it takes into account the fact that some people don't vote. It prevents the effects of the voting majority winning over the total majority. However, it takes away from an individuals direct power to help choose the next leader.
A pro of a Majority vote is that it gives every individual equal say. A con is that not everyone votes, making figures inaccurate with the feelings of the entire majority. I personally believe that if you choose not to vote, your right to complain about any political issue is forfeit.
85%? That seems a bit odd... I don't think it was quite that high, if he lost the popular vote at all.
I think the electoral college was "invented" because at the time, either the Founding Fathers didn't trust the "regular" people to have an informed opinion about who should lead, one section of the country had more people than the other (Northern vs Southern, slavery vs non-slavery states) and the lesser side didn't want the other to dominate, or a combination of both.
I think the electoral college was "invented" because at the time, either the Founding Fathers didn't trust the "regular" people to have an informed opinion about who should lead, one section of the country had more people than the other (Northern vs Southern, slavery vs non-slavery states) and the lesser side didn't want the other to dominate, or a combination of both.
K
kirby_1111
Guest
Yeah, that's how it happened. They didn't trust the commoners to choose their own fate. In many ways, they were right. Look at some of the morons in our country *cough* Michael Moore...However, I think that the electoral college is an archaic system that should be removed. I don't know about the rest of the general public, but I am smart enough to have my vote be counted for what it is. You make an interesting point, though.
C
chocobo_cid
Guest
People in general are stupid. Really stupid. Indiviuals stand out, but when a mob mentality comes around, they just get even dumber.