End the Electoral College?

Parent Cafe
21

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s why the budget was balanced during the Democratic Administration of 1993-2001 and we cut the deficit by the time he left office. But during Reagan Bush I, II we had budget deficits and the DEFICIT INCREASED.</p>

<p>

It’s not short-sighted to believe we need equal representation for everyone, no matter where they live.</p>

<p>

Actually right now we have excessive agricultural subsidies because of the over-representation of agribusinesses in small states, but I guess that’s ok with Paul-tards and small gov’t Republicans.</p>

<p>

We call them Republicans. Even Ann Coulter, a woman, or she looks like one at least, was unhappy women have the right to vote.</p>

22

<p>Excellent info Washdad and good point Vyse. Of course, besides the government jobs, you can forget the unions which predominantly democratic. I understand that a lot of people live in California and New York. I know a lot of people want to claim that they have the most of this or the most of that. Part of that may be true when compared one on one with another state. But California, New York, Texas, Florida, etc… are not the most of anything when compared to entire country. Yes, 12-13% of the population might live there, but that isn’t the entire country. And they most certainly aren’t the only state with resources that support the entire country. People aren’t the only things that need to be considered when representing the country.</p>

<p>The framers settled on the electoral college because it seemed to be the best compromise. They realized that having the congree elect the president wasn’t a good idea. Also, they realized that the president going after a popular vote was reckless.</p>

<p>I think the electoral college was a very good compromise. It forces a more wide spread interest by candidates on the entire country. It forces representation of low populated states where many people would overlook. It helps balance the minority vote. If a certain group of people are truly a minority, their vote as part of a STATE can be a swing vote. The black or hispanic vote could SWING a state. If it was all popular, it could be All white against whatever. The electoral college also provides a balance when there is an imbalance of voter turnout. During some elections, your state may also be voting on governor, education bills, same sex marriage, etc… This could rally a lot more people to come out and vote. They are there voting for all these other reasons. Might as well vote for the president and other things. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of states that might not be voting for any local issues and they have a much lower turnout. There are plenty of excellent reasons for the electoral college.</p>

<p>Of course, there are a people who think there are a lot of good reasons for going with the popular vote. The system wasn’t designed because AT&T didn’t exist yet, so the fact that we now have mass communications isn’t a reason. There are only 2 real arguments against the electoral college. One, as many have mentioned, is the disproportionate representation to smaller populated states. Unfortunately, the fact that the president had won the election without have the popular vote, only happened 4 times in the history of our elections. The last time; in the year 2000, was the first time in 112 years since 1888. So, history shows that the complaint is pretty unfounded. Plus, it’s only become an issue since Bush won in 2000 from people who felt cheated. Had Gore won the presidency, there probably wouldn’t have been one word about it. Basically, the gore supporters are sore losers or made up of people who don’t know how to vote. </p>

<p>The 2nd reason is actually valid. It makes it very difficult for a 3rd party to become elected. That is a real concern. A popular vote would allow the 3rd party a chance. Unfortunately, these are the only real 2 reason. The main one just happens to not be proven by history. It’s only an argument because some people don’t like the current president and use the electoral college as their way of saying the election was stolen. The truth is, except for 4 times, the popular vote has always followed the electoral vote. BUT, the pros of the electoral college far outweigh those 4 times. Without the electoral college 40+ states would be forgotten about during elections. Many campaign debates and concerns would never be addressed. Californians and New Yorkers don’t care about the auto plants and unemployment in Michigan. They don’t care about ranchers and the midwest farmers who grow the wheat and corn that our country lives on. They don’t care about the oil workers, coal workers, fisherman, etc… </p>

<p>My suggestion is to quit whining about an election that you lost 8 years ago. Gore most definitely isn’t worth it. Instead, figure out which of the 2 evils you want to run in November. Clinton or Obama. Between those two, democrats have enough problems to worry about something that historically hasn’t been a major problem.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>Succint, but interesting point. Conservatives may be for smaller government, but the Republican Party is most certainly not. There is no movement in the United States with any power that is pushing for smaller government (unless you want to count the Ron Paul base). We should make use of the NRA and add that to their platform. That’s the demographic we need to enact change in that department.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><em>vomit</em></p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve considered doing this in the past, but never got around to it… I’m interested enough to do it. If I could find a list of the distribution of electoral votes that wasn’t in alphabetical order by state, it would be easier.</p>

<p>Okay.</p>

<p>The bottom 14 states + D.C. make 54 electoral votes, we’ll go with that.</p>

<p>AK, ND, WY, D.C., SD, MT, VT, DE, HI, ID, ME, NH, RI, NE, WV.</p>

<p>Total population (using Wikipedia numbers… obviously there is no perfect source):</p>

<p>15,641,000. Approximately 5% of the US Population and 10% of the Electoral College. 41.1% the population of California. Same number of votes. Makes you think.</p>

24

<p>No time to discuss it, but I’m adding my voice in favor of the EC.</p>

<p>

I agree with WashDad.</p>

25

<p>Yea Bandtenhut; It definitely makes you think. Makes you realize what geniuses our founding fathers really were. They designed a means by if someone were to run for the presidency; even if they spent all their time and money in 3 states and won, that it wasn’t a locked deal. That you could collectively go to 15 other states; spend a lot of time, money and effort; concentrate on an area many times larger than California that represents a lot more resources and interests pertinent to the rest of the country as a whole, and you could even out the score. </p>

<p>As a hispanic or black voter, it makes one realize that it does a candidate no good to kiss up for my minority vote alone; but that they need to address all the issues pertaining to my state or area of the country. That the minority vote actually can make a difference. That it can swing an election. That their voices can be heard. In the popular vote, they don’t need the minority vote.</p>

<p>It definitely makes you think that in the bread basket of the country and ranges; that my entire life and prosperity won’t be dictated by 3 or 4 groups of people in the country who have no desire for my well being other than to produce their grain, cattle, and rape us of our water rights. Then when they realize how screwed up they’ve made things; they sell off what they have and move to the small mountain towns where they can complain about the deer, elk, bears, and the rest of nature. Ever heard of Rio Rancho; Aspen; Jackson Hole; etc…</p>

<p>It definitely makes you think that maybe the forefathers knew what we may actually turn into. Where no one group of people, living in their own fairytale and perspective, and who had absolutely no perspective on the country as a whole, can without question or challenge be able to dictate the results to the rest of the country. I think the fathers were geniuses. </p>

<p>The amount of money spent to campaign New York or California is proportionately much less than it is to campaign much of the country. A California rally can communicate with ten or hundreds of thousand voters in one event. Many states would numerous events to make similar impacts. No, the electoral college is working just fine. NOT because it gives small states a voice; (They wouldn’t have any voice without the electoral college or the Senate for that matter); but because it stops the over populated areas in their own greed from dictating to the majority of the country how they must live.Yea; over 200 years. Only 4 elections where the popular vote not winning made this an issue. Yet, hundreds of benefits for it’s existence. And it’s made us the greatest country in the world. Yes, definitely some geniuses in it’s architecture.</p>

26

<p>

</p>

<p>When the Constitution was written, it was considered improper for a candidate to campaign for himself. There were only 13 states, the bread basket was not settled, minorities were considered to be sub-human… your post is an extraordinary application of presentism and self-indulgence. You seem to believe that giving each human being one vote will lead to the destruction of the balance between state and federal government. You can bemoan the culture of consumerism as much as you want… giving rural communities a disproportionate vote in the Presidential election will not stop rich people from moving to Montana. Blame Hollywood and their damned fly-fishing movie with Brad Pitt. The people of Los Angeles have no interest in water rights in Wyoming. How is that even a federal issue? Your bizarre paragraph relating your cultural bias toward non-residents screwing up your precious backwaters (I’m a North Dakotan, so I can say it) is revealing. You’re a reactionary. I’ve seen you a thousand times in the landowner who sticks a NO HUNTING sign on every post and gives the stinkeye to anyone he doesn’t recognize at the town diner. Everyone is out to get you.</p>

27

<p>None of those things apply to me, Band, and I think the Electoral College is a fine way to balance the rights of states and of the people in selecting our chief administrator. Do you want to insult me for having my opinion?</p>

<p>For what it’s worth, I share the founders’ suspicions regarding populism. For example, I’m not sure I’m a big fan of the 17th Amendment, even, except that the problems it fixed were probably worse than the current campaign financing and special interest pandering in Senatorial races that derived from the 17th. If state legislatures hadn’t messed with Senatorial appointments so much in the late 19th century, I think there is a good case for the states appointing senators instead of by direct vote.</p>

<p>Anyway, the electoral college is partially based on mistrust of the raw voice of the people, and I don’t think that is a bad thing.</p>

28

<p>WashDad:</p>

<p>you are spot-on. Anyone who doesn’t like the EC, should also vote to get rid of 2 senator votes per state. The argument (pro and con) is the same.</p>

29

<p>BandTenHut; you obviously only read what you want and disregard the rest that’s ok. I wrote in the 3rd person. I even said; and I quote; </p>

<p>“It definitely makes you think that maybe the forefathers knew what we may actually turn into.”</p>

<p>In other words, even though the EC was developed a very long time ago, and under some other purposes, it has become a method of electing the president that has stood the test of time and has become just as valuable today as when it was enacted. But then again, you probably already knew that.</p>

<p>Also, you have no idea who I am. I’m originally from the New York City / New Jersey area. I came to Wyoming via a 21 year career in the Military. Lived/worked in 14 countries and 15 states. You haven’t seen me 1000 times or even 1 time. You know nothing of me. Whether I’d put a sign on a post or just straight out open fire. You have no idea. You just think you do. And when you learn to read, including the entire posts, you will see that states like California need Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, etc… just as much; if not more than the other way around. And there is nothing wrong with them moving from California to New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, or Montana. As long as they don’t complain about it and try to change it to be California. But you are correct, that isn’t want the EC is about.</p>

<p>This is about the electoral college. For some reason, you believe that all individual votes are, or should be equal. I think that’s where we disagree. If they were all equal, then a disproportionate amount of people would have control over issues that affect the other states. Remember, we are a republic made up of 50 individual states. Not 1 country with 1 state. Go to the extreme. If there are 300 million people in the USA and 250 million of them lived in California; should california have say so over Ohio? Well, when you treat all 50 states as exact equals, and base the presidency on the popular vote, then you leave the presidency in the vote of people who have no concern or interest in the rest of the country. Just like people from Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, etc… don’t care about California; neither does California care about them. But, because California has a larger population base; they could potentially decide what issues and topics candidates are concerned over, because the candidates sure wouldn’t go to those states to address issues.</p>

<p>No, the EC is a very good system. It provides a balance just like other parts of the government does. Our founding fathers were quite wise. They developed a form of government that not only worked in their time, but one that could work within our evolution.</p>

30

<p>

I find this line of argument a little strange. The legislative and executive branch are not remotely identical in purpose or function…that’s why they are clearly separated and have different names. A Congressman is explicitly elected to represent his/her state, a President is elected to represent the nation. It’s comparing apples to oranges. A President is supposed to be the head of state, and should have a big picture view and national appeal that excludes state favoristism.</p>

<p>Also, ChristCorp, you keep bringing up California as if it were some monolithic entity 100% full of liberals. There are plenty of conservatives in California. They may not have a majority, but there are a number of Republican Congressman from conservative districts in California. Under the EC of course, they have no real power to vote for President. Which brings up another disadvantage of EC: that it disenfranchises voters in solidly blue or red states The all-or-nothing voting style hurts minorities far more than it helps them.</p>

31

<p>Please don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against California. Matter of fact, I think it’s a really beautiful place with a lot of nice people. Including family. I just happen to bring it up because it is the most populated and others have brought up their electoral votes compared to others. The part about them moving to colorado, new mexico, etc… is only concerning that other than that, most in California probably don’t care personally about many other states. Just as many from different states don’t care personally about California.</p>

<p>You do however bring up another really good point about the EC. I don’t agree that the EC disenfrancises voters but the all or nothing voting does cause some problems. Not necessarily against minorities, but it is a problem. 2 states give partial EC votes depending on the outcome. I think if EC votes were given out partially for the candidates depending on their popular vote that would help. I.e. 2 candidates in a large state like California or New York can get 2 million and 2 million and 1 respectively; yet the candidate with 2 million and 1 gets all the electoral votes.</p>

<p>Anyway, this is politics and as such we will have lots of disagreements. Please believe however that it’s not against California, New York, Florida, Texas, or any state individually. They just happen to have the larger populations and thus most ec votes. As I said; I personally think California is a really nice place with some really nice people. I do however think the EC is a really good thing. But, by giving partial votes to different candidates, it would allow for a 3rd party to compete. As it is, it can pretty much only be Republicans and Democrats. That’s a shame.</p>

32

<p>“Also, we have discrete single-member House districts, which mitigates heavily against the prospects of multi-party abominations like those of Italy,”</p>

<p>Our foreign policy, our military policy, our health care policy, and our economy should only be as successful as Italy’s…</p>

33

<p>Italy has 20% unemployment, and in the south it’s higher than that. No thanks.</p>

34

<p>Wrong, as usual. You are living in a world 20 years gone by. (It’s rather like the canard about so-called waiting lists for elective surgery in Canada, which are now lower than waiting lists for cancer surgery in the U.S. IF one has insurance.)</p>

<p>[Italy</a> Unemployment rate - Economy](<a href=“http://www.indexmundi.com/italy/unemployment_rate.html]Italy”>Italy Unemployment rate - Economy)</p>

<p>Of course, given that it is only the CIA factbook, consider the source.</p>

<p>And the only reason it is even that high is because of the major inflow of refugees (including many from Iraq who the U.S. won’t take.)</p>

35

<p>Mea culpa. I was reading “The CIA World Factbook” which does, in fact, report 7% total unemployment. The number I used was the unemployment rate for southern Italy.</p>

<p>Mini, you are among the five or six most consistently impolite posters on this board. If there was an “ignore” feature you’d be be at the top of the list. There was no need for the “as usual” snip, and I expect an apology.</p>

36

<p>I’m not a big fan of statistics. I’ve studied them too much and know what you can do with them. But, using the same sources for the USA and Italy; Italy has an unemployment rate of 7%. USA is 4.7%. </p>

<p>Personal income tax is also a big difference. USA for $61,000 - $123,000 is 25%; while in Italy, 33,000eur - 100,000eur (Which is close to the US Dollar equivilent) is 39-43%.</p>

<p>Both have other taxes, but I’m just looking at personal income tax. If you believe in universal health care and other government programs, then I guess it’s justified to pay 40% of your income in taxes. I prefer not to. Also, a much lower unemployment rate on a vastly larger population actually provides for a stronger economy. I think I’ll stick with the USA.</p>

37

<p>

</p>

<p>Absolutely true. But, unfortunately, the reverse is also true: a disproportionate amount of states… have control over issues that affect the other people. Because of the EC and two senators per state, we have an Ag bill (not to mention ethanol bill) which siphons billions from the coasts and sends it to the heartland to prop of the stockholders of the likes of Archer Daniels Midland.</p>

38

<p>mini, I agree with WashDad, you owe him an apology. You may have your own opinion and that’s fine, and if someone states the wrong information it is ok to correct them, but to be mean-spirited and rude just makes you come off as ignorant. This site is to exchange ideas, not shut people’s ideas down with hateful comments.</p>

39

<p>Bluebayou; I understand what you are saying, but that is part of the checks and balance. The reason for 2 senators per state is so that the House of representative couldn’t be controlled and making laws by a small number of states because the have the most representators. The reps presents bills that are important “TO THEIR STATE” and that their people want. If it passes the house, then the senate votes on it with the “ENTIRE COUNTRY” in mind. It’s a very good check and balance. Like I said before, there’s a lot of other issues besides people here. Should the nation’s largest supply of resources like Coal in Penn, W. Virginia, or Wyoming be controlled totally by people in a different state just because they have more people? The states with the resources are providing for an entire country and it’s their familiy, neighbors, culture, etc… that also being affected.</p>

<p>I definitely agree that nothing is perfect. I don’t believe in subsidies to the farmers. I am totally against ethanol. (If you read other forums, you would find out that Archer Daniels Midland is one of my most dispised companies in the world. But with all these problems, you don’t totally get rid of the EC or senators, and other things. Nothing is perfect. Nothing can ever be perfect. Once we recognize that, we can look at what we have objectively. The PROS of the EC and such far outweigh the CONS. Maybe there are changes to it; e.g. allow partial votes to go to different candidates which would represent the people better and allow for a 3rd political party to have a chance. I can entertain those ideas. Scrapping it just because someone doesn’t like who won the presidency or because 4 times in 200 years the popular vote didn’t win the election is not a good reason.</p>

40

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s my understanding that, constitutionally, states already have the authority to decide how they select their electors sent to the EC convention. Currently, both Maine and Nebraska aportion their electors by district, i.e., they are not winner take all states. There are some in California trying to do something similar by initiative, but it probably has little chance of passing.</p>