blike Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I say "no". I think it serves its purpose well, although it has unintended consequences (just look at campaign trails). Nevertheless, without it, the smaller states would have their needs dwarfed by the needs of larger states. There are some good arguments over whether or not a president should be elected without the popular vote, and whether or not this was an unintended consequence of the system. I lean towards the notion that the authors of the electoral college recognized this but felt it was justifiable, especially in light of the aforementioned reasoning behind the college. What do you think?
Pangloss Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I am of two minds on it, still. There's a lot to be said for the argument that the less populated states would be ignored, and this was the sort of thing that bothered our founding fathers to no end. But this is not 1776, and in fact it's not even 1976. Political rallies aren't open to the public -- does anybody here know a single undecided or independent voter who met, or even saw up close, a presidential candidate this year? As far as I know the second debate was the only such opportunity ANYBODY had. The Internet and the media are where these things are played out now. On the other hand, the issue is more than just visitation during campaign cycles. The very first time a president gets elected by promising Californians and New Yorkers a tax cut that the rest of the country cannot have, the whole thing ceases to function. But it doesn't even have to be that obvious -- it could be subtle things, like military base closings or contract awards. And given the already-heavy bias towards those constituencies in the media, who's going to call them on it? I wouldn't expect to see a ringing expose on this by a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism, reporting for Dan Rather at CBS News. I'm still going back and forth on this.
Douglas Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I say "no". I think it serves its purpose well' date=' although it has unintended consequences (just look at campaign trails). Nevertheless, without it, the smaller states would have their needs dwarfed by the needs of larger states. There are some good arguments over whether or not a president should be elected without the popular vote, and whether or not this was an unintended consequence of the system. I lean towards the notion that the authors of the electoral college recognized this but felt it was justifiable, especially in light of the aforementioned reasoning behind the college. What do you think?[/quote'] I've posted this map before, it supports your argument that large states (even cities) could control the country. The map is a good visual on why we should keep our electoral collage system Counties won by Gore: 677 Counties won by Bush: 2436 Population of counties won by Gore: 127 Million Population of counties won by Bush: 143 Million Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000 Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000 States won by Gore: 19 States won by Bush: 29 Source: USA Today Looking at these numbers helps one to understand the wisdom of our forefathers in creating the Electoral College system. The difference in the vote count in just New York City might have elected Al Gore, in a popular vote only system. National Popular Vote for Gore 50,996,116 National Popular Vote for Bush 50,456,169 Electoral Votes for Gore 266 Electoral Votes for Bush 271 Source: AP 12/22/2000
Phi for All Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Colorado has an ammendment up for vote that, if passed, will portion our electoral votes by candidate. Since we have 9 electors, if Bush gets better than half the vote, he'll get 5 electoral votes, Kerry will get 4. It will no longer be all or nothing. If the ammendment is passed, it will be in effect for the 2004 presidential race.
blike Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 Interesting. What would happen if, say, Kerry won by 90/10, would that be reflected in the electoral votes from Colorado or would it still be 5/4?
Phi for All Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 It allocates Colorado's electoral votes based on the percentage of votes for each presidential candidate, so in your example (yeah, right!) Kerry would get 8 and Bush would get 1.
Douglas Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Colorado has an ammendment up for vote that, if passed, will portion our electoral votes by candidate. Since we have 9 electors, if Bush gets better than half the vote, he'll get 5 electoral votes, Kerry will get 4. It will no longer be all or nothing. If the ammendment is passed, it will be in effect for the 2004 presidential race. I had read somewhere that the states have the right to do that. Oh, I just went looking and found this: Maine already splits their votes based on the popular vote. Colorado is proposing the same. The article suggest more states may do the same. If this is the case then why even have the electoral college? If you split the electoral vote based on the each state's popular vote, it is just like having the winner take all approach in my opinion. http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=231305
Phi for All Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I agree that it makes the electoral college pointless. I don't agree that it makes it like "winner-take-all". That's what the current system is like.
Douglas Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I agree that it makes the electoral college pointless. I don't agree that it makes it like "winner-take-all". That's what the current system is like. Phi, I'm not sure it makes the college pointless. It probably would, if each electoral vote represented an exact number of people, but that's not the case since people move around. (probably not the case anyway) What I'm saying is.........Alaska has 3 electoral votes, California has 55, if each vote represented 1000 people, then the population of Alaska is 3000 and the pop of Cal is 55000 (scaling for arithmetic reasons). So it still seems like someone could win the popular vote but still lose the election........No???
MolecularMan14 Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Its strange that this topic come up now. A few days ago, a few of our debaters setup a debate over this same topic. One side pointed out that the US was founded as a republic, not a democracy; mainly for organization, and power. The aff argued that the founding fathers developed this because the US citizens at that time were not as involved in the presidential events (mainly not educated). However, because of the new technologies of communications, we should amend the constitution to esablish a 1person:1 vote ratio, to make a direct election. Its a valid point, and Im all for equality.
Pangloss Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 The Colorado measure is interesting, but it does have some problems, and it's not as simple as a lot of people make it out to be. For one thing, it's not any kind of even-handed split based on district voting or anything like that. It's actually based on percentages of the TOTAL vote. If 55% of the population goes to one candidate, that candidate gets 5 of the 9 electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine, for example, split their votes according to congressional district voting results (the number of electoral votes you get is the same as the number of House members you get, so this makes sense). If your district votes for Kerry, the district's electoral vote goes to Kerry, etc. The reason why this could be a problem for Coloradoans ("Coloradans"?) is that it presents a number of possibilities for statistical anomalies. For example, if the vast majority of the state votes for Bush, but ONE person votes for Kerry, shouldn't one of your electoral votes go to Kerry? What if the results are tied? Who gets the 5? What if one of the candidates gets ONE more vote than the other one, and gets the fifth electoral vote? That would mean that one person effectively represents over half a million people (or at least tens of thousands of voters). It's all probably moot -- polling suggests that the measure will not pass. But it's interesting to speculate on, if nothing else.
john5746 Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm I think we should move to a popular vote, or use the electoral system based on % within a state. Douglas' map - No Alaska? Land mass doesn't vote - people vote. I am in South Carolina - Bush will win this state no matter what. My vote for Kerry means NOTHING. not 1 out of a million, not 1 out of a billion, 0. If I live in Florida or another contested state, maybe it would mean something. The candidates aren't on horse and buggy. We don't need candidates to come to states 40 times to understand their message. Let each person's vote count the same.
Pangloss Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Your vote would mean little more under Colorado's proposed system, for the reasons I outlined above. The way you make your vote count is by seriously considering voting for the other guy.
blike Posted October 26, 2004 Author Posted October 26, 2004 Let each person's vote count the same. The problem with that is that the president would essentially be elected according to the population needs of the urban areas (New York, Florida, etc.) States like North Dakota would have essentially 0 statistical say in who gets elected president. All a president would have to do is run on a platform that appeals to people in major urban states, and the rest of the states don't really matter.
john5746 Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 Works for the governors, so it should work for the President. A president cannot win currently without some of the big states. It really amplifies wins, for example Reagans' landslide victory over Mondale, where he won all but one state, he won the popular vote 59% to 41%. A decisive victory no doubt, but not as impressive as seeing the US map all red.
Mad Mardigan Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 The problem with that is that the president would essentially be elected according to the population needs of the urban areas (New York, Florida, etc.) States like North Dakota would have essentially 0 statistical say in who gets elected president. All a president would have to do is run on a platform that appeals to people in major urban states, and the rest of the states don't really matter. That is why the college still works, so a campain of NYC, LA, and Chicago wouldnt be all you needed.
Douglas Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 That is why the college still works, so a campain of NYC, LA, and Chicago wouldnt be all you needed. Yes Mardigan, I think if you throw in Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle and Detroit, the left and right coast would control the entire country.
Mad Mardigan Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Yes Mardigan, I think if you throw in Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle and Detroit, the left and right coast would control the entire country. I was going to say in my original statement, midamerica would have basically no say. It levels the playing field for the states.
john5746 Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 Yes Mardigan, I think if you throw in Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle and Detroit, the left and right coast would control the entire country. If a candidate wins California by one vote, that wipes out ALL the votes for 10 "small" states. This is why Florida and Ohio is getting so much attention. Look at Florida. Miami could swing that state to Kerry. He would get all the votes for that state. You need to think about different scenarios that could happen. If every voter in the southeast voted for Bush, this wouldn't mean anymore than winning New York and Ohio by one vote.
Pangloss Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 If your point is that the non-"battleground" states are presently being ignored, that's an easy thing for the other 40 states to fix. All they have to do is open their minds a bit and stop being so ideological. Like I said in Post #2 above, I'm still going back and forth on this. But the idea that battleground states are fought over not because they're more populous, but because they're undecided, is a PLUS, not a minus.
john5746 Posted October 28, 2004 Posted October 28, 2004 I wonder what kind of voting system Iraq and Afghanistan will have. Will they actually be a 'true' democracy? Ironic.
john5746 Posted October 30, 2004 Posted October 30, 2004 My wife and I voted for Kerry on absentee ballot today. I have the right to keep on complaining about Bush after he wins at least. I hope Iraqis vote for the secular candidate in their elections. That will be crucial to their future.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now