The next President

[nkb]

I might be a minority here, but I think the electoral college is an important part to presidential elections. The reasoning is that it makes all the states important, not just the most populous. If it weren't for the electoral college, the presidents would probably skip over the least populous states, as they would have no where near the voting power of others, like California, New York, Texas, and Florida. Read up again on how the electoral college works and the reasoning it was put there- so that the few communities (or now, states) with high power and high populations wouldn't be the only ones represented in the government.

I think this logic is faulty.

From what I've read, the Electoral College was devised because, way back when, it was logistically impossible to have everyone vote in the elections for president. Not only could people not easily travel, but they had no idea what each candidate stood for. So, to simplify, each area would vote for an elector, with the assumption that they would trust this person to vote for them. Then the electors traveled to Washington.
The reason a popular vote was dismissed at the time was because there were no political parties, and the fear was that citizens of each state would vote for a candidate from their state, thereby giving the populous states an advantage.
All these reasons no longer apply, and the Electoral College is an archaic tool which has long outlived its usefulness.

The argument is that if it was a popular vote today, the candidates would ignore all but the most populous states. How is that different than now, where candidates ignore all but the states that project a close election? I live in Texas, which leans heavily towards the GOP, and I have seen absolutely no effort on the part of either candidate here. I'm sure the same applies to California, New York, etc, and other states that are solidly behind one candidate, with the other having no chance in swaying enough voters to win that state.

So, in effect, a Democrat's vote in Texas, as well as a Republican's vote in California, are worthless, and they might as well not vote, except if they want to vote on principle, or for a moral victory. Meanwhile, a voter in one of the swing states (like Ohio and Florida) actually has some influence on the outcome. Why is my vote worth less than someone from Ohio?

Why not make it where everyone's vote is weighted EXACTLY the same? The technology to do it is available. The reasons not to are gone. How people can argue against this boggles my mind.

 

[nkb]

I have traveled to many countries and our political process is still the envy of the educated people around the world.

Which countries are you referring to?

I can personally speak for the political system in Germany, where I lived a large part of my life, and I don't think anyone there envies our political process.

In fact, the 2000 elections were the laughing stock of the civilized world. That a country as advanced as ours can be so bush-league (no pun intended) when it comes to presidential elections is embarassing.

 

[4AU4LIFE]

I voted and am happy to do it.

 

[MJK]

I voted and am happy to do it.

Ditto, but the choices are pretty lousy.

 

[steveny]

As it stands now, the number of Electoral college (EC) members for a given state is based on population. Therefore, the EC doesn't alter the population weighting. It is not like the senate where each state has an equal voice no matter the population.

Personaly, I believe the original intent of the founding fathers has outlived its time and the EC should be abolished.

I think the current system could be left in place but award a percentage of Electoral votes to each canidate according to how the people voted. This would be the best way to really have your vote counted accurately.

 

[nkb]

I think the current system could be left in place but award a percentage of Electoral votes to each canidate according to how the people voted. This would be the best way to really have your vote counted accurately.

If you're going to mess with the system anyway, why not just change it to where every vote counts?
Why are so many people attached to the Electoral College?

 

[steveny]

If you're going to mess with the system anyway, why not just change it to where every vote counts?
Why are so many people attached to the Electoral College?

Small bites so we don't choke. Having the whole system thrown out would be near impossible. Small adjustments over time would be much eaiser.

 

[Eric5273]

Nobody is going to run exactly on "your" platform

Hey.......I didn't say I needed a candidate who is exactly what I want. But which candidate would you say is most closely aligned to what I believe are the important issues? I think if you look at my list you will quickly discover that both Bush and Kerry are exactly the same on all of them. Nader is quite a bit more aligned with what I believe in, but still not completely. The candidate I liked was Dennis Kucinich, but of course he lost in the primaries.

 

[Tom Larkins]

Cheer up guys, a new addition to the Kerry family has arrived so be happy.....


Just kidding guys

 

[gheba_nsx]

I think this logic is faulty.
So, in effect, a Democrat's vote in Texas, as well as a Republican's vote in California, are worthless, and they might as well not vote, except if they want to vote on principle, or for a moral victory. Meanwhile, a voter in one of the swing states (like Ohio and Florida) actually has some influence on the outcome. Why is my vote worth less than someone from Ohio?

Good point here... did anybody ever think of moving a couple millions democrats from Texas to the smaller states and winning several of these states?

That would be easier to do for democrats than for republicans since democrats tends to win fewer states but with larger population (=a lot more difficult to manipulate the outcome).

Ok, I should think less in a sci-fi way!

 

[nkb]

Good point here... did anybody ever think of moving a couple millions democrats from Texas to the smaller states and winning several of these states?

That would be easier to do for democrats than for republicans since democrats tends to win fewer states but with larger population (=a lot more difficult to manipulate the outcome).

Ok, I should think less in a sci-fi way!

There was actually an attempt to do that, especially in Florida. There were a handful of groups started that were encouraging people from states that were solidly behind one candidate to declare themselves Florida residents, and vote there.

 

[Patdeisa]

the fear was that citizens of each state would vote for a candidate from their state, thereby giving the populous states an advantage.

True, but I still believe that this exists today- not so much candidates of each state, but the party numbers of each state. I completely understand and agree that the view of a popular election as the most democratic and fair, but, in my opinion, I don't think it would be the best for the country as a whole. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions- I'm just expressing my own.

 

[Mr.Wolf]

I have decided I shall run at the next elections. Unlike our beloved Mr.Clinton our present political figures are all talk and no action, if you get what I mean. The policies of my government will be:

- Mandatory lessons on using google.
- Remove a few laws that I've always disliked.
- "Eliminate" excess senators to reduce government costs.
- Force Japan into building a new NSX.
- Nuke a few states harboring terrorists.
- Score a lot more women than Mr.Clinton ever did.

If Mr.Schwarzenegger can move from Hollywood to the political arena so can I. But if you wish to keep your balls you will vote for me. Good day to you gentlemen.

 

[nkb]

True, but I still believe that this exists today- not so much candidates of each state, but the party numbers of each state. I completely understand and agree that the view of a popular election as the most democratic and fair, but, in my opinion, I don't think it would be the best for the country as a whole. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions- I'm just expressing my own.

Can you please elaborate on why a popular vote would not be the best for the country? I understand you are expressing your opinion, but what is the basis for this?

 

[nkb]

Here is another perfect example of why the Electoral College just doesn't make sense. This is 2 years in a row.

Bush had the popular vote by about 3.5 million. But, if as little as 150K votes in Ohio went the other way, he would have lost the election. So, the candidate that would have still had a lead of 3.2 million votes would lose. How does that make sense?

 

[Sig]

In theory, the idea and purpose of the Electoral College is sound. Without it, the candidates would only spend time in a handful of states like California, Texas, New York and Florida.

Certainly there are parts of the system that could use improvement. But like any system there are flaws with the EC, however we are much better off here than almost any other place in world.

 

[nkb]

In theory, the idea and purpose of the Electoral College is sound. Without it, the candidates would only spend time in a handful of states like California, Texas, New York and Florida.

Certainly there are parts of the system that could use improvement. But like any system there are flaws with the EC, however we are much better off here than almost any other place in world.

I don't understand this logic.

Let's take Texas, for example. It is currently heavily Republican, and ignored by both parties, because the result is a foregone conclusion. What exactly would each party do in Texas, if this time around had been a popular vote? Are you saying that the Republican party would be able to sway the ~40% of people that voted Democratic? Or that the Democrats would be able to convince the ~60% of GOP voters to switch? How would they do that?

No party would be able to land 100% of the vote in any populous state. So just concentrating on the big ones would gain very little.

And how is this so different from now? The states that got most of the attention were the ones that were hanging in the balance. And, of those, it was the ones with the most electoral votes (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania) that were fought over the hardest.

Getting rid of the archaic and obsolete Electoral College allows for every person's vote to count exactly the same. If candidates want to ignore the smaller states (which they do already), they do so at their own risk.

I believe what you would see is campaigns that actually target more of the country, not less, because every vote would actually count.

 

[Eric5273]

Front page of the largest newspaper in the country that is our best ally in the world:

 

[Ponyboy]

OHHH, the horror! Behold! A newspaper that doesn't agree with US voters! Booo frickin hooo. Someone should make an anti-US govt. movie too.

Yawn. Next.

 

[Sig]

Front page of the largest newspaper in the country that is our best ally in the world:

The largest newspaper in our country, The New York Times, is almost as liberal as the Mirror. Headlines like that in England are no surprise.... their press is even more liberal than America's and is also a nation where tabloids are the most mainstream form of press. That's what happens when you have a free press. The left props up the press when this stuff is printed, but condemns it when reporting doesn't live on the left fringe. As for the Daily Mirror, if you actually pay attention to it... you will remember not too long ago they printed fabricated torture photos of British soldiers.

The headline itself which proclaims the stupidity of all the individuals who voted for Bush reminds me of the following phrase:

Republicans hate Democratic policies, but Democrats simply hate Republicans.

 

[Patdeisa]

Can you please elaborate on why a popular vote would not be the best for the country? I understand you are expressing your opinion, but what is the basis for this?

Basically what it comes down to is I think change is good, but when it comes to important institutions (such as the presidency and others almost 2000 years old), it shouldn't come too quickly or by the present mood. The EC seems to limit the swinging of voters and ideas from one mind set to the next by making the votes from smaller population states worth a little more and the ones from larger states a little less, giving a broader representation of people's opinions from different areas of the country. Additionally, it's up to the states on how their EV are sent- there are some states that split their EV. Also, it seems to be more unifying as it shows that the winner, on average, is supported by more states, not just certain high population communities, which tend to lean more liberal.

 

[nsxr1]

Front page of the largest newspaper in the country that is our best ally in the world:

The real question is this - how can a sizeable proportion of 55,755,514 Americans be so stupid, ignorant and/or blinded by hatred that they swallow whatever leftist, socialist propoganda they encounter, hook line and sinker? And to hold up a British or European news rag as evidence of some sort of "truth" only serves to illustrate how ignorant you are. There are many people and governments across the pond who are practically obsessed with criticizing and denegrating the United States (and it's citizens) at every opportunity, except of course when they stand to gain something by associating with us (e.g. tourism, economic aid, military aid, having their worthless asses saved from annhiliation, etc.). It is an obsession rooted in envy and ego and has been going on for many, many years. Nothing new, surprising or meaningful. It is amusing though how you play right into their hands...

 

[Eric5273]

Have you ever seen the pictures of President Kennedy when he travelled through Europe in 1963? He was cheered as a hero wherever he went, and there were never any protests of any kind. Kennedy could have been elected president of the world at this point in time.

Here's an article from the dreaded "anti-american" BBC:

1963: Kennedy: 'Ich bin ein Berliner'

A crowd of 120,000 Berliners gathered in front of the Schöneberg Rathaus (City Hall) to hear President Kennedy speak.

They began gathering in the square long before he was due to arrive, and when he finally appeared on the podium they gave him an ovation of several minutes.

When Bush travelled to Europe last year, there were massive protests wherever he went. He did not give any public speeches, as the only people who would have come would have been protesters. Whever he arrived at a destination, the protesters were waiting and he had to be hurried in and out by the largest security forces ever assembled to protect a president.

Europeans do not hate Americans. They simply hate this fascist president who wages war around the world, ignores international treaties, and encourages violence, hate, and terrorism.

 

[Sig]

Have you ever seen the pictures of President Kennedy

You leave out the most important fact about those times...... that the United States prevented all of western Europe from becoming Hitlers playground. And in the many years following the war, the U.S. had an overwhelming role in reconstructing the land of fallen empires. Those memories were still fresh in their minds back then and unforutnately have faded over the past 40 years. As for holding up Europe as a good societal model, the level of elitism and facism throughout the likes of Germany and France is exponentially more prevelant than almost any other industrialized nation.

There is a reason that when the French nationals were kidnapped in Iraq several months ago that the leadership of Hamas and Islamic Jihad came out demanding that they be released. When your friend sleeps with your wife, you stop inviting him over for dinner.

 

[Eric5273]

You leave out the most important fact about those times...... that the United States prevented all of western Europe from becoming Hitlers playground. And in the many years following the war, the U.S. had an overwhelming role in reconstructing the land of fallen empires. Those memories were still fresh in their minds back then and unforutnately have faded over the past 40 years.

Actually, in the case of Germany, things were 180 degrees the opposite of what you say. Hitler was an extremely popular leader in Germany -- perhaps their most popular ever. There was an extreme anti-US feeling in Germany for many years after the war. Millions of Germans were killed by the Cluster bombing from the allied forces shortly before Germany's surrender. There was a large resistance movement in the late 1940s against both the US occupation of Western Germany as well as the Russian occupation of Eastern Germany. In 1950, the United States was as popular in Germany as we currently are in Iraq. This only began to change under President Kennedy. If he had not been killed, the world would be vastly different today. The cold war would most likely have ended back in the mid-1960s, and we would be living in a much more peaceful world.