Electoral College

[utrvp]

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

There is an interesting proposal which I think is on the ballot in Vermont, or at least being proposed there. It would keep the electoral college for tradition but would essentially make the election decided by popular vote. Here is how it would work.

The voters of Vermont would be able to vote for whomever they want for president. But the electoral college votes of Vermont would not go to the one who got the most popular votes in Vermont but whomever got the most popular votes in the national vote count. If every state did that, we would have the president picked by popular vote while still retaining the electoral college for tradition.

So what would be the point of wasting time with the electoral college at all then if it didn't count? As a voter from a rural areal I refer the electoral college. Without it we might as well just hold elections in New York City, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, L.A. Dallas etc. Why waste time voting at all in Rural areas of West Virginia, Kansas, Wyoming, Delaware etc. Just take our votes away.

[hogcowboy]

It should have been done away with years ago. It only serves as a last ditch effort to control things now. Be done with it so my vote REALLY counts.

[James]

Originally Posted by utrvp

So what would be the point of wasting time with the electoral college at all then if it didn't count? As a voter from a rural areal I refer the electoral college. Without it we might as well just hold elections in New York City, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, L.A. Dallas etc. Why waste time voting at all in Rural areas of West Virginia, Kansas, Wyoming, Delaware etc. Just take our votes away.

I don't see how the electoral college helps in Illinois. Almost the entire state except for Cook County is red. Because of Chicago Obama is going to get the electoral votes from our state.

[streetg]

Originally Posted by utrvp

So what would be the point of wasting time with the electoral college at all then if it didn't count? As a voter from a rural areal I refer the electoral college. Without it we might as well just hold elections in New York City, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, L.A. Dallas etc. Why waste time voting at all in Rural areas of West Virginia, Kansas, Wyoming, Delaware etc. Just take our votes away.

The lefties would love to put our elections in the hands of those urban areas. Vermont? ? Ya, it's mostly rural but that state is chock full o sandle wearing tree huggers. Chit, those r the people who gave us Howard Dean. Nuff said there

[Gunny4Sawx]

Originally Posted by Homesick

Do you know what Democracy is? It's mob rule. It's 2 wolves and a rabbit voting on dinner.

That's why the EC exists, and why it's necessary.

It's also why we were founded as a Republic, and NOT as a Democracy. Those guys knew what they were doing.

joe

Yep, . Of course there are those more equal than other folks who know what's best for us all.

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by streetg

Wouldn't that just eliminate a less populated states citizens right to vote in what they consider to be their best interest?

No. Everyone would still get to vote for President. Everyone's vote would have the same weight.

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by RGRider

Sounds kind of dumb. Why vote at all then?

Sent from my PG86100 using Motorcycle.com Free App

It keeps the tradition of the electoral college while at the same time making everyone's vote equal if every state did it this way.

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by Gunny4Sawx

Yep, . Of course there are those more equal than other folks who know what's best for us all.

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell, Animal Farm

[Waffen]

Democracy will be the final nail in the coffin of a once great country.

So sad so many don't understand the difference between democracy and Republic.


W

[Fred1369]

never mind.

[Fred1369]

the Senate was originally set up to protect the rights of the less populous states from the more populous states. Remember the Civil War .... industrial states vs. agricultural states. The Congress was set up to more accurately represent the population as it is giving the populous states more clout. The electoral college, consisting of the senators, representatives, governors, and a few more ws set up so the people in power could vote on who would benefit them the most. Without the electoral college the most populous states would control the outcome every time. Basically, the Prez would be chosen by the west coast states and the mid-atlantic and north atlantic east coast states. Screw you, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.

[streetg]

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

There is an interesting proposal which I think is on the ballot in Vermont, or at least being proposed there. It would keep the electoral college for tradition but would essentially make the election decided by popular vote. Here is how it would work.

The voters of Vermont would be able to vote for whomever they want for president. But the electoral college votes of Vermont would not go to the one who got the most popular votes in Vermont but whomever got the most popular votes in the national vote count. If every state did that, we would have the president picked by popular vote while still retaining the electoral college for tradition.

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

No. Everyone would still get to vote for President. Everyone's vote would have the same weight.

By your definition above, 90% of Vermont could vote candidate A, and candidate B would get the Vt electoral votes because B is more popular elsewhere. Sounds like a bad deal for the Vermonters , their choice is meaningless, why would they even need to vote? Their choice is being made for them no matter what.

[RGRider]

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/sh...vors-democrats

"According to professor Leonard Steinhorn of American University, Democrats enjoy a 10-electoral vote advantage from today's system of handing all of a state's electoral votes to that state's popular vote winner. The National Popular Vote bill, which I sponsor in Minnesota, would eliminate this advantage overnight by making every voter equally important."

Maybe getting rid of it might be a good idea after all.

[HiAngle]

From the electoral college website----


The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.


I don't see anything about making sure California doesn't have too much control and ensuring my home state, NH, has a say. California and its "winner takes all" 55 electoral votes appears, to me anyway, that they have too much control.

[utrvp]

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

It keeps the tradition of the electoral college while at the same time making everyone's vote equal if every state did it this way.

What would be the purpose of the electoral college if it was only for the sake of tradition. Why waste time and money on something that wouldn't even count?