New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Proof that the Electoral College is a disaster for the nation...

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Trap, I agree. That was the reason our founding fathers established the electoral college in the first place.

Good arguments could be made each way (popular or electoral) but I would lean to the electoral.
RC...I'm on the other side of that equation. As it stands today, there is no reason to visit Wyoming. None. It will award 3 votes to the Republican. If we lose the EC, then every vote is the same. A majority in California no longer matters other than the vote total. The weaker side still garners votes. Ohio remains a large state with powerful economic concerns. Candidates would still visit Ohio.

Even so, campaigning in "off" states would make more sense, as there are opposition votes in those states...but many people simply don't vote as there is little reason to if the outcome is already known.
 

RedCloud

Mayor
RC...I'm on the other side of that equation. As it stands today, there is no reason to visit Wyoming. None. It will award 3 votes to the Republican. If we lose the EC, then every vote is the same. A majority in California no longer matters other than the vote total. The weaker side still garners votes. Ohio remains a large state with powerful economic concerns. Candidates would still visit Ohio.

Even so, campaigning in "off" states would make more sense, as there are opposition votes in those states...but many people simply don't vote as there is little reason to if the outcome is already known.
Will reply later, Craig. Pushed for time now.
 

RedCloud

Mayor
Hi All: We say of, by, for the people. If every vote was counted, every American would have an equal say in politics. As near as I can tell, that is where we should be, without any group of politicians {Electoral college} having the power to over rule the people.
Squareshot, the Electoral college doesn't have the power to "over rule" the people. I believe (emphasis on believe rather than know) that the electors are sworn to vote the way the majority voted. I think there has been an occasion when a renegade elector has ignored the majority.
 

RedCloud

Mayor
RC...I'm on the other side of that equation. As it stands today, there is no reason to visit Wyoming. None. It will award 3 votes to the Republican. If we lose the EC, then every vote is the same. A majority in California no longer matters other than the vote total. The weaker side still garners votes. Ohio remains a large state with powerful economic concerns. Candidates would still visit Ohio.

Even so, campaigning in "off" states would make more sense, as there are opposition votes in those states...but many people simply don't vote as there is little reason to if the outcome is already known.
Craig, I respect your opinion but will stick by my post. I agreed with Trapdoor because he articulated the argument much better than I could have. As I said, good arguments could be made each way but I would lean to the electoral.
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
All you folks in Texas see hide or hair of either candidate this summer? How about you Californians? New Yorkers? Bostonians? Oregonians? Hawaiians? The sham that is the electoral college has forced each candidate to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to convince a few thousand people in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to vote one way or the other. Out of 300 million people, all of it comes down to a population the size of Fresno or Austin across a few states, the rest of us don't matter one bit. And we dare to lecture the world on the values of democracy and direct representation...what a joke.
Hey Pal how are you doing? I don't see you here very often. As to your post, I really didn't care if either candidate came to Texas. I knew Texas would vote for the American and I wouldn't want Obama to even set foot in my state for fear that he may be carrying a communicable diseaseor something.

But I would like to see the Electoral College abandoned.
 
Hey Pal how are you doing? I don't see you here very often. As to your post, I really didn't care if either candidate came to Texas. I knew Texas would vote for the American and I wouldn't want Obama to even set foot in my state for fear that he may be carrying a communicable diseaseor something.

But I would like to see the Electoral College abandoned.
Moving to Austin soon, got a job there running Texas, LA and NM for a reseller. Will give you a ring when I come to Dallas on some calls...
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
Moving to Austin soon, got a job there running Texas, LA and NM for a reseller. Will give you a ring when I come to Dallas on some calls...
Looking forward to it. It's my turn to buy lunch (unless you have a company credit card and an expense account) I'll e-mail you my number if you don't still have it.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
If they do they are denying the rights of full political participation to less populated states -- which is exactly why the electoral college was created in the first place.
Obviously, I disagree.

I do not believe liberals in Wyoming have full participation in the electoral process. Their vote is completely meaningless. Same for the voters of any state that is solidly one way or the other.

In 1798, there were 69 EC votes. The largest state had 10, the smallest 3. Today, the largest has 55, the smallest still have 3. It is far more important to win California than to win Wyoming, Delaware and Vermont. Montana...North Dakota are also states that have little concern to Presidential candidates, as they tend to vote as a monolith and they have just 3 votes.

The fear you express, loss of full political participation, is best shown by the power of the large states in the EC. If Texas were to join CA and NY as a block...a candidate is nearly halfway home. Add Florida and the task is nearly impossible.

The 10 largest population states...

CA-55
TX-38
NY-29
FL-29
IL-20
PA-20
OH-18
MI-16
GA-16
NC-15
====
256

270 in the number...so the top 10, as per today's census, is just 14 votes short. There will be some adjustments to the next allotment as population continues to shift south, but why go to 30 small states with a record for voting for your opposition? Those 3 in Wyoming simply do not matter to me and they will not matter to most candidates. Perhaps a stop...if it's convenient.

Dems have run strong in most of those states lately, TX and GA the exceptions. If population shifts turn those 2 into the D column...you'll never see a Republican President again. They could win 38 states and 55% of the vote...and lose.

In addition, the EC vote indicates a landslide for Obama. The popular vote total, and you argue thusly, a much tighter race. So...which was it? And which really gives a person...not a State...but a person...full participation in the process?
 

trapdoor

Governor
Obviously, I disagree.

I do not believe liberals in Wyoming have full participation in the electoral process. Their vote is completely meaningless. Same for the voters of any state that is solidly one way or the other.

In 1798, there were 69 EC votes. The largest state had 10, the smallest 3. Today, the largest has 55, the smallest still have 3. It is far more important to win California than to win Wyoming, Delaware and Vermont. Montana...North Dakota are also states that have little concern to Presidential candidates, as they tend to vote as a monolith and they have just 3 votes.

The fear you express, loss of full political participation, is best shown by the power of the large states in the EC. If Texas were to join CA and NY as a block...a candidate is nearly halfway home. Add Florida and the task is nearly impossible.

The 10 largest population states...

CA-55
TX-38
NY-29
FL-29
IL-20
PA-20
OH-18
MI-16
GA-16
NC-15
====
256

270 in the number...so the top 10, as per today's census, is just 14 votes short. There will be some adjustments to the next allotment as population continues to shift south, but why go to 30 small states with a record for voting for your opposition? Those 3 in Wyoming simply do not matter to me and they will not matter to most candidates. Perhaps a stop...if it's convenient.

Dems have run strong in most of those states lately, TX and GA the exceptions. If population shifts turn those 2 into the D column...you'll never see a Republican President again. They could win 38 states and 55% of the vote...and lose.

In addition, the EC vote indicates a landslide for Obama. The popular vote total, and you argue thusly, a much tighter race. So...which was it? And which really gives a person...not a State...but a person...full participation in the process?
And your solution would be that a candidate could win four states and 51 percent of the popular vote and still win. That's better how?
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
No -- it represents the will of the people in four or five of the most populous states.
No. If 51% of the United States population were to vote for a candidate, then that vote represents the majority of the people.

I like to focus on the word United, you like to focus on the word States. A system that was created to assuage slave states is no longer something we should be using.
 

trapdoor

Governor
No. If 51% of the United States population were to vote for a candidate, then that vote represents the majority of the people.

I like to focus on the word United, you like to focus on the word States. A system that was created to assuage slave states is no longer something we should be using.
And if it's a regional coalition, or a "big state" coalition that ignores the regional interests of the rest of the nation, then government has ceased to be of service to large portions of the nation. Hence, the electoral college.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
And if it's a regional coalition, or a "big state" coalition that ignores the regional interests of the rest of the nation, then government has ceased to be of service to large portions of the nation. Hence, the electoral college.
Hence?

If so much of the population resides in just 4 states so a candidate could garner 51% of the popular vote...then such is the future history of the US. If such a population shift does occur, the EC will likely have the same result. CA will have 90 EC votes. Texas 85. Florida 78. Done. Then no one will visit Missouri. Why would they?

There can be no regional aspect to these 3 states, as they span the nation.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Hence?

If so much of the population resides in just 4 states so a candidate could garner 51% of the popular vote...then such is the future history of the US. If such a population shift does occur, the EC will likely have the same result. CA will have 90 EC votes. Texas 85. Florida 78. Done. Then no one will visit Missouri. Why would they?

There can be no regional aspect to these 3 states, as they span the nation.
You're espousing a "tyranny of the majority" -- exactly what the Constitution was supposed to prevent.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I'm espousing one person, one vote.
And that is the tyranny of the majority. Where is the protection for someone in the minority? There was a time when one man-one vote would clearly have favored racial segregation -- I guess that would have been ok with you?
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
And that is the tyranny of the majority. Where is the protection for someone in the minority? There was a time when one man-one vote would clearly have favored racial segregation -- I guess that would have been ok with you?
So every election ever held in the country is nothing other than tyranny?

Democracy is ugly...and sometimes ugly bills get passed.

Tell us how the EC prevented racial segregation in the early days of the United States.

And the always accusatory tone is unnecessary.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Li'l George was a failure as president, from the git go. It would've been the same has the tables been turned and Gore had won.

In this modern era, it's impossible for a president who loses the popular and wins the electoral, to be successful. We're foolish to indulge a system that guarantees presidential failure.

That's the problem with those who dream that the electoral college will somehow overcome some sort of "problem" with the popular vote. It may overcome something, but it won't make for a succesful American 4-years.

In any case, the question is irellevant. Going forward, the demographics suggest that the electoral college will be an advantage to the Democrats, AS will be the popular vote. GOPs may not like that, but at least the electoral and popular will match.
 
Top