View Full Version : Electoral College
Aoshi
10-09-2008, 01:59 AM
Why vote?
Discuss.
my thoughts exactly, if it comes down to it they can really do whatever the fuck they want.
ms. kat
10-09-2008, 02:09 AM
I don't really understand why we have the electoral college, and then tell everyone to vote.
If only the votes of a group of people really count, why do the rest of us vote?
Or, does the popular vote somehow effect the electoral college?
I'm not really up to speed on how that works, can someone explain in plain English how it works, please?
In Florida, you have 27 people who vote for our state. If 15 out of those 27 people vote for Candidate A. Then Candidate A will receive all 27 votes.
Theoretically, the Electoral College is supposed to vote based on what the people of their state want. However, from my understanding, they can vote for whomever they wish. I'm also under the impression their votes can be bought and traded.
Sign me up to be on that panel. :roll:
PPGMD
10-09-2008, 02:32 AM
Quite a few states prohibit the electors the electoral college from voting against the candidate that they are pledged (based on the system used by the state to assign electors).
Also since 1976 no elector has purposely voted against the candidate that they were pledged to (in 2004 one of Minnesota electors pledged to John Kerry accidentally voted for John Edwards as President).
Anyways the idea of them voting is archaic, but the idea of the system I agree with it gives every state some weight in the election. If it weren't for the electoral college it would be unlikely that the candidates would every go anywhere but the 10 biggest cities.
Trizzle
10-09-2008, 05:59 AM
Quite a few states prohibit the electors the electoral college from voting against the candidate that they are pledged (based on the system used by the state to assign electors).
Also since 1976 no elector has purposely voted against the candidate that they were pledged to (in 2004 one of Minnesota electors pledged to John Kerry accidentally voted for John Edwards as President).
Anyways the idea of them voting is archaic, but the idea of the system I agree with it gives every state some weight in the election. If it weren't for the electoral college it would be unlikely that the candidates would every go anywhere but the 10 biggest cities.
This is the idea behind it, the votes are technically cast in D.C. I believe and the system has been set up for a looooong time. Some electoral college systems date back thousands of years. In this modern world that we live in though, technology (as far as I'm concerned) has outmoded the electoral system and I think a national popular vote is the way to go.
Small states can't simply be skipped because of their lower population, their vote would still be counted. The notion that the would happen is about as ridiculous as the electoral college itself. Swing states are simply given too much focus in my opinion and the system opens itself up for criticism when fiascos like the 2000 elections occur. What happened during the 200 elections? Florida's election process was put under a microscope and it made Floridians look really stupid.
Put it this way, Bush won with 271 electoral votes (with FL's 25) and Gore had 266 electoral votes. Now if you took FL's votes and cut them straight down the middle and gave 12.5 to each candidate you now have Bush with 258.5 and Gore with 278.5 with Gore winning. Keep in mind, this is only with a difference of .5% of a difference in the popular vote...there's still something wrong there.
Now, if you had 1 vote per 1 person Gore had the popular vote and that would have been that. FL wouldn't have been put under such scrutiny because swing states don't exist in a system with popular vote. Do I think that a national popular vote system would be perfect? No. No system would be perfect because you have too many human hands touching a large-scale process. Do I think it would be better than electoral colleges and delegates in the primaries? Absolutely. Voter error becomes marginalized and no one particular geographical location could be focused upon for voter fraud to have a higher impact than another location.
YuppyKiller
10-09-2008, 08:44 AM
It's kind of like a judge and jury I guess... we're the jury, they're the judge lol.
Zealot
10-09-2008, 10:30 AM
Small states can't simply be skipped because of their lower population, their vote would still be counted. The notion that the would happen is about as ridiculous as the electoral college itself.
No one said the small states would be skiped, but Elections are run on money. Why would the candidates waste money by campaigning in inconsequential states when all they have to do to win a popular vote is win just a few key states. Of course the small states votes would still be counted, but they wouldn't mean a thing compared to the number of votes the populous states produce.
PPGMD
10-09-2008, 11:36 AM
Direct vote puts the power directly to the big cities, why do a rally Sumner county, Kansas that might draw a hundred people, when you can go to LA and talk to over a thousand? Never mind the fact that the people in Sumner are very important to America because they help produce one of Americas largest exports, Wheat.
The electoral college is just another balance that gives the smaller states some say in the running of America, rather then be drowned out by the population of larger states.
Swing states will happen, but they will shift as population shifts, in 2000 Florida was the crucial state to win in the end, but in 2004 we weren't as important. Also the candidates can't exclusively concentrate on the swing states, you spend too much time there and you can put other states into contest. The electoral college turns campaigning into a delicate balancing act.
blacksheep-1
10-09-2008, 12:43 PM
I agree, the electoral college provides balance , if you looked at the map after the last election you'll notice most of the actual territory went republican, so should the landowners be the only ones to vote? of course not, but if you just went by popular vote, you would anly have to campaign in New York, Florida, Michigan and California to be elected president, the other states really wouldn't matter, that's equally unfair. The electoral college fixes (mostly) those inequities.
Many of you are missing the question.
Why vote at all if it makes no difference other than a useless "popular vote"?
PPGMD
10-09-2008, 02:03 PM
Many of you are missing the question.
Why vote at all if it makes no difference other than a useless "popular vote"?
Because your vote helps to decide who wins the state, whoever wins the state gets the electoral college votes.
For example in Florida each party submits a list of who will be their electors. Whichever party wins the state their electors get to cast their ballots for the winner.
Yes in some states it is legal for an elector to not vote according to whom they are pledged, but an elector not voting for whom they are pledged is very rare in modern times. And often is only a rogue elector making a statement.
blacksheep-1
10-09-2008, 02:08 PM
It's a republic, not a democracy, does that answer the question?
Because your vote helps to decide who wins the state, whoever wins the state gets the electoral college votes.
For example in Florida each party submits a list of who will be their electors. Whichever party wins the state their electors get to cast their ballots for the winner.
Yes in some states it is legal for an elector to not vote according to whom they are pledged, but an elector not voting for whom they are pledged is very rare in modern times. And often is only a rogue elector making a statement.
So as with most situations, we are supposed to take this on faith, that who we voted for is who they will vote for.
Such trusting sheep we are... in a world full of wolves.
It's a republic, not a democracy, does that answer the question?
So this leads me to another political question, why do we push democracy on Iraq if we don't have one here? If they were to form the same electoral system we use, the U.S. would obliterate it and start from scratch again.
blacksheep-1
10-09-2008, 03:11 PM
democracy is a general term, a representative form of government is what we're pushing, there are many different types, for example the english have their own spin, but it's still a democracy.
PPGMD
10-09-2008, 04:46 PM
So as with most situations, we are supposed to take this on faith, that who we voted for is who they will vote for.
Such trusting sheep we are... in a world full of wolves.
24 states have laws that require the electors to vote who they are pledged for.
In Florida the electors that vote are trusted members of the party that wins the popular vote in this state, it's unlikely that any of them will vote against their party.
The best way to look at it, when you are voting for McCain you are voting for 27 Republican electors that will be voting for McCain in your name. When you are voting for Obama you are doing the same, but the electors are trusted Democrats.
vBulletin® v3.6.10, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by
vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8