The Electoral College Makes Perfect Sense

RutgersJetFan · 11-06-2008, 11:46 PM

Basically, a 7% swing in the popular vote is going to equal out to over a 2-1 swing in the electoral vote.

Totally logical if you ask me.

parafly · 11-06-2008, 11:52 PM

The electoral college is a joke. The winner take all policy for most states ruins the whole thing. If every state was like Maine and Nebraska and divided up its electoral votes, it would be a much fairer system.

Tyler Durden · 11-06-2008, 11:55 PM

Why don't they just go by the popular vote? What is the flaw in that? Has to be some reason they don't use it. It seems like the most logical way. Most votes.. you win. Shouldn't it be that simple? Like everything else? Jets score more points they win.. Yankees score more runs they win... Obama receives more votes he wins..

parafly · 11-07-2008, 12:01 AM

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2846415]Why don't they just go by the popular vote? What is the flaw in that? Has to be some reason they don't use it. It seems like the most logical way. Most votes.. you win. Shouldn't it be that simple? Like everything else? Jets score more points they win.. Yankees score more runs they win... Obama receives more votes he wins..[/QUOTE]

The electoral college is necessary because with a popular vote system too much weight is carried in big cities and not enough in rural areas. It's designed to give every state and each individual vote a more equal influence.

BrooklynBound · 11-07-2008, 12:05 AM

[QUOTE=parafly;2846420]The electoral college is necessary because with a popular vote system too much weight is carried in big cities and not enough in rural areas. It's designed to give every state and each individual vote a more equal influence.[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't a pro-rate votes for states be similar to a popular vote? Also, I fail to see why small states should be over-represented simply because they are small. Why should big states be under-represented just because they are big?

Tyler Durden · 11-07-2008, 12:06 AM

[QUOTE=parafly;2846420]The electoral college is necessary because with a popular vote system [B]too much weight is carried in big cities and not enough in rural areas.[/B] It's designed to give every state and each individual vote a more equal influence.[/QUOTE]

Call me crazy, but I don't see what's wrong with that. Everyone gets 1 vote, everyone gets to make there choice. It just seems like they set this system up knowing big cities lean one way.. and they surely do, but it should be the job of the other side to change some minds. It would be nice to see Republicans campaigning in NY and NJ for once.. It's not our problem there is 10 people in each town in North Dakota.

parafly · 11-07-2008, 12:10 AM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2846424]Wouldn't a pro-rate votes for states be similar to a popular vote? Also, I fail to see why small states should be over-represented simply because they are small. Why should big states be under-represented just because they are big?[/QUOTE]

It would be similar, but things would still be weighed correctly on a national scale because of the electoral votes.

If we went to a popular vote, candidates would spend all of their time pandering to and campaigning in the cities of NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago, etc. Don't you see a problem with that? Voting power would be restricted to a specialized and centralized group of people.

Crease29 · 11-07-2008, 12:13 AM

The electoral college was originally put in place by the Founding Fathers at a time when they saw the President as someone whose role was solely to serve a spokesman for the Executive Branch when working with the legislators. There was no intention for the President to directly serve the people because local legislators would do the job more efficiently. Since the legislators were directly serving the people, they were chosen by popular vote. The President, thus, would be chosen by those who he served -- the electorate.

It wasn't until FDR and the New Deal did the Presidency become so powerful that it would be better decided by popular vote.

Tyler Durden · 11-07-2008, 12:15 AM

[QUOTE=parafly;2846430]It would be similar, but things would still be weighed correctly on a national scale because of the electoral votes.

If we went to a popular vote, candidates would spend all of their time pandering to and campaigning in the cities of NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago, etc. Don't you see a problem with that? Voting power would be restricted to a specialized and centralized group of people.[/QUOTE]

As apposed to campaigning only in small towns in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Pennsylvania every 4 years..

BrooklynBound · 11-07-2008, 12:16 AM

[QUOTE=parafly;2846430]It would be similar, but things would still be weighed correctly on a national scale because of the electoral votes.

If we went to a popular vote, candidates would spend all of their time pandering to and campaigning in the cities of NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago, etc. Don't you see a problem with that? Voting power would be restricted to a specialized and centralized group of people.[/QUOTE]

True - now that I think about it, it does help prevent the "tyranny of the majority."

And we aren't a democracy, we're a republic.

BrooklynBound · 11-07-2008, 12:18 AM

[QUOTE=Crease29;2846432]The electoral college was originally put in place by the Founding Fathers at a time when they saw the President as someone whose role was solely to serve a spokesman for the Executive Branch when working with the legislators. There was no intention for the President to directly serve the people because local legislators would do the job more efficiently. Since the legislators were directly serving the people, they were chosen by popular vote. The President, thus, would be chosen by those who he served -- the electorate.

It wasn't until FDR and the New Deal did the Presidency become so powerful that it would be better decided by popular vote.[/QUOTE]
Yep, the President and the Fed were never supposed to have so much centralized power. But they grabbed it, we let them and the rest is history.

BrooklynBound · 11-07-2008, 12:19 AM

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2846434]As apposed to campaigning only in small towns in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Pennsylvania every 4 years..[/QUOTE]

NY, NJ and CA are still important states to win. Since Obama knew he had them locked up, he had a much easier path.

parafly · 11-07-2008, 12:26 AM

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2846434]As apposed to campaigning only in small towns in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Pennsylvania every 4 years..[/QUOTE]

I hear you, and that's exactly why I think the electoral vote for each state should not be winner take all. The sad reality is that if you voted for McCain in NJ, your vote did not count as the electoral vote goes 15-0 regardless of the degree of victory.

Start splitting up the electoral votes in each state based on the popular vote, and suddenly you have the candidates fighting for the biggest margin of victory possible. Don't you think McCain would have spent some more time in NJ if he had a chance to change the electoral vote from 9-6 to 8-7?

parafly · 11-07-2008, 12:30 AM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2846435]True - now that I think about it, it does help prevent the "tyranny of the majority."[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

jayjay · 11-07-2008, 12:39 AM

[QUOTE=parafly;2846430]It would be similar, but things would still be weighed correctly on a national scale because of the electoral votes.

If we went to a popular vote, candidates would spend all of their time pandering to and campaigning in the cities of NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago, etc. Don't you see a problem with that? Voting power would be restricted to a specialized and centralized group of people.[/QUOTE]

the flaw in your example is that the states that those cities are in reward the most electoral votes so the candidates spend all their time there any way.
california, illinois, florida, new york. you can't get elected without em.

PlumberKhan · 11-07-2008, 07:19 AM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2846424]Wouldn't a pro-rate votes for states be similar to a popular vote? Also, I fail to see why small states should be over-represented simply because they are small. Why should big states be under-represented just because they are big?[/QUOTE]

It all boils down to the fundamental differences between a Republic and a Democracy.

Trust me, you don't want a mob-ruled country...it wouldn't be very good. Big states should not be jealous of the smaller states getting all the attention during the election...because as soon as the polls close, these politicians retreat back to the bigger states and really could give a rats ass what people in Iowa or Dixville Notch, New Hampshire think...

JetPotato · 11-07-2008, 09:15 AM

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2846425][B]Call me crazy[/B], but I don't see what's wrong with that. Everyone gets 1 vote, everyone gets to make there choice. It just seems like they set this system up knowing big cities lean one way.. and they surely do, but it should be the job of the other side to change some minds. It would be nice to see Republicans campaigning in NY and NJ for once.. It's not our problem there is 10 people in each town in North Dakota.[/QUOTE]

Ok, you're crazy.

I can't even believe this is being discussed.

Mavrik · 11-07-2008, 11:02 AM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2846424]Wouldn't a pro-rate votes for states be similar to a popular vote? Also, I fail to see why small states should be over-represented simply because they are small. Why should big states be under-represented just because they are big?[/QUOTE]

how exactly are big states underrepresented in the electoral college? California has a population close to 40 million and they get 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has barely a million and gets 3 electoral votes. I think they're represented pretty well if you ask me.

Warfish · 11-07-2008, 11:05 AM

Win four states by one vote per (CA, TX, FL, NY) and you've already won more than half of what you need to win the Presidency.

4 votes. Half a win.

Yep, that makes sense.

JetPotato · 11-07-2008, 11:08 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2846839]Win four states by one vote per (CA, TX, FL, NY) and you've already won more than half of what you need to win the Presidency.

4 votes. Half a win.

Yep, that makes sense.[/QUOTE]

Thank you Fish. Beat me to it. But thank you.

11-06-2008, 11:46 PM	#1
RutgersJetFan Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,953	The Electoral College Makes Perfect Sense Basically, a 7% swing in the popular vote is going to equal out to over a 2-1 swing in the electoral vote. Totally logical if you ask me.

11-06-2008, 11:55 PM	#3
Tyler Durden Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 31,171	Why don't they just go by the popular vote? What is the flaw in that? Has to be some reason they don't use it. It seems like the most logical way. Most votes.. you win. Shouldn't it be that simple? Like everything else? Jets score more points they win.. Yankees score more runs they win... Obama receives more votes he wins.. Last edited by Tyler Durden; 11-06-2008 at 11:58 PM.

11-07-2008, 12:06 AM	#6
Tyler Durden Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 31,171	[QUOTE=parafly;2846420]The electoral college is necessary because with a popular vote system [B]too much weight is carried in big cities and not enough in rural areas.[/B] It's designed to give every state and each individual vote a more equal influence.[/QUOTE] Call me crazy, but I don't see what's wrong with that. Everyone gets 1 vote, everyone gets to make there choice. It just seems like they set this system up knowing big cities lean one way.. and they surely do, but it should be the job of the other side to change some minds. It would be nice to see Republicans campaigning in NY and NJ for once.. It's not our problem there is 10 people in each town in North Dakota. Last edited by Tyler Durden; 11-07-2008 at 12:11 AM.

11-07-2008, 12:10 AM	#7
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,280	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2846424]Wouldn't a pro-rate votes for states be similar to a popular vote? Also, I fail to see why small states should be over-represented simply because they are small. Why should big states be under-represented just because they are big?[/QUOTE] It would be similar, but things would still be weighed correctly on a national scale because of the electoral votes. If we went to a popular vote, candidates would spend all of their time pandering to and campaigning in the cities of NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago, etc. Don't you see a problem with that? Voting power would be restricted to a specialized and centralized group of people. Last edited by parafly; 11-07-2008 at 12:13 AM.

11-06-2008, 11:52 PM	#2
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,280	The electoral college is a joke. The winner take all policy for most states ruins the whole thing. If every state was like Maine and Nebraska and divided up its electoral votes, it would be a much fairer system.

11-07-2008, 12:01 AM	#4
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,280	[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2846415]Why don't they just go by the popular vote? What is the flaw in that? Has to be some reason they don't use it. It seems like the most logical way. Most votes.. you win. Shouldn't it be that simple? Like everything else? Jets score more points they win.. Yankees score more runs they win... Obama receives more votes he wins..[/QUOTE] The electoral college is necessary because with a popular vote system too much weight is carried in big cities and not enough in rural areas. It's designed to give every state and each individual vote a more equal influence.

11-07-2008, 12:05 AM	#5
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=parafly;2846420]The electoral college is necessary because with a popular vote system too much weight is carried in big cities and not enough in rural areas. It's designed to give every state and each individual vote a more equal influence.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't a pro-rate votes for states be similar to a popular vote? Also, I fail to see why small states should be over-represented simply because they are small. Why should big states be under-represented just because they are big?

11-07-2008, 12:13 AM	#8
Crease29 All Pro Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,059	The electoral college was originally put in place by the Founding Fathers at a time when they saw the President as someone whose role was solely to serve a spokesman for the Executive Branch when working with the legislators. There was no intention for the President to directly serve the people because local legislators would do the job more efficiently. Since the legislators were directly serving the people, they were chosen by popular vote. The President, thus, would be chosen by those who he served -- the electorate. It wasn't until FDR and the New Deal did the Presidency become so powerful that it would be better decided by popular vote.

11-07-2008, 12:15 AM	#9
Tyler Durden Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 31,171	[QUOTE=parafly;2846430]It would be similar, but things would still be weighed correctly on a national scale because of the electoral votes. If we went to a popular vote, candidates would spend all of their time pandering to and campaigning in the cities of NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago, etc. Don't you see a problem with that? Voting power would be restricted to a specialized and centralized group of people.[/QUOTE] As apposed to campaigning only in small towns in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Pennsylvania every 4 years..

11-07-2008, 12:16 AM	#10
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=parafly;2846430]It would be similar, but things would still be weighed correctly on a national scale because of the electoral votes. If we went to a popular vote, candidates would spend all of their time pandering to and campaigning in the cities of NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago, etc. Don't you see a problem with that? Voting power would be restricted to a specialized and centralized group of people.[/QUOTE] True - now that I think about it, it does help prevent the "tyranny of the majority." And we aren't a democracy, we're a republic.

11-07-2008, 12:18 AM	#11
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=Crease29;2846432]The electoral college was originally put in place by the Founding Fathers at a time when they saw the President as someone whose role was solely to serve a spokesman for the Executive Branch when working with the legislators. There was no intention for the President to directly serve the people because local legislators would do the job more efficiently. Since the legislators were directly serving the people, they were chosen by popular vote. The President, thus, would be chosen by those who he served -- the electorate. It wasn't until FDR and the New Deal did the Presidency become so powerful that it would be better decided by popular vote.[/QUOTE] Yep, the President and the Fed were never supposed to have so much centralized power. But they grabbed it, we let them and the rest is history.

11-07-2008, 12:19 AM	#12
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2846434]As apposed to campaigning only in small towns in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Pennsylvania every 4 years..[/QUOTE] NY, NJ and CA are still important states to win. Since Obama knew he had them locked up, he had a much easier path.

11-07-2008, 12:26 AM	#13
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,280	[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2846434]As apposed to campaigning only in small towns in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Pennsylvania every 4 years..[/QUOTE] I hear you, and that's exactly why I think the electoral vote for each state should not be winner take all. The sad reality is that if you voted for McCain in NJ, your vote did not count as the electoral vote goes 15-0 regardless of the degree of victory. Start splitting up the electoral votes in each state based on the popular vote, and suddenly you have the candidates fighting for the biggest margin of victory possible. Don't you think McCain would have spent some more time in NJ if he had a chance to change the electoral vote from 9-6 to 8-7?

11-07-2008, 12:30 AM	#14
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,280	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2846435]True - now that I think about it, it does help prevent the "tyranny of the majority."[/QUOTE] Exactly.

11-07-2008, 12:39 AM	#15
jayjay patient Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 709	[QUOTE=parafly;2846430]It would be similar, but things would still be weighed correctly on a national scale because of the electoral votes. If we went to a popular vote, candidates would spend all of their time pandering to and campaigning in the cities of NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago, etc. Don't you see a problem with that? Voting power would be restricted to a specialized and centralized group of people.[/QUOTE] the flaw in your example is that the states that those cities are in reward the most electoral votes so the candidates spend all their time there any way. california, illinois, florida, new york. you can't get elected without em.

11-07-2008, 07:19 AM	#16
PlumberKhan BRACE YOURSELVES FOR 12... Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,013	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2846424]Wouldn't a pro-rate votes for states be similar to a popular vote? Also, I fail to see why small states should be over-represented simply because they are small. Why should big states be under-represented just because they are big?[/QUOTE] It all boils down to the fundamental differences between a Republic and a Democracy. Trust me, you don't want a mob-ruled country...it wouldn't be very good. Big states should not be jealous of the smaller states getting all the attention during the election...because as soon as the polls close, these politicians retreat back to the bigger states and really could give a rats ass what people in Iowa or Dixville Notch, New Hampshire think...

11-07-2008, 09:15 AM	#17
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,117	[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2846425][B]Call me crazy[/B], but I don't see what's wrong with that. Everyone gets 1 vote, everyone gets to make there choice. It just seems like they set this system up knowing big cities lean one way.. and they surely do, but it should be the job of the other side to change some minds. It would be nice to see Republicans campaigning in NY and NJ for once.. It's not our problem there is 10 people in each town in North Dakota.[/QUOTE] Ok, you're crazy. I can't even believe this is being discussed.

11-07-2008, 11:02 AM	#18
Mavrik All Pro Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,753	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2846424]Wouldn't a pro-rate votes for states be similar to a popular vote? Also, I fail to see why small states should be over-represented simply because they are small. Why should big states be under-represented just because they are big?[/QUOTE] how exactly are big states underrepresented in the electoral college? California has a population close to 40 million and they get 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has barely a million and gets 3 electoral votes. I think they're represented pretty well if you ask me.

11-07-2008, 11:05 AM	#19
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	Win four states by one vote per (CA, TX, FL, NY) and you've already won more than half of what you need to win the Presidency. 4 votes. Half a win. Yep, that makes sense.

11-07-2008, 11:08 AM	#20
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,117	[QUOTE=Warfish;2846839]Win four states by one vote per (CA, TX, FL, NY) and you've already won more than half of what you need to win the Presidency. 4 votes. Half a win. Yep, that makes sense.[/QUOTE] Thank you Fish. Beat me to it. But thank you.