Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50

Thread: The Electoral College Makes Perfect Sense

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,953
    Post Thanks / Like

    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.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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..

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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?

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2846435]True - now that I think about it, it does help prevent the "tyranny of the majority."[/QUOTE]

    Exactly.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    709
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,445
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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...

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  19. #19
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,701
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us