NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think the electoral college is an appropriate way to elect the president of the United States?

(This is primarily for Americans, but anyone with an understanding of how our electoral process works can feel free to join in.)

I think it is. The members are far more informed on the issues, and they usually follow the popular vote.

No. It put that idiot Bush in office.

I also say no, for we aren't truely a democracy for we the people don't elect the president of our country! :evil:

No. It put that idiot Bush in office.

My sentiments exactly.

i never really could figure out what the point of having everybody in the nation vote if all that really matters is what the electoral college decides.

I think it is. The members are far more informed on the issues, and they usually follow the popular vote.

Maybe you havent heard of a little thing called "Television".....

The Electoral College is an outdated system created in a time when news travelled slowly and the poplulace count be counted on to know the issues, or sometimes even who was running.

These days we have news media of many forms, and this rarely happens.
More people would vote if they thought thier voted actually meant something.

If the majority of people vote for a Candidate, that Candiddate should win.

Period.

i never really could figure out what the point of having everybody in the nation vote if all that really matters is what the electoral college decides.

Because it provides the illusion that we have a say in what happens.

i want to vote for ther person i want in. not vote for the person i want in, then have my "representive" electors vote again. just seems stupid.

What if the candidate whose party had the most seats in the House of Representatives won the election?

What if the candidate whose party had the most seats in the House of Representatives won the election?

Then you have indirect voting....wich would be no better than the EC.

Jeez, just count the votes, and give the presidency to the guy with the most. I don't see why it's so hard for us. The people are supposed to vote in the president, not the electoral college.

NEY.

Nay.

The Electoral College isn't even required to go with the popular vote. Meaning 90% of a state could vote for one candidate, and the College could give that state's votes to the other candidate.

I agree with BackwoodsSquatches. The Electoral College is too outdated to be of any use nowadays when we know just as much about the issues as they do.

And besides, it put George W. Christ into office, so it's bad just for that :x

I think it is. The members are far more informed on the issues, and they usually follow the popular vote.

good point.

I also say no, for we aren't truely a democracy for we the people don't elect the president of our country! :evil:


Even if we elected our own president by popular vote, it still wouldn't make us a true democracy. For that, every issue would have to be a popular vote, so we couldn't have Congress either. We are a Republic.

Besides..have you ever wondered who these people are that do the voting?

The rich and powerful.

i vote ney
but on the other side if there were no EC, the states with the lower populations would not even be touched by the candidates while they are busy trying to woo the voters in the key states like california, new york, michigan, and florida, among others
so i say we need to think up a different way to elect the prez, popular vote is a good idea in theory but wont show true fairness in the polls, i dont know of another way to do this though

absolutely ney

if bush and kerry had an election today and bush beat kerry by ONE vote out of a million in new york, all 33 electoral votes would've been sent to Bush
it should be the popular vote period, there's less disparities and one person one vote
what's so complicated?

No, no, no, a thousand times no!! The electoral system was put in place because the framers thought the masses were 'stupid' - well ok we are - but that's the bloody point of our country; to run it as we like, however stupidly that may be! The electoral voters are NOT obliged to follow the popular vote and five times in the nation's history, presidents have been elected AGAINST the popular vote. We've seen firsthand how disastrous it is to have a president in office who didn't win the popular vote - cough Bush cough. The system is completely outdated and utterly pointless.

We could revise it like Maine and Nebraska do, where electoral votes can be split up - 3 to Gore, 5 to Bush, etc. But that system's still not perfect and the electoral college should still be done away with :(

I'm for the electoral college. IF we can't even vote right with it, how can we vote even better without out? Besides, it would take too long to configure everyone to vote on a direct ballot system. We'd have a year-long election procedure.

Huh? How on earth do you think we calculate the popular vote? Counting by hand?? And what makes you think we can't vote right with it? The voting wasn't the problem in 2000.

Nope.
The people vote for the people.
The people should not vote for people to vote for people.
Whatever happened to true democracy?

I agree with the above ideal.
We should just cancel the popular vote for President and lower taxes.
Taxes and gas, the two highest things in the United States.

Peace and Love,
- Cefwyn, a humble servant of Adonai

but on the other side if there were no EC, the states with the lower populations would not even be touched by the candidates while they are busy trying to woo the voters in the key states like california, new york, michigan, and florida, among others

except that they already do focus on the big states - if you get the plurality in the 12 biggest states you win the presidency. which is why people currently fight over new york and california and florida and illinois while they completely ignore montana. in fact, direct election would lead to each and every single state being competitive because no longer would there be such a thing as a safe state. every vote would count, instead of just the largest group of voters. even in the safest state around some percentage of the population votes the other way.

Well, New Mexico gets lots of attention from the candidates... not because we have a lot of important electoral votes but because we're a swing state (and went for Gore in '00, take that Bush!!). The popular vote would give us a little less say (because of the two 'fixed' votes), but we wouldn't be ignored.

Keep it--it works better than the popular vote would, and the fact of the matter is that the Electoral College had dick to do with Bush being president.

Bush is president for two reasons--illegal voter purges in Florida and the Supreme Court of the United States. Blaming the Electoral College for Dubya is like invading Iraq when al Qaeda is the one who...well, you get my drift, and the logic in both cases is about the same.

Nay, begone with the foul electoral system, I say!

I also say no, for we aren't truely a democracy for we the people don't elect the president of our country! :evil:

Newsflash- We live in a pseudo-representative democracy, aka a Republic.

They call it a democracy because it sounds better than Republic. We also choose our senators and representatives, which is also the idea behind a Republic.

And remember, around half the people voted for Bush, so yes, at least some people elected the president in our country. If you didn't like that, I'm sorry, but tough cookies. Do something about it this go around.

No it's not effective. Just look at last election: Gore got the popular vote, but Bush the electoral.

Popular vote = total citizens who voted for you

IMO it's more effective than that crappy logic behind electoral voting.

No it's not effective. Just look at last election: Gore got the popular vote, but Bush the electoral.

Popular vote = total citizens who voted for you

IMO it's more effective than that crappy logic behind electoral voting.

Gore still didn't get the majority though.

Thats the major problem with most Plurality systems. The majority people may prefer to have someone else over the one who got the highest percentage.

In fact, there is no perfect system. You will end up with things messing up in any system, as proven by Condorcet's Voting Paradox...

I would be willing to bet thatn none of the people who voted 'nay' could even tell you how many electoral votes there are, how that number is determined and why it was set up to be that way.

It is sad that the ignorant get to vote at all.

I would be willing to bet thatn none of the people who voted 'nay' could even tell you how many electoral votes there are, how that number is determined and why it was set up to be that way.

It is sad that the ignorant get to vote at all.

538 and I voted NAY; set up by the total number of Congressman and Senators (438 Congressmen + 100 Senators = 538). When the Constitution was drafted this was set up hoping people wouldnt fall prey to partisan politics

I would be willing to bet thatn none of the people who voted 'nay' could even tell you how many electoral votes there are, how that number is determined and why it was set up to be that way.

It is sad that the ignorant get to vote at all.

538 and I voted NAY; set up by the total number of Congressman and Senators (438 Congressmen + 100 Senators = 538). When the Constitution was drafted this was set up hoping people wouldnt fall prey to partisan politics

Two out of three ain't bad. I'm impressed. You are wrong on the reason. Partisan politics was not on anyones mind since it didn't exist (though George Washington did warn of the potential).

The true reason it was set up was that the smaller states were worried about being dominated (basically voiceless) by the more populous states. They refused to sign off on the constitution until they were assured that they would be given fair representation in comparison to the more populous states. The electoral college considers population while at the same time assuring even the smallest states get fair representation. Any change to that would trump the smaller states to the whim of the largest states.

Of course, those in large states would wholly embrace that idea.

Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought the way that the Electoral College was ran wasn't consistent. By which I mean the mechanism that each state sends electors to th ecollege is different.

prays someone understands this gibberish, it is not my faukt I am shit at expressing myself

Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought the way that the Electoral College was ran wasn't consistent. By which I mean the mechanism that each state sends electors to th ecollege is different.

prays someone understands this gibberish, it is not my faukt I am shit at expressing myself

yes, you are wrong. Sorry.

Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought the way that the Electoral College was ran wasn't consistent. By which I mean the mechanism that each state sends electors to th ecollege is different.

prays someone understands this gibberish, it is not my faukt I am shit at expressing myself

yes, you are wrong. Sorry.

Better to ask than remain ignorant.

Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought the way that the Electoral College was ran wasn't consistent. By which I mean the mechanism that each state sends electors to th ecollege is different.

prays someone understands this gibberish, it is not my faukt I am shit at expressing myself

yes, you are wrong. Sorry.

Better to ask than remain ignorant.

Very true. I hope you don't think that was inteded to be critical.

Wow, I was careless earlier - I didn't read your post completely. I thought you meant the # of delegates. My bad - you were correct and I was careless.

Very true. I hope you don't think that was inteded to be critical.

No worries about that. Just surprised you managed to decipher my gibberish :)

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Would the people that voted NAY, have voted that way if the situation of the last Presidential election was reversed? I think not.

The reasons for having Electoreal College is to avoid tulmult and disorder in the election of a magistrate, and to try to insure that the continuance in office be dependant on the people themselves.

As you can read - some people are still hot and bothered about the last Presidential election that happened almost 4 years ago. This is why it is also hard to get a Constitutional amendment through - the heat of the moment needs to be ignored.

I hope that most Republicans will act better than a number of Democrats, when a Democrat becomes President under similiar circumstances.

Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought the way that the Electoral College was ran wasn't consistent. By which I mean the mechanism that each state sends electors to th ecollege is different.

it is mostly consistent now, but it wasn't always. however, there are still a couple of different ways it is done. most states have each party choose a slate of electors and decide which set gets to vote through the state's popular vote in a winner-take-all fashion (which is absolute utter bullshit if you ask me). many states even have laws against electors voting other than they have pledged to, though i'm not sure if it involves actual penalties. also, i'm not actually sure if there is any real difference between how the parties choose electors in different states.

maine and nebraska can in theory split their electoral votes. they assign electors by district; 2 from the statewide vote and the rest according to the vote in each congressional district. slightly better than winner-take-all, though still crap. and really it just encourages more gerrymandering - turn every district into a safe district and you give your party automatic electoral votes.

...

Yea! If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it is good enough for me.

and they were deeply divided over it. for basically the same reasons that we still are.

The Electoral College is needed to ensure the rights of those from less populated states. Lets take Montana for example. If there was no electoral college, would any of the candidates bother to visit that state?

Probably not. Now what other states are sparsely populated.

Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming and Montana all have less than 1 million people for the whole state. So there would be no need to consider these people's needs would there?

The Electoral College is needed to ensure the rights of those from less populated states. Lets take Montana for example. If there was no electoral college, would any of the candidates bother to visit that state?

Probably not. Now what other states are sparsely populated.

Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming and Montana all have less than 1 million people for the whole state. So there would be no need to consider these people's needs would there?

and when exactly was the last time a democrat spent any time at all in wyoming, utah, or idaho? its been decades. however, between 20% and 40% of their populations vote democrat for president every election. if those votes counted you can bet that democrats would once again pay attention to them.

the fact of the matter is that states don't vote, the people who live in them do. and they don't vote as a block even in the safest safe state. i think representative politics is crap, but we are using just about the worst set of representative practices i can imagine (without being a one-party state like mexico used to be).

The Electoral College is needed to ensure the rights of those from less populated states. Lets take Montana for example. If there was no electoral college, would any of the candidates bother to visit that state?

Probably not. Now what other states are sparsely populated.

Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming and Montana all have less than 1 million people for the whole state. So there would be no need to consider these people's needs would there?

and when exactly was the last time a democrat spent any time at all in wyoming, utah, or idaho? its been decades. however, between 20% and 40% of their populations vote democrat for president every election. if those votes counted you can bet that democrats would once again pay attention to them.

the fact of the matter is that states don't vote, the people who live in them do. and they don't vote as a block even in the safest safe state. i think representative politics is crap, but we are using just about the worst set of representative practices i can imagine (without being a one-party state like mexico used to be).

Your point? Without the electoral college or the checks and balances of the House of representatives the people in those states will no longer have a say in the running of this country. It is also more than just these few states. Future elections would be decided by California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Texas and a few others. With what your saying we should do away with the House of Representatives as well.

Your point? Without the electoral college or the checks and balances of the House of representatives the people in those states will no longer have a say in the running of this country. It is also more than just these few states. Future elections would be decided by California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Texas and a few others. With what your saying we should do away with the House of Representatives as well.

no they wouldn't. because oddly enough the votes in california, new york, florida, illinois, texas, and everywhere else are split. a state is not the proper level to look at when it comes to voting. and while there is currently a general urban/rural divide when it comes to politics, this is not necessarily the case - in fact historically it hasn't been. the new deal coalition that put democrats in charge of congress and usually the whitehouse was made up of both farmers and the working class of the cities.

and what does the house of reps have to do with anything in this discussion? other than my disgust with representative politics in general and particularly with single member plurality districts, that is.

The twist bout a "popular" vote versus the electorate..is correct..it was designed that larger states would not be able to hold sway over smaller states...take NY State...NYC alone has something along the lines of 7 million people...now contrast that with South Dakota..if NYC votes Democrat, that's even before the rest of the State votes...then SD with a much smaller state-wide population votes Republican....then SD gets screwed over bigtime merely because they have less people..and then you get the reason why we have an electoral college.

The twist bout a "popular" vote versus the electorate..is correct..it was designed that larger states would not be able to hold sway over smaller states...take NY State...NYC alone has something along the lines of 7 million people...now contrast that with South Dakota..if NYC votes Democrat, that's even before the rest of the State votes...then SD with a much smaller state-wide population votes Republican....then SD gets screwed over bigtime merely because they have less people..and then you get the reason why we have an electoral college.

of course, the electoral college screwed about 40% of south dakotans anyway in 2000, and 50% in 1996, and 60% in 1992. their votes didn't even count and they might as well have just stayed home. the electoral college doesn't give more power to the small states, it gives more power to the largest block of voters in each small state and takes away power from every other block of voters in them.

The twist bout a "popular" vote versus the electorate..is correct..it was designed that larger states would not be able to hold sway over smaller states...take NY State...NYC alone has something along the lines of 7 million people...now contrast that with South Dakota..if NYC votes Democrat, that's even before the rest of the State votes...then SD with a much smaller state-wide population votes Republican....then SD gets screwed over bigtime merely because they have less people..and then you get the reason why we have an electoral college.

of course, the electoral college screwed about 40% of south dakotans anyway in 2000, and 50% in 1996, and 60% in 1992. their votes didn't even count and they might as well have just stayed home.

But you get the gist of the need for the electoral college right?..I'm assuming you could have followed my simple explanation.

But you get the gist of the need for the electoral college right?..I'm assuming you could have followed my simple explanation.

i understand the argument. the argument is just wrong, because it reifies states.

But you get the gist of the need for the electoral college right?..I'm assuming you could have followed my simple explanation.

i understand the argument. the argument is just wrong, because it reifies states.

Wrong?...rather it hits the target dead on...your conclusions and mine differ..

i understand the argument. the argument is just wrong, because it reifies states.

Wrong?...rather it hits the target dead on...your conclusions and mine differ..

i don't know. i'm hard pressed to believe that the vast majority of votes from the pine ridge reservation in south dakota shouldn't count.

i understand the argument. the argument is just wrong, because it reifies states.

Wrong?...rather it hits the target dead on...your conclusions and mine differ..

i don't know. i'm hard pressed to believe that the vast majority of votes from the pine ridge reservation in south dakota shouldn't count.What I don't get is this idea that those votes somehow didn't count. Of course they counted--it just means that in the context of the smaller context, that of the statewide contest, they came out on the losing end. And since we're using South Dakota as an example here, I think it's important to note that while the state as a whole went Republican in 2000 for President, both Senators and their lone Representative are Democratic. Looks to me like they're covering all the bases there. It's not one-party rule after all.

What I don't get is this idea that those votes somehow didn't count. Of course they counted--it just means that in the context of the smaller context, that of the statewide contest, they came out on the losing end. And since we're using South Dakota as an example here, I think it's important to note that while the state as a whole went Republican in 2000 for President, both Senators and their lone Representative are Democratic. Looks to me like they're covering all the bases there. It's not one-party rule after all.

i tend to think of states the same way i think of congressional districts. granted, they aren't actually and continuously gerrymandered, but there are safe states and states that are up for grabs. continuing with south dakota, its electoral votes have only gone for a democratic presidential candidate three times since 1932. it takes exceptional circumstances to make them vote democrat for president - things like the great depression or barry goldwater.

switching over to congressional districts, before they redrew them and before i moved, my rep was henry hyde. i hate henry hyde, but i couldn't realisticly do anything to get rid of him. which meant that my voice and my vote in a very real sense were not represented in congress. i didn't count, except in a 'well, we counted and you lost' sort of way. it is the same with people voting for the candidate who loses in a particular state. their vote is not represented nationally. each state is basically a single member plurality district when it comes to presidential elections. in a safe district/state, it makes no difference whether the minority party supporters go vote or not. and even in a contested district/state, the losing side may just as well have stayed home watching talk shows for all the good voting did them.

i think i've had part of this conversation with you before, but i really don't like single member plurality districts. but if we are going to have them we should set them up to maximize the competitiveness of the elections. which means getting rid of safe districts. and on the national level that means counting each vote equally.

of course, i would prefer that we drop the whole psuedo-democratic thing we've got going and use processes that don't leave significant percentages of people outside of them, but that's because i'm an anarchist.

There are 435 members of the House, not 438 - the last three electors come from the District of Columbia. Plus of course 50*2 Senators.

The US Congress actually has 536 members, but the VP, who is the President of the Senate and has the casting vote, isn't counted when it comes to the electoral college.

Note that in a federal system, you have to decide presidential elections based on some version of an electoral college, otherwise the smaller states will have be dominated by the larger states. Note that e.g. South Dakotans have much more power, based on their population size, than New Yorkers. If North Dakota had voted for Gore, he would have been president.

But distortions of the electoral system will always take place in a first-past-the-post system. So scrap it, and change to proportional representation.