NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd have to say no. A Wyoming vote is worth about 4.378 times as much as a Rhode Island vote.

No the elctoral system is an obvious ploy to rig teh system anyway they want. They being the Dems and Reps who control the system.

It shouldnt even go by state. It should be 1 vote per person and whoover gets teh most votes wins. The electoral college is a scam and should be done away with.

I also think that having 1 president is dangerous and gives one man too much power. There should be 3 to 5 presidents so that they have to work with each other and vote for final decisions, and noone has ultimate power.

I also think that having 1 president is dangerous and gives one man too much power. There should be 3 to 5 presidents so that they have to work with each other and vote for final decisions, and noone has ultimate power.

Uh, I don't know if I agree with that...but I do know that the Electoral College is out-dated and makes our Presidential Election highly unfair.

Uh, I don't know if I agree with that...but I do know that the Electoral College is out-dated and makes our Presidential Election highly unfair.

Actually it is fair. Remember that the Electoral College was set up so no one city or state can decide the election! The smaller states like Vermont, Delaware, and Rhode Island said they wouldn't approve the constitution unless their voice be heard in the Presidential Election. In response, the Constitutional Convention established the Electoral College. It has worked in every Presidental Race. Yea you can debate the merits of it but the fact is, to eliminate it, you'll need a constitutional amendment and frankly I don't think one would pass the process.

In regards, I think the system IS fair!

Actually it is fair. Remember that the Electoral College was set up so no one city or state can decide the election! The smaller states like Vermont, Delaware, and Rhode Island said they wouldn't approve the constitution unless their voice be heard in the Presidential Election. In response, the Constitutional Convention established the Electoral College. It has worked in every Presidental Race. Yea you can debate the merits of it but the fact is, to eliminate it, you'll need a constitutional amendment and frankly I don't think one would pass the process.

In regards, I think the system IS fair!
How is a system in which Wyoming citizens have more than 4 times as much say in who is president than Rhode Island citizens fair? Honestly? I guess some Americans are just more equal than others...

The Electoral College was actually set up because technology at that time was not good enough so that everyone could make an informed decision about who to lead our nation, however, that is not the case any more...

I also don't see how without the Electoral college any one city or state could decide the election...

If it's 1 person 1 vote, how does that equal a city or or state deciding an election. its each individual vote deciding the election. The elctoral college makes it VERY UNFAIR.

Every individual would have a say in the outcome if the electoral college was banished. As it is, that isnt the case.

You both missed the point!

THink for a second. If there wasn't an electoral college, Cities like New York, LA, San Fran, Miami, Phili, Boston, etc. would decide the presidential Election. Thus there would be no need for anyone else to vote.

By having an Electoral System the way we do, ALL states have the capacity to decide who wins the Election!

Okay, let me lay out the Electoral College...

The citizens of a state vote. Which ever party wins that state gets all of the EC votes from that state (with the exception of two states that divide it down further into districts). What does this mean? This means that in Wyoming, with a population of 501,242 and 3 Electoral College votes, each person has a 3/501242 say in who gets to be president. If all of those citizens were of voting age, it'd take 250,622 votes to get 3 Electoral College votes. However, in Rhode Island, with a population of 1,076,164 and 4 electoral college votes, each citizen only has a 4/1076164 say in who gets to be president. Again, if they were all registered voters, it'd take 538083 votes to get 4 electoral college votes...that's more than twice as many votes as in Wyoming, but for only 1 more Electoral College vote...

Formal Dances is right...both Los Angeles and New York City have upwards of 15 million between them...they are located in areas which are notoriously Democrat and liberal..wheareas in Wyoming where the majority of it's population is conservative and Republican couldn't even come close to match those numbers....and that is only two cities..the Dems would pander to the minorities in the highly urban areas, thereby garnering votes simply on promises made..promises which are rarely kept and just as quickly forgotten. You'd have the urban cities determining the President..how is that fair?

You both missed the point!

THink for a second. If there wasn't an electoral college, Cities like New York, LA, San Fran, Miami, Phili, Boston, etc. would decide the presidential Election. Thus there would be no need for anyone else to vote.

By having an Electoral System the way we do, ALL states have the capacity to decide who wins the Election!
Explain how you've come to this conclusion because it makes no sense to me...and that isn't the reason the Electoral College was made...

Formal Dances is right...both Los Angeles and New York City have upwards of 15 million between them...they are located in areas which are notoriously Democrat and liberal..wheareas in Wyoming where the majority of it's population is conservative and Republican couldn't even come close to match those numbers....and that is only two cities..the Dems would pander to the minorities in the highly urban areas, thereby garnering votes simply on promises made..promises which are rarely kept and just as quickly forgotten. You'd have the urban cities determining the President..how is that fair?
...if you look at the general election from last year, there was only a half a million difference between Gore and Bush...in a country of 283million at the time...however, Bush won, despite more people wanting Gore president. How are the people chosing the president? And look at my explanation as to why the EC is unfair. Short explanation rather..

AND FURTHER MORE...if more of the country is liberal, as you seem to be contending it is, then shouldn't it follow that we have a liberal president any way?

Okay, let me lay out the Electoral College...

The citizens of a state vote. Which ever party wins that state gets all of the EC votes from that state (with the exception of two states that divide it down further into districts). What does this mean? This means that in Wyoming, with a population of 501,242 and 3 Electoral College votes, each person has a 3/501242 say in who gets to be president. If all of those citizens were of voting age, it'd take 250,622 votes to get 3 Electoral College votes. However, in Rhode Island, with a population of 1,076,164 and 4 electoral college votes, each citizen only has a 4/1076164 say in who gets to be president. Again, if they were all registered voters, it'd take 538083 votes to get 4 electoral college votes...that's more than twice as many votes as in Wyoming, but for only 1 more Electoral College vote...

Think about this! In the last election, Gore got the popular vote. Look at the area's he won. He took every major City in the USA. Bush though took the heartland as well as the south! The states he won had LOW COLLEGE VOTES. He did win Ohio and Florida with Florida winning the election for Bush. Small states can have a profound impact on the election process with the Electoral System. IF we didn't have that, as stated, the Major Population Centers would decide any election!

if its one person one vote then its not the cities determining the election... its the individual voters. If the MAJORITY OF AMERICA WANTS SOMEONE AS PRESIDENT, THEN THE MAJORITY SHOULD GET THAT PERSON AS PRESIDENT.


How in the world is anything other than that fair?

Think about this! In the last election, Gore got the popular vote. Look at the area's he won. He took every major City in the USA. Bush though took the heartland as well as the south! The states he won had LOW COLLEGE VOTES. He did win Ohio and Florida with Florida winning the election for Bush. Small states can have a profound impact on the election process with the Electoral System. IF we didn't have that, as stated, the Major Population Centers would decide any election!
Like I said above, with only a half a million difference in a nation of 283 million, that's like .25% isn't it? And again I repeat, if more of the country votes liberal, shouldn't it follow that we have a liberal president?

To the people who want to get rid of the EC:

If all you vote in is Presidential elections, then when you get reamed, it's your own damn fault. The electors are elected by the people. They come from the body of delegates (also elected by the people) in your state senatorial district.

Get more involved ... the system works just fine.

if its one person one vote then its not the cities determining the election... its the individual voters. If the MAJORITY OF AMERICA WANTS SOMEONE AS PRESIDENT, THEN THE MAJORITY SHOULD GET THAT PERSON AS PRESIDENT.


How in the world is anything other than that fair?

It is the cities. The cities have most of the population. If there wasn't anything there to make sure that ALL VOTES COUNT, something the Dems are always harping on though according to a major Civil Rights Group no one was disenfrancized in Florida in 2000, then no one would vote because their vote would be wasted. By having an Electoral College, it makes sure that the candidates go to the states to win the votes. Yea we have technology today that they didn't have back then but the point remains, if there where no system like this, then the Cities would decide the outcome and not the small towns and farmers.

if its one person one vote then its not the cities determining the election... its the individual voters. If the MAJORITY OF AMERICA WANTS SOMEONE AS PRESIDENT, THEN THE MAJORITY SHOULD GET THAT PERSON AS PRESIDENT.


How in the world is anything other than that fair?

Because it could lead to buying votes in a wholesale scenario..as I said..you'd have the Dems pander to the urban areas which tend to be more Democrat areas, and rural/suburb areas tend to be more Republican..you'd have the cities of Nashville, Knoxville, and Memphis which all three cities have more then the rest of the State of Tennessee determining who is President..does that make more sense...all the Dems would have to do is promise things to those living in urban areas to get an election..that is not fair.

The EC allows for states with smaller populations to have just as much say in the election of President as states with larger populations.

Like I said above, with only a half a million difference in a nation of 283 million, that's like .25% isn't it? And again I repeat, if more of the country votes liberal, shouldn't it follow that we have a liberal president?

Did I mention liberals or conservatives anywhere? No I don't think I did. I intentionally left those labels out since they have NO bearing on this arguement!

It is the cities. The cities have most of the population. If there wasn't anything there to make sure that ALL VOTES COUNT, something the Dems are always harping on though according to a major Civil Rights Group no one was disenfrancized in Florida in 2000, then no one would vote because their vote would be wasted. By having an Electoral College, it makes sure that the candidates go to the states to win the votes. Yea we have technology today that they didn't have back then but the point remains, if there where no system like this, then the Cities would decide the outcome and not the small towns and farmers.
If, as you are saying, every urban voter would vote for a party, let's say the Urban party, and also, as you're saying, the other party, the Rural party wins all the Rural votes, then it is actually a really close election. The urban/rural populations are really close, it's just that the urban populations are more concentrated. Also, I don't think you understand. You are actually saying that Wyoming citizens deserve 4 votes for every 1 Rhode Island vote.

OHHHHHHHHH I SEEEEEEE NOWWWWW

The conservatives are worried that their unfair advantage will be taken away if we desolve the EC. Like Opal Said... if the majority of the country is Liberal, then shouldnt we have a liberal President?

THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY IS LIBERAL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! We should be bitching more about this.

To the people who want to get rid of the EC:

If all you vote in is Presidential elections, then when you get reamed, it's your own damn fault. The electors are elected by the people. They come from the body of delegates (also elected by the people) in your state senatorial district.

Get more involved ... the system works just fine.


PS ... You, yes you, can become an elector ... try it sometime ...

Did I mention liberals or conservatives anywhere? No I don't think I did. I intentionally left those labels out since they have NO bearing on this arguement!
That's not the point. If the majority of our citizens vote conservative, shouldn't it follow that we have a conservative president?

Because it could lead to buying votes in a wholesale scenario..as I said..you'd have the Dems pander to the urban areas which tend to be more Democrat areas, and rural/suburb areas tend to be more Republican..you'd have the cities of Nashville, Knoxville, and Memphis which all three cities have more then the rest of the State of Tennessee determining who is President..does that make more sense...all the Dems would have to do is promise things to those living in urban areas to get an election..that is not fair.

The EC allows for states with smaller populations to have just as much say in the election of President as states with larger populations.
The thing is...if you really think about it, the big cities still control the election because they get more votes compared to rural people in the state...which decides the state's EC voting...it's just that with the EC, some people's votes are worth more than others.

Because it could lead to buying votes in a wholesale scenario..as I said..you'd have the Dems pander to the urban areas which tend to be more Democrat areas, and rural/suburb areas tend to be more Republican..you'd have the cities of Nashville, Knoxville, and Memphis which all three cities have more then the rest of the State of Tennessee determining who is President..does that make more sense...all the Dems would have to do is promise things to those living in urban areas to get an election..that is not fair.

The EC allows for states with smaller populations to have just as much say in the election of President as states with larger populations.


um you cant buy individual votes. False promises (if they are indeed false) is not buying votes. On the other hand the votes of politicians are bought legally all the time.

GET RID OF THE EC and GET RID OF LOBBYISTS

That's not the point. If the majority of our citizens vote conservative, shouldn't it follow that we have a conservative president?


You just said it wasn't the point now why are you still using labels? I have never used a single label.

All I said was that if the Cities decided every election, NO ONE would vote in the heartland or in the small states because then their voice won't be heard!

Salishes point doesn't hold water, so can you demonstrate how its the city deciding the vote and not the individual voter in teh absence of the EC?

You just said it wasn't the point now why are you still using labels? I have never used a single label.

All I said was that if the Cities decided every election, NO ONE would vote in the heartland or in the small states because then their voice won't be heard!
You obviously don't get the point...
If the majority of the country wants Candidate A (no label ffs) then shouldn't the country get Candidate A?
If the majority of the country wants Candidate B (no label ffs) then shouldn't the country get Candidate B?
Why should Candidate B (no label ffs) take the office after Candidate A (no label ffs) won the election by half a million votes?
If there are more Ayers than Beers (no labels ffs) in this nation, than doesn't it follow that Ayers run the country? Majority rule after all...

Salishes point doesn't hold water, so can you demonstrate how its the city deciding the vote and not the individual voter in teh absence of the EC?


Ahmmm..you mean.."in my opinion" it doesn't hold water right?...Because we have in this country something called "checks and balances" that allows for an rough equality between larger states and smaller states..it's how our Founding Fathers put it together and it's worked just fine for 200+ yrs

Ahmmm..you mean.."in my opinion" it doesn't hold water right?...Because we have in this country something called "checks and balances" that allows for an rough equality between larger states and smaller states..it's how our Founding Fathers put it together and it's worked just fine for 200+ yrs
And it didn't really quite work last election year...

You obviously don't get the point...
If the majority of the country wants Candidate A (no label ffs) then shouldn't the country get Candidate A?
If the majority of the country wants Candidate B (no label ffs) then shouldn't the country get Candidate B?
Why should Candidate B (no label ffs) take the office after Candidate A (no label ffs) won the election by half a million votes?
If there are more Ayers than Beers (no labels ffs) in this nation, than doesn't it follow that Ayers run the country? Majority rule after all...

So if the majority of this country..the Ayers..wanted to make slaves of Byers, because after all..they are the majority..and they can do that..is that fair. If the majority wanted to slaughter every muslim in this nation due to 9/11 would that be fair..because after all..they are the majority.

And it didn't really quite work last election year...
of course it worked..Bush won the EC, and true to our system, he was declared the winner.

So if the majority of this country..the Ayers..wanted to make slaves of Byers, because after all..they are the majority..and they can do that..is that fair. If the majority wanted to slaughter every muslim in this nation due to 9/11 would that be fair..because after all..they are the majority.
That runs into morals and such, however, is giving a Wyominger 4 times as much voting power as a Rhode Islander moral...?

of course it worked..Bush won the EC, and true to our system, he was declared the winner.
That's not very Democratic though, is it?

Salishes point doesn't hold water, so can you demonstrate how its the city deciding the vote and not the individual voter in teh absence of the EC?
because they are all clustered in one area with simmilar intrests

Saying "We will increase welfare" or "We will increase ..." whatever it may be

You only have to promice things to a smaller RANGE of people

it will no longer be about how you can help america ... you will just pander to special intrests in the specific areas with large target audences

of course it worked..Bush won the EC, and true to our system, he was declared the winner.


Well, actually Bush won neither the E.C. nor the Popular vote Gore did. Kathernine Harris is guilty of elections fraud and it was proved while nothing was done about it. If the real re-count had been done taking out the thousands of illegal votes that the Republicans were able to get Katherine Harris to certify post marked after the election date and if Katherine Harris hadn't taken thousands of registered Democrats off the election list Bush would not be president. It's not a theory, it's not a conspiracy, it happened and it's been proved. However, by the time it was Bush was already in the white house and nothing was ever done about it. A lot of people I don't think even know it was proven.. it was a fact, not a theory. Gore legally should be in the white house based on the E.C. vote and the Popular vote. There is no question. The Supreme Court appointed Bush, he was NOT elected on any level.

That's not very Democratic though, is it?

We! Are! A! Federal! Republic! NOT A DEMOCRACY! Big Difference!

Our founding Fathers established the EC System so yes it is democratic!

Well, actually Bush won neither the E.C. nor the Popular vote Gore did. Kathernine Harris is guilty of elections fraud and it was proved while nothing was done about it. If the real re-count had been done taking out the thousands of illegal votes that the Republicans were able to get Katherine Harris to certify post marked after the election date and if Katherine Harris hadn't taken thousands of registered Democrats off the election list Bush would not be president. It's not a theory, it's not a conspiracy, it happened and it's been proved. However, by the time it was Bush was already in the white house and nothing was ever done about it. A lot of people I don't think even know it was proven.. it was a fact, not a theory. Gore legally should be in the white house based on the E.C. vote and the Popular vote. There is no question. The Supreme Court appointed Bush, he was NOT elected on any level.

Steph, I guess you don't know that a Major Civil Rights group said that NO ONE WAS DISENFRANCIZED! I guess you also didn't know that Every LIBERAL network and newspaper went down to Florida and Recounted the damn votes. I guess you don't realize that when they counted up the said ballots that BUSH WON THE STATE! That is on public Record that all of this took place. I am not making this up.

Also the poll question doesn't answer wether it is fair or not. All 3 options make it that it isn't fair.

Steph, I guess you don't know that a Major Civil Rights group said that NO ONE WAS DISENFRANCIZED! I guess you also didn't know that Every LIBERAL network and newspaper went down to Florida and Recounted the damn votes. I guess you don't realize that when they counted up the said ballots that BUSH WON THE STATE! That is on public Record that all of this took place. I am not making this up.

That is simply not the case Formal.. it's a proven fact. Buy "Unpresented" you will see for yourself.

I'm not arguing with you as it never turns out well.

We! Are! A! Federal! Republic! NOT A DEMOCRACY! Big Difference!

Our founding Fathers established the EC System so yes it is democratic!
Eh...a republic is a government in which democratically elected officials run the country...
And just because the founding fathers established it doesn't make it democratic...the founding fathers were also slave holders. They weren't saints. And also, like I said, the founding fathers lived in a time and place in which their technology can not even compare to our day and age. There are so many ways to get information on the candidates...

Well, actually Bush won neither the E.C. nor the Popular vote Gore did. Kathernine Harris is guilty of elections fraud and it was proved while nothing was done about it. If the real re-count had been done taking out the thousands of illegal votes that the Republicans were able to get Katherine Harris to certify post marked after the election date and if Katherine Harris hadn't taken thousands of registered Democrats off the election list Bush would not be president. It's not a theory, it's not a conspiracy, it happened and it's been proved. However, by the time it was Bush was already in the white house and nothing was ever done about it. A lot of people I don't think even know it was proven.. it was a fact, not a theory. Gore legally should be in the white house based on the E.C. vote and the Popular vote. There is no question. The Supreme Court appointed Bush, he was NOT elected on any level.

Thanks Steph! I got tired of saying it over and over. I wish just once that a Repulican would either concede or prove it wrong and not just ignore it with "Bah, Conspiracy! blah blah blah"

Steph, I guess you don't know that a Major Civil Rights group said that NO ONE WAS DISENFRANCIZED! I guess you also didn't know that Every LIBERAL network and newspaper went down to Florida and Recounted the damn votes. I guess you don't realize that when they counted up the said ballots that BUSH WON THE STATE! That is on public Record that all of this took place. I am not making this up.

Also the poll question doesn't answer wether it is fair or not. All 3 options make it that it isn't fair.
The electoral college gives Wyoming citizens 4 times as much voting power as Rhode Islanders. Do you agree with giving some citizens more voting power as others? I mean...I'm tempted to move to Wyoming because that'd make my vote worth about 3 and a half times as much as it would be here in Arkansas...

Steph, I guess you don't know that a Major Civil Rights group said that NO ONE WAS DISENFRANCIZED! I guess you also didn't know that Every LIBERAL network and newspaper went down to Florida and Recounted the damn votes. I guess you don't realize that when they counted up the said ballots that BUSH WON THE STATE! That is on public Record that all of this took place. I am not making this up.

Also the poll question doesn't answer wether it is fair or not. All 3 options make it that it isn't fair.


I guess you just like to ignore the facts.

Eh...a republic is a government in which democratically elected officials run the country...
And just because the founding fathers established it doesn't make it democratic...the founding fathers were also slave holders. They weren't saints. And also, like I said, the founding fathers lived in a time and place in which their technology can not even compare to our day and age. There are so many ways to get information on the candidates...
"democratically" should have been bold...

That is simply not the case Formal.. it's a proven fact. Buy "Unpresented" you will see for yourself.

I'm not arguing with you as it never turns out well.

Steph, I'm sorry but in this case you are clearly wrong. It is on public record that all of this occured. It is public Record that the Main Civil Rights Group investigated it and clearly stated that no one was disenfrancized. It is on public record that CNN, NYT, LA Times, Miami Herold, and other Liberal News outlets went down to Florida and counted up the ballots. In the end, even they said that Bush Won Florida Fair and Square though it wasn't on the front page of their papers. They all stated, somehow, that Bush won Florida LEGALLY!

The electoral college gives Wyoming citizens 4 times as much voting power as Rhode Islanders. Do you agree with giving some citizens more voting power as others? I mean...I'm tempted to move to Wyoming because that'd make my vote worth about 3 and a half times as much as it would be here in Arkansas...

yes but then your vote wouldnt count because of the EC, but if you lived in Wyoming and the EC was not a reality then your vote would count. Although you would only get 1 vote instead of 4.

I don't see how giving less people more voting power makes anything fair.

You both missed the point!

THink for a second. If there wasn't an electoral college, Cities like New York, LA, San Fran, Miami, Phili, Boston, etc. would decide the presidential Election. Thus there would be no need for anyone else to vote.

By having an Electoral System the way we do, ALL states have the capacity to decide who wins the Election!
Your wisdom defies logic. There are Republicans and Democrats in every state, therefore in a 1 person 1 vote scenario, the most popular candidate would win.

Consider if you will, that candidates for both parties end up with exactly the same total votes in all the cities that you mentioned above. Extending this scenario, let's assume that this happens in every state except one, say Rhode Island. Let's further that scenario that in Rhode Island, the popular vote is 1,000,001 for the Democrat candidate, and 1,000,000 for the Republican candidate. Therefore, the election would be won by 1 vote by the Democratic candidate and the person that made the difference was from Rhode Island.

In a popular vote, EVERY vote counts. It certainly would be the most democratic way to elect your President.

Well, actually Bush won neither the E.C. nor the Popular vote Gore did. Kathernine Harris is guilty of elections fraud and it was proved while nothing was done about it. If the real re-count had been done taking out the thousands of illegal votes that the Republicans were able to get Katherine Harris to certify post marked after the election date and if Katherine Harris hadn't taken thousands of registered Democrats off the election list Bush would not be president. It's not a theory, it's not a conspiracy, it happened and it's been proved. However, by the time it was Bush was already in the white house and nothing was ever done about it. A lot of people I don't think even know it was proven.. it was a fact, not a theory. Gore legally should be in the white house based on the E.C. vote and the Popular vote. There is no question. The Supreme Court appointed Bush, he was NOT elected on any level.

Any more illegal then the Dems wanting to deny thousands of write in-military ballots that were for Bush simply due to a clerical error?

I guess you just like to ignore the facts.

Those are the Facts Sumamba! You just don't like them because the votes didn't turn out in Gore's favor! It is on public record as stated before!

Your wisdom defies logic. There are Republicans and Democrats in every state, therefore in a 1 person 1 vote scenario, the most popular candidate would win.

Consider if you will, that candidates for both parties end up with exactly the same total votes in all the cities that you mentioned above. Extending this scenario, let's assume that this happens in every state except one, say Rhode Island. Let's further that scenario that in Rhode Island, the popular vote is 1,000,001 for the Democrat candidate, and 1,000,000 for the Republican candidate. Therefore, the election would be won by 1 vote by the Democratic candidate and the person that made the difference was from Rhode Island.

In a popular vote, EVERY vote counts. It certainly would be the most democratic way to elect your President.

As it's been said repeatedly...we are not a Democracy...but a Representative Federal Republic.

Steph, I'm sorry but in this case you are clearly wrong. It is on public record that all of this occured. It is public Record that the Main Civil Rights Group investigated it and clearly stated that no one was disenfrancized. It is on public record that CNN, NYT, LA Times, Miami Herold, and other Liberal News outlets went down to Florida and counted up the ballots. In the end, even they said that Bush Won Florida Fair and Square though it wasn't on the front page of their papers. They all stated, somehow, that Bush won Florida LEGALLY!

Can you show where this is on Pulic Record?

Do you know anythign about DBT/Choicepoint? 10's of thousands of people were taking off the voting rolls illegally!!!!! Mostly democrats who were people of color. Thats 70,000 votes taken away from Gore.

Can you show where this is on Pulic Record?

Do you know anythign about DBT/Choicepoint? 10's of thousands of people were taking off the voting rolls illegally!!!!! Mostly democrats who were people of color. Thats 70,000 votes taken away from Gore.

Google it Sumamba! Its all on public record! If you give me some time, I'm sure I can get you websites on this!

As for the last part, I can only go by what the public record from The Civil Rights Group stated, That no one was disenfrancized!

Steph, I'm sorry but in this case you are clearly wrong. It is on public record that all of this occured. It is public Record that the Main Civil Rights Group investigated it and clearly stated that no one was disenfrancized. It is on public record that CNN, NYT, LA Times, Miami Herold, and other Liberal News outlets went down to Florida and counted up the ballots. In the end, even they said that Bush Won Florida Fair and Square though it wasn't on the front page of their papers. They all stated, somehow, that Bush won Florida LEGALLY!

You see Formal, you're going by what the re-count said of the actual ballots that were deemed legal. This is where I think your confusion is. Where the fraud took place was not in the actual re-count it's self. It was before the re-count, in fact, before the election. Because Florida has a law saying felons can't vote, Katherine Harris and the office of Jeb Bush hired out to a private company of their picking to take Felons off the voters list. The net was wide. They were contacted by the company and told that by casting such a large net that many false positives would surely occur. In a email sent back to the company they said they realized this and for the company to keep doing it. As such, thousands of legal voters, 98% registered Democrats were removed from the voters list before the election. Now, these people didn't know they had been removed, so when they got to the polls on election day they were not allowed to vote. This was the clear findings of the NAACP among other groups that investigated. It has been proven.

Secondly, the law in Florida is that votes coming in by mail had to be post marked on or before the election day. If they are not, they are not legal votes and by law can't be counted. However, since a lot or majority of those votes were from military who vote largely Republican, Katherine Harris illegally certified these ballots even though by Florida's own election laws made them illegal.

I don't really care about hanging chads etc.. that's not where the fraud happened. You may feel free to say it's not true, however, you will be wrong.

hmmm I cant find what you are talking about? is there a conservative site you can point me to?

As for the DBT/Choicepoint FACT! I guess you have either not heard about it or refuse to acknowledge it.

You see Formal, you're going by what the re-count said of the actual ballots that were deemed legal. This is where I think your confusion is. Where the fraud took place was not in the actual re-count it's self. It was before the re-count, in fact, before the election. Because Florida has a law saying felons can't vote, Katherine Harris and the office of Jeb Bush hired out to a private company of their picking to take Felons off the voters list. The net was wide. They were contacted by the company and told that by casting such a large net that many false positives would surely occur. In a email sent back to the company they said they realized this and for the company to keep doing it. As such, thousands of legal voters, 98% registered Democrats were removed from the voters list before the election. Now, these people didn't know they had been removed, so when they got to the polls on election day they were not allowed to vote. This was the clear findings of the NAACP among other groups that investigated. It has been proven.

Secondly, the law in Florida is that votes coming in by mail had to be post marked on or before the election day. If they are not, they are not legal votes and by law can't be counted. However, since a lot or majority of those votes were from military who vote largely Republican, Katherine Harris illegally certified these ballots even though by Florida's own election laws made them illegal.

I don't really care about hanging chads etc.. that's not where the fraud happened. You may feel free to say it's not true, however, you will be wrong.

Clerical error or not..those Military personnel were giving their all for their country and deserve the right to have their votes counted....it is not their fault their commands did not get it out in time.

Look, even the liberal CNN/NYTimes study of the recount went for Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

The Florida State Supreme Court tried to mess with the Florida election law after the election, and the Supreme court said that the FSSC was acting unconstitutionally and put a stop to it. They by no means appointed Bush, you should read the actual USSC ruling.

You libs should stop beating a dead horse here. And also what about all the news networks calling the election for Gore BEFORE the polls closed in the CST part of the panhandle? What about GOPers waiting until the last second to vote? Having heard the election already called for Gore, they wouldnt vote now would they? That obviously too skewed the election.

here's some links:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/wire_ballotcount010510.html

Those are just 2 I found! I'm off for lunch!

As it's been said repeatedly...we are not a Democracy...but a Representative Federal Republic.
So in your Republic there is no democracy?

Even though illegal Salishe, most noone is contesting that.

We are up in arms over the DBT fraud.

have you a commenta bout that? oh wait... no you like it because this fraud allowed your Man Bush in the WHite house

Clerical error or not..those Military personnel were giving their all for their country and deserve the right to have their votes counted....it is not their fault their commands did not get it out in time.

For arguments sake, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt here , they still would not of won the election with those ballots that I might add were counted and added to the final count. The election would of been won easily in Florida by Gore had they not taken thousands of legal registered Democrats off the voters list.

surely the population of every state is concentrated most heavily in the cities so surely the dems just sell there policies to the ppl in the cities then they win the entire statewhich gets them more points or whatever (english we just vote a party then they lead us instead of votin just fro one man which is just stupid)

Clerical error or not..those Military personnel were giving their all for their country and deserve the right to have their votes counted....it is not their fault their commands did not get it out in time.

I agree Salishe! Military Mail isn't all that its cracked up to be! No sense disenfrancizing our Service Men and Women that are overseas because of a clerical error! If you want to talk about disenfrancizement, there's the bigger case and they are saying it could happen again this time too.

For arguments sake, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt here , they still would not of won the election with those ballots that I might add were counted and added to the final count. The election would of been won easily in Florida by Gore had they not taken thousands of legal registered Democrats off the voters list.

Actually they would have Stephistan!

Steph, I'm sorry but in this case you are clearly wrong. It is on public record that all of this occured. It is public Record that the Main Civil Rights Group investigated it and clearly stated that no one was disenfrancized. It is on public record that CNN, NYT, LA Times, Miami Herold, and other Liberal News outlets went down to Florida and counted up the ballots. In the end, even they said that Bush Won Florida Fair and Square though it wasn't on the front page of their papers. They all stated, somehow, that Bush won Florida LEGALLY!

First, you are completely missing the diference between counting the votes that were allowed to be cast, and the issue of disenfranchisement of voters due to a rigged process that officers of Katherine Harris's team were TOLD were inaccurate, and the reply was that they wanted it that way.

As to the issues of the vote count, NOBODY recounted ALL of the ballots in any news report that I have seen. Unless you can link to a source, I will stand by that assertions.

The recount was cancelled despite it being legally mandated by Florida election law, and Scalia's reasoning for this in his opinion was the fatuous notion that a recount "does in my view threaten
irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country,
by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his
election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe
for producing election results that have the public acceptance
democratic stability requires."

Excuse me? Actually COUNTING the ballots will not produce acceptable election results to the country? Frankly, I think that that should be the ONLY thing the country cares about.

But I suppose you disagree...

So in your Republic there is no democracy?

We have Democracy CH! Our system works just fine and there is no need to change it!

Actually they would have Stephistan!

Do the math Formal.. Bush won according to the final count by a little over 500 votes.. Had those thousands of registered Democrats been able to vote.. the margin would of been far more then 500 votes which cleary means Gore would of won.

Steph, You Canadian, right? Funny thing; in America, Micheal Moore (a personal hero) presented this fact, and is still called a faulcifier. Your lucky to live up north-- the cold air must have something to do with making people SANE!

Look, even the liberal CNN/NYTimes study of the recount went for Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

The Florida State Supreme Court tried to mess with the Florida election law after the election, and the Supreme court said that the FSSC was acting unconstitutionally and put a stop to it. They by no means appointed Bush, you should read the actual USSC ruling.

You libs should stop beating a dead horse here. And also what about all the news networks calling the election for Gore BEFORE the polls closed in the CST part of the panhandle? What about GOPers waiting until the last second to vote? Having heard the election already called for Gore, they wouldnt vote now would they? That obviously too skewed the election.


Actually, that link states that if ALL votes are included - under-votes and over votes - then Gore won.

"In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. "


Nice choice of supporting material!

First, you are completely missing the diference between counting the votes that were allowed to be cast, and the issue of disenfranchisement of voters due to a rigged process that officers of Katherine Harris's team were TOLD were inaccurate, and the reply was that they wanted it that way.

As to the issues of the vote count, NOBODY recounted ALL of the ballots in any news report that I have seen. Unless you can link to a source, I will stand by that assertions.

The recount was cancelled despite it being legally mandated by Florida election law, and Scalia's reasoning for this in his opinion was the fatuous notion that a recount "does in my view threaten
irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country,
by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his
election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe
for producing election results that have the public acceptance
democratic stability requires."

Excuse me? Actually COUNTING the ballots will not produce acceptable election results to the country? Frankly, I think that that should be the ONLY thing the country cares about.

But I suppose you disagree...

There was a deadline to keep Zeppistan! The SCOTUS saw what Florida was doing and threw the first case before it BACK TO THEM!! Something I guess you completely missed. I applauded that decision! When it came back to SCOTUS, they saw that the Supreme Court of Floridea, 6 Dems 1Rep, was REWRITING STATE ELECTION LAWS!!!!! That was when they stopped the recount.

And yes, they did count all the ballots, even using the most lenient of standards, BUSH WON!!!!!

I'm not denying that it wasn't mandated! It was under Florida Election Laws. Both Candidates recognized that. However, the more the Recount went for Bush, the challenge BY GORE was to change how the votes where to be counted. Everytime it looked like it was going Bush they did it again. That was when Bush Took it to the Federal level. The US SC, as stated before saw this and told Florida to fix it. IN a 6-1 decision in Florida, they continued their ways. Bush brought it a second time and this time in a 7-2 decision, ended the recount because the FLSC, violated their own state election laws, if not rewrote half of them!

We have Democracy CH! Our system works just fine and there is no need to change it!
It doesn't appear that way, considering that this argument has been going on for 4 years now (about who won, and the many irregularities).

here's some links:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/wire_ballotcount010510.html

Those are just 2 I found! I'm off for lunch!

Good job! The first one clearly states that Gore won if all votes are counted (under and over votes), and the second one is rather invalid given that it did not include the over votes.


But I WILL have to retract my assertion that nobody counted 'em all. They did. And if you count them all then Gore won.

For any one such as Formal who are confused as to what actually happened in 2000 can buy this off of Amazon.com , we (Zep & I) bought it and watched it yesterday. It's very well done and very telling and leaves no room for these false claims being made by people who claim it didn't happened, it's been proved

Unprecedented (http://www.unprecedented.org/UnprecedentedFirstPage.html)


You can buy it for about $10 from Amazon.

BTW how would cities in America decide the election if the majority of America is suburban and rural?

There was a deadline to keep Zeppistan! The SCOTUS saw what Florida was doing and threw the first case before it BACK TO THEM!! Something I guess you completely missed. I applauded that decision! When it came back to SCOTUS, they saw that the Supreme Court of Floridea, 6 Dems 1Rep, was REWRITING STATE ELECTION LAWS!!!!! That was when they stopped the recount.

Ah yes - look at what Florida was doing. Trying to accurately count votes.

The bastards!

:rolleyes:

And yes, they did count all the ballots, even using the most lenient of standards, BUSH WON!!!!!


No - he didn't. Your link even said so. He only wins if you toss the overvotes which were where someby selected the box for Gore, and then also wrote in "Gore" on the line where they were told to. The instructions were misleading and this invalidated tens of thousands of votes where the intent was more blatantly clear than a dangling chad.


I'm not denying that it wasn't mandated! It was under Florida Election Laws. Both Candidates recognized that. However, the more the Recount went for Bush, the challenge BY GORE was to change how the votes where to be counted. Everytime it looked like it was going Bush they did it again. That was when Bush Took it to the Federal level. The US SC, as stated before saw this and told Florida to fix it. IN a 6-1 decision in Florida, they continued their ways. Bush brought it a second time and this time in a 7-2 decision, ended the recount because the FLSC, violated their own state election laws, if not rewrote half of them!

Oh, so you do not deny that a recount was mandated. But you accuse Florida of "being up to something" to actually follow through? Wow - you really do like to have it both ways. And clearly you have not read either the supreme court opinion or the dissent.

BTW how would cities in America decide the election if the majority of America is suburban and rural?

Lets see:

Major Cities=multimillion people and Suburbs tens of thousands! Suburbs have a smaller population.

Your right, most are suburban but they live in small towns whereas there are millions that still live in cities.

Lets see:

Major Cities=multimillion people and Suburbs tens of thousands! Suburbs have a smaller population.

Your right, most are suburban but they live in small towns whereas there are millions that still live in cities.

Yes, heaven forbid that millions of people should decide who should be president.. it should be left up to the minority who live in hicksville :rolleyes:

So formal... did you actually READ the recount link and note that it clearly states that if ALL votes were counted then Gore won?

Or not?

Or will you just excuse it away that somehow the premise of voter intent cannot be determined on those overcounts?

Oh, and while you are stating that no group has deemed that illegal disenfranchisement occured...

http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/votehearings.htm

I think you have a lot of reading to do....

Woo... this has devolved into another Democrat versus Repiublican fight, now hasn't it? The point of this thread was to honestly debate the fairness of the Electoral College, not to argue the unalterable past. Bush won. For better or worse, he's our president. (Mostly worse :P )

Back to the point, though. The electoral college, as it now exists and functions, is unfair. The only reason that large cities and highly populated states are fought over is because of how the system runs. Gaining more than half the popular votes in a state gets you evey one of said state's electoral college votes. Thus, winning several smaller states by huge margins is a lesser victory to winning a larger state by ANY margin. That's my reasoning.

Lets see:

Major Cities=multimillion people and Suburbs tens of thousands! Suburbs have a smaller population.

Your right, most are suburban but they live in small towns whereas there are millions that still live in cities.

Yeah, but there are less than ten American cities with more than 1 million people; there are tens of thousands of small towns.
10*1,000,000=10,000,000
10,000*10,000=100,000,000

Woo... this has devolved into another Democrat versus Repiublican fight, now hasn't it? The point of this thread was to honestly debate the fairness of the Electoral College, not to argue the unalterable past. Bush won. For better or worse, he's our president. (Mostly worse :P )

Back to the point, though. The electoral college, as it now exists and functions, is unfair. The only reason that large cities and highly populated states are fought over is because of how the system runs. Gaining more than half the popular votes in a state gets you evey one of said state's electoral college votes. Thus, winning several smaller states by huge margins is a lesser victory to winning a larger state by ANY margin. That's my reasoning.

Sorry for the bit of a hijack, although I think the 2000 election is important to show the best example ever that the E.C. is not fair and that there is some thing terribly wrong with the way elections are being done. I think it was a good example to show it is not fair. The people who run the elections are the same people who have a stake in it. That's the problem!

Woo... this has devolved into another Democrat versus Repiublican fight, now hasn't it? The point of this thread was to honestly debate the fairness of the Electoral College, not to argue the unalterable past. Bush won. For better or worse, he's our president. (Mostly worse :P )

Back to the point, though. The electoral college, as it now exists and functions, is unfair. The only reason that large cities and highly populated states are fought over is because of how the system runs. Gaining more than half the popular votes in a state gets you evey one of said state's electoral college votes. Thus, winning several smaller states by huge margins is a lesser victory to winning a larger state by ANY margin. That's my reasoning.

Well, you are supposed to be rules by the majority opinion are you not?

Or do you think that it should be skewed more to unfairly favour the minority of rural people?

Democracy in in itself unfair. If 50.001% of the population votes in favour of one candidate, it still leaves 49.009% of the people's opinion invalid. Is that fair?

In Germany 1933, the Nazis only won a ninority government, but since the rest of the votes were divided so thinly amoungst the rest of the parties, Hitler won by default.

But as Winston Chruchill once said: "Democracy is a terrible system, except for all the others".

Ah yes - look at what Florida was doing. Trying to accurately count votes.

The bastards!

:rolleyes:



No - he didn't. Your link even said so. He only wins if you toss the overvotes which were where someby selected the box for Gore, and then also wrote in "Gore" on the line where they were told to. The instructions were misleading and this invalidated tens of thousands of votes where the intent was more blatantly clear than a dangling chad.




Oh, so you do not deny that a recount was mandated. But you accuse Florida of "being up to something" to actually follow through? Wow - you really do like to have it both ways. And clearly you have not read either the supreme court opinion or the dissent.

Zep, I may be only 15 yo, but this is my nation! Not yours. I think I get a better handle on how America works better than a foriegner! Our system works for us. We like our system. Its much better than Canadas. Our system has worked since our first election in 1789 when Washington was the first DUELY elected President. Hancock was actually the 1st President of the USA! All I know is that when the votes where counted, Bush won the election! People are getting tired of hearing about it! Why? because it has been beaten to death for 4 god damn years! No one is listening anymore! The more its harped on the more people are going to ignore it! That is the American Way. The only ones that care about Florida 2000 will be the Historians!

Now back to how our election system is fair!

Lets see:

Major Cities=multimillion people and Suburbs tens of thousands! Suburbs have a smaller population.

Your right, most are suburban but they live in small towns whereas there are millions that still live in cities.

You obviously don't realize that much of a city's population actually resides in it's suburbs.

Democracy in in itself unfair. If 50.001% of the population votes in favour of one candidate, it still leaves 49.009% of the people's opinion invalid. Is that fair?

In Germany 1933, the Nazis only won a ninority government, but since the rest of the votes were divided so thinly amoungst the rest of the parties, Hitler won by default.

But as Winston Chruchill once said: "Democracy is a terrible system, except for all the others".


I think it's very fair. That's what democracy is about. The majority gets what they want.

Zep, I may be only 15 yo, but this is my nation! Not yours. I think I get a better handle on how America works better than a foriegner! Our system works for us. We like our system

Apparently you are wrong on both counts as Zeppistan has clearly shown. Just because you live in America and Zeppistan doesn't, that doesn't mean he doesn't understand it better then you. Also, if your last election is any indicator of the love of your system by the population. I'd have to say again, you don't seem to know as much as you think you do.

Democracy in in itself unfair. If 50.001% of the population votes in favour of one candidate, it still leaves 49.009% of the people's opinion invalid. Is that fair?

In Germany 1933, the Nazis only won a ninority government, but since the rest of the votes were divided so thinly amoungst the rest of the parties, Hitler won by default.

But as Winston Chruchill once said: "Democracy is a terrible system, except for all the others".

I agree with you Sachka! Hense why we have an Electoral College. All votes are important under our election system!

No the elctoral system is an obvious ploy to rig teh system anyway they want. They being the Dems and Reps who control the system.

It shouldnt even go by state. It should be 1 vote per person and whoover gets teh most votes wins. The electoral college is a scam and should be done away with.

I also think that having 1 president is dangerous and gives one man too much power. There should be 3 to 5 presidents so that they have to work with each other and vote for final decisions, and noone has ultimate power.

But what if lets say hawii or rhode island backed one canidate while New york backed another. Due to New york's size niether Hawii or Rhode island wouldn't have any say in the election this way all 50 states have equal power. The president doesn't have much real power unless congress backs him up any way.

Zep, I may be only 15 yo, but this is my nation! Not yours. I think I get a better handle on how America works better than a foriegner! Our system works for us. We like our system. Its much better than Canadas. Our system has worked since our first election in 1789 when Washington was the first DUELY elected President. Hancock was actually the 1st President of the USA! All I know is that when the votes where counted, Bush won the election! People are getting tired of hearing about it! Why? because it has been beaten to death for 4 god damn years! No one is listening anymore! The more its harped on the more people are going to ignore it! That is the American Way. The only ones that care about Florida 2000 will be the Historians!

Now back to how our election system is fair!

Ok... I'm an American and I agre with Zepp. WHen you say "We like our system" you are only speaking for the minority who like to have mroe say in teh elections than the majority.

All you know about the 2000 election is what you want to believe when the FACTS clearly show that Gore won.

I guess you would have found it equally as fair if teh Democrats had gotten 70,000 Republicans stricken from the voting roles and Gore had won by 500 votes eh? You just don't like hearing the truth that your man Bush is not a legitimate president because you love to see other countries bombed, corporations get welfare, laws based on Christinanity, and the environment destroyed.

Apparently you are wrong on both counts as Zeppistan has clearly shown. Just because you live in America and Zeppistan doesn't, that doesn't mean he doesn't understand it better then you. Also, if your last election is any indicator of the love of your system by the population. I'd have to say again, you don't seem to know as much as you think you do.

That election was on Party lines. That was the most even divided Presidential Race in American History! It was grand to watch it unfold. Our election system at work. This one here is going to be just as close! My PERSONAL OPINION though is that Bush will win this November! I have a major feeling that the Debates will decide this election!

But what if lets say hawii or rhode island backed one canidate while New york backed another. Due to New york's size niether Hawii or Rhode island wouldn't have any say in the election this way all 50 states have equal power. The president doesn't have much real power unless congress backs him up any way.

With the abscence of the EC, STATES would not back the candidates (as they do WITH the EC) - it would be one person one vote. So people would back the candidates. There are plenty of conservatives in Los Angeles and New York that would finally get their vote counted with the EC gone.

Zep, I may be only 15 yo, but this is my nation! Not yours. I think I get a better handle on how America works better than a foriegner! Our system works for us. We like our system. Its much better than Canadas. Our system has worked since our first election in 1789 when Washington was the first DUELY elected President. Hancock was actually the 1st President of the USA! All I know is that when the votes where counted, Bush won the election! People are getting tired of hearing about it! Why? because it has been beaten to death for 4 god damn years! No one is listening anymore! The more its harped on the more people are going to ignore it! That is the American Way. The only ones that care about Florida 2000 will be the Historians!

Now back to how our election system is fair!

Ah yes - the standard Formal reply when backed into a corner - the whine. Toooooooooooooo funny.

However if you believe that the American Way is to duck tough issues, ignore the facts even when they bite you on the ass, and to stifle debate, then one of two possibilities exists:

a) you are right, in which I fear for your country, or
b) you are wrong. Yet again.

Frankly, I'm betting on b)


More so, I think that a majority of Americans would back me on that. I will assume that on the basis of all of the intelligent, aware, inquisitive Americans I got to know during the years I worked there.

I hope that someday you will join their ranks, however I somehow doubt it from your rigid adherence to partisan dogma exhibited thus far.

Sorry zep but now your putting emotion into my words. I didn't whine, I offered a statement of fact. The fact being the that Electoral College will still be around for a long time. I firmly believe that the EC will survive any challenge to get rid of it for the simple fact for states like:

RI
DE
NH
VT
AK
HI
WY
CO

All with below Ten Election counts with a few others that I can't think of. CA, NY, PA, FL, TX, OH, all have over 20 votes. There are more states with LOW Electoral Votes than States with Huge Electoral Votes. Thus the Small States decide the election!

http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

The electoral College!

As you can see, there are clearly MORE smaller Electoral Vote States, than big Electoral Vote States

Ok... I'm an American and I agre with Zepp. WHen you say "We like our system" you are only speaking for the minority who like to have mroe say in teh elections than the majority.

All you know about the 2000 election is what you want to believe when the FACTS clearly show that Gore won.

I guess you would have found it equally as fair if teh Democrats had gotten 70,000 Republicans stricken from the voting roles and Gore had won by 500 votes eh? You just don't like hearing the truth that your man Bush is not a legitimate president because you love to see other countries bombed, corporations get welfare, laws based on Christinanity, and the environment destroyed.

Ya know correct me if im wrong but weren't the dems the ones in charge of counting the votes in florida? People think that all the votes that were not counted were democrats but believe it or not they could have been reublican too so you would never know who would have one if those votes were counted. Bush won like any other president by either the majority of people or majority of states. There is no republican conspiracy no messing with the votes just the system. He is president now weather you like it or not. If you dont like it take it to the voting booth this year. If your not an american and you dont like who our president is who cares? Certainly not me.

FD you never offered an explanation as to how this is fair for the MAJORITY of Americas inhabitants.

Saying that it hs been around for a long time means absolutly nothing when it comes to that argument.

Why shouldnt the Majority of Americans have their choice of President? Because they don't subscribe to your personal views?

FD you never offered an explanation as to how this is fair for the MAJORITY of Americas inhabitants.

Saying that it hs been around for a long time means absolutly nothing when it comes to that argument.

Why shouldnt the Majority of Americans have their choice of President? Because they don't subscribe to your personal views?

It! Was! How! The! Founding! Fathers! Set! Up! The! Election! System! During! The! Constitutional! Convention!

Ya know correct me if im wrong but weren't the dems the ones in charge of counting the votes in florida? People think that all the votes that were not counted were democrats but believe it or not they could have been reublican too so you would never know who would have one if those votes were counted. Bush won like any other president by either the majority of people or majority of states. There is no republican conspiracy no messing with the votes just the system. He is president now weather you like it or not. If you dont like it take it to the voting booth this year. If your not an american and you dont like who our president is who cares? Certainly not me.

You are right Dragoneia! The Democrats where incharge of counting the votes in Florida!

Ya know correct me if im wrong but weren't the dems the ones in charge of counting the votes in florida? People think that all the votes that were not counted were democrats but believe it or not they could have been reublican too so you would never know who would have one if those votes were counted. Bush won like any other president by either the majority of people or majority of states. There is no republican conspiracy no messing with the votes just the system. He is president now weather you like it or not. If you dont like it take it to the voting booth this year. If your not an american and you dont like who our president is who cares? Certainly not me.


I am American, I Vote, My State won Gore but I still do not agree with the Electoral College. Those who voted otherwise in my state didnt have their vote counted and that to me is equally unfair to them.

As for Florida you are not worth talking to if you arent going to read all the facts presented in this thread and are just going to spout the same old falsities that have long been refuted. DBT/Choicepoint my friend.... learn about it.

As Steph has given a link to "UNPRECEDENTED" you can check that out and you can also Check out "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" - and if you dont want to purchase anything you can go to GregPalast.com

Stephistan: I see your point. Had the electoral college not existed in 2000, then there would have been no big reason to fight over a few hundred/thousand votes. But because of the electoral college, those few votes meant winning every one of Florida's electoral votes.

Zeppistan: I'm against the EC.

Formal Dances: You fail to realize that each minority state is it's own state. You can't lump 'em all together and say a candidate would win them all. True, they share similar beliefs, but they aren't just one big mass of votes given to one candidate or the other. Winning a smaller state would entail about as much work as a larger state, just less of a payoff in the EC.

Sorry zep but now your putting emotion into my words. I didn't whine, I offered a statement of fact.

What statement of fact? That "foreigners" can't possibly understand the electoral vote OR what happened in Florida , but you can categorically state that your system is better than ours?

Or the fact that Bush won, when you directed us to a link that clearly stated that Gore did if ALL votes were counted? You never did reply to that did you?

Your notion of "facts" is a very odd one.


The fact being the that Electoral College will still be around for a long time. I firmly believe that the EC will survive any challenge to get rid of it for the simple fact for states like:

RI
DE
NH
VT
AK
HI
WY
CO

All with below Ten Election counts with a few others that I can't think of. CA, NY, PA, FL, TX, OH, all have over 20 votes. There are more states with LOW Electoral Votes than States with Huge Electoral Votes. Thus the Small States decide the election!

http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

The electoral College!

As you can see, there are clearly MORE smaller Electoral Vote States, than big Electoral Vote States

Simple math is a fine skill to have. Yes, there are many small states, but a few seconds with a pencil shows that if you could win the top 11 states then you wouldn't have to care about the other 39.

Total EC votes: 538
Votes needed to win: 270

California 55
Texas 34
NewYork 31
Florida 27
Illinois 21
Pennsylvania 21
Ohio 20
Michigan 7
Georgia 15
NewJersey 15
NorthCarolina 15
------------------
Total 271


The distribution of traditional voting trends however make this sort of scenario unlikely. But hey - Reagan got 'em all so it isn't impossible....

It! Was! How! The! Founding! Fathers! Set! Up! The! Election! System! During! The! Constitutional! Convention!

You! Obviously! Don't! Care! About! Facts! And! Not! Everything! The! Founding! Fathers! Did! Was! Flawless! Plus! It! has! Been! Stated! Why! They! Set! It! Up! That! Way! And! Why! It! Is! Out! Dated! Which! You! Never! Refuted! With! A! Satisfactory! Argument!

Stephistan: I see your point. Had the electoral college not existed in 2000, then there would have been no big reason to fight over a few hundred/thousand votes. But because of the electoral college, those few votes meant winning every one of California's electoral votes.

Zeppistan: I'm against the EC.

Formal Dances: You fail to realize that each minority state is it's own state. You can't lump 'em all together and say a candidate would win them all. True, they share similar beliefs, but they aren't just one big mass of votes given to one candidate or the other. Winning a smaller state would entail about as much work as a larger state, just less of a payoff in the EC.

Did I lump them all? No I didn't! I also didn't say that a candidate would win them all though Reagan came the closest! All I said was that the Small states, according to the Votes each state gets, have just as much clout to tilt the scale towards one candidate or another than the larger states like TX, CA, or NY! Each Candidate needs to court the smaller states in our current system to win the election as well as courting the larger states. Me personally, I'm for the Electoral College. Besides, I don't know why people are bickering! According to history, no minority President (winning the EC but not the PV) has never gotten re-elected!

It! Was! How! The! Founding! Fathers! Set! Up! The! Election! System! During! The! Constitutional! Convention!

If! They! Did! Everything! Perfectly! then! why! The! Hell! did! they! put! in! place! mechanisms! for! Constitutional! Ammendmends!

Maybe! because! they! had! a! better! idea! of! thier! human! fallibitly! and! the! needs! to! keep! America! moving! with! the! times! than! you! do!!

Damn - this is even more annoying than all-caps!

You! Obviously! Don't! Care! About! Facts! And! Not! Everything! The! Founding! Fathers! Did! Was! Flawless! Plus! It! has! Been! Stated! Why! They! Set! It! Up! That! Way! And! Why! It! Is! Out! Dated! Which! You! Never! Refuted! With! A! Satisfactory! Argument!

Never said that everything they did was flawless now did I! No I didn't! Stop putting words in my mouth! However, the Electoral College was established to get RI, DE, CT and NH, to ratify the Constitution of the United States of America! Any student of History knows that! That is why we still have it today. The small states like it because it gives them a voice into who our leader is going to be! The big states don't like it because they don't have the clout to decide who our next leader is going to be! Me, I live in a medium sized state, and a battleground state to boot! I'm in favor of the Electoral College because it forces the Candidates to concentrate in ALL 50 STATES, not just CA, NY, FL, TX, and PA!

If! They! Did! Everything! Perfectly! then! why! The! Hell! did! they! put! in! place! mechanisms! for! Constitutional! Ammendmends!

Maybe! because! they! had! a! better! idea! of! thier! human! fallibitly! and! the! needs! to! keep! America! moving! with! the! times! than! you! do!!

Damn - this is even more annoying than all-caps!
Too!! Funny!!

What statement of fact? That "foreigners" can't possibly understand the electoral vote OR what happened in Florida , but you can categorically state that your system is better than ours?

Or the fact that Bush won, when you directed us to a link that clearly stated that Gore did if ALL votes were counted? You never did reply to that did you?

Your notion of "facts" is a very odd one.




Simple math is a fine skill to have. Yes, there are many small states, but a few seconds with a pencil shows that if you could win the top 11 states then you wouldn't have to care about the other 39.

Total EC votes: 538
Votes needed to win: 270

California 55
Texas 34
NewYork 31
Florida 27
Illinois 21
Pennsylvania 21
Ohio 20
Michigan 7
Georgia 15
NewJersey 15
NorthCarolina 15
------------------
Total 271


The distribution of traditional voting trends however make this sort of scenario unlikely. But hey - Reagan got 'em all so it isn't impossible....

Ok not going to argue on that one! 270 is the magic number! if you look at last years count, it was 271-267! Evenly split!

Don't forget that PA, NY, and CA all went Gore, thus eliminating 107 electoral Votes!

I really don't see how the Electoral College is fair. As of right now, a candidate only has to win a few states to win the election, and as the last election proved, not the popular vote. In that the candidates ignore alot of states because they only have to pay attention to certain ones. It does not guarantee more racial diversity, the only thing that would do that is if people got out to vote. Just an all out election where it is one person, one vote which we can do now is the only way to truly count each vote as equal. Maybe back when it was first established the Electoral College might have been the better way to count votes, but even now the delegates don't have to vote the way the voters did. I say one person one vote, the only true way to make each vote from each person count. The only true way for each vote to be equal regardless of geography, race or religion.

This is quite a good debate, unlike anything I've ever seen online. As for the voting system, I prefer to pull my head out of the fray, look around, and laugh and laugh and laugh.

You are right Dragoneia! The Democrats where incharge of counting the votes in Florida!

No. They were not.

The supervisor of elections is an elected position in each county in Florida. The recounts were done by bipartisan groups.


You really don't know much about this at all do you? Besides that your guy won the legal battle to stop the electoral process and that is okey-dokey with you....

I really don't see how the Electoral College is fair. As of right now, a candidate only has to win a few states to win the election, and as the last election proved, not the popular vote. In that the candidates ignore alot of states because they only have to pay attention to certain ones. It does not guarantee more racial diversity, the only thing that would do that is if people got out to vote. Just an all out election where it is one person, one vote which we can do now is the only way to truly count each vote as equal. Maybe back when it was first established the Electoral College might have been the better way to count votes, but even now the delegates don't have to vote the way the voters did. I say one person one vote, the only true way to make each vote from each person count. The only true way for each vote to be equal regardless of geography, race or religion.

*ignoring FD until she concedes the points she is blatantly wrong on*

KJB - I am suprised to hear this from you. Aren't you the one who said you supported nukign all the heathens in California and New York? lol

It seems you would want the more conservative Christian states to have more say in the elections than the majority rule of liberals.

BTW Zep, Michigan has 17 not 7 votes.

Also, here is a neat little Electoral College vote calculator:

http://www.grayraven.com/ec/

Have fun.

Ok not going to argue on that one! 270 is the magic number! if you look at last years count, it was 271-267! Evenly split!

Don't forget that PA, NY, and CA all went Gore, thus eliminating 107 electoral Votes!

The point being that the little states may hold the power that you feel that they have, but only as long as the big states are relatively evenly divided between the two parties.

It all comes down to voter distribution.

BTW Zep, Michigan has 17 not 7 votes.

That's what I get for typing quickly! the correct number WAS included in the total. I think.... else maybe you could drop the requirement to only needing 10 states.

Bush won TX, Florida, and Ohio(Florida had 25 at that time) so now Bush has 79 votes plus GA 15 equaling 94 votes!

Gore won NJ so 107 + 15 = 122 votes! and if you add NC to Bush you have 109 votes for him! lol Dissecting this is fun!

Consider this year! NC will probably go Bush as will TX so now he has automatically 34+15=49!

Kerry will probably win CA so now he has an automatic 55 votes!

PA, FL, and OH are toss up states! GA will go Bush so now Bush is up to 64 as well! Nine vote lead and we haven't yet factored in NY, probably Kerry's state so now Kerry has 81 votes now! now we have effectively eliminated 136 electoral Votes between the two candidates!

If I factored in all the states mentioned that went to both candidates, Kerry still has an EC edge in the said states!

That's what I get for typing quickly! the correct number WAS included in the total. I think.... else maybe you could drop the requirement to only needing 10 states.
Yes the total was correct, just the number for Michigan was wrong. You would need those 11 states for 271 votes.

if its one person one vote then its not the cities determining the election... its the individual voters. If the MAJORITY OF AMERICA WANTS SOMEONE AS PRESIDENT, THEN THE MAJORITY SHOULD GET THAT PERSON AS PRESIDENT.


How in the world is anything other than that fair?

Haven't you people ever heard of "Tyranny of the majority"? If the majority of the people want to reinstitute slavery... that's ok? If the majority of the people want to overturn Roe v. Wade, that's ok too? Right?

The EC is a check and balance like many others in this country and I believe, imperfect as it is, it is better than 1 person - 1 vote.

Yes the total was correct, just the number for Michigan was wrong. You would need those 11 states for 271 votes.

True, the number is correct, but if you read above what state is going to who, the small states will have a say into who wins!

Haven't you people ever heard of "Tyranny of the majority"? If the majority of the people want to reinstitute slavery... that's ok? If the majority of the people want to overturn Roe v. Wade, that's ok too? Right?

The EC is a check and balance like many others in this country and I believe, imperfect as it is, it is better than 1 person - 1 vote.

agreed pepsiholics!

True, the number is correct, but if you read above what state is going to who, the small states will have a say into who wins!
Hypothetically though, a candidate could win the top 11 States and the rest of the country (39 States) would be irrelevant. So much for the small states having a say in that scenario?

Hypothetically though, a candidate could win the top 11 States and the rest of the country (39 States) would be irrelevant. So much for the small states having a say in that scenario?

Ok there you have me! I will admit defeat on the hypothetical issue!

All of this noise about the EC will go away when the next elected President wins big time. This wanting to change how the President is chosen comes up everytime the vote was close and the majority did not win.

Anyway - to change the way the EC works does not require a Constitutional Admendment. All the States have to do is to change the way the EC votes are allocated to a candidate - get rid of the all to one candidate rule. This would keep the EC votes closer to the actual citizen's vote.

Only citizens of the United States of America, should be allowed to vote in ANY election of the U.S.A.

Haven't you people ever heard of "Tyranny of the majority"? If the majority of the people want to reinstitute slavery... that's ok? If the majority of the people want to overturn Roe v. Wade, that's ok too? Right?

The EC is a check and balance like many others in this country and I believe, imperfect as it is, it is better than 1 person - 1 vote.


I may agree with you if you can come up with something better than slavery. Although I think that since the majority of America is Liberal and liberals basically want what is best for everybody and not just the elite, then I would say that there is no chance in hell that there would be situations like that coming up.

All of this noise about the EC will go away when the next elected President wins big time. This wanting to change how the President is chosen comes up everytime the vote was close and the majority did not win.

Anyway - to change the way the EC works does not require a Constitutional Admendment. All the States have to do is to change the way the EC votes are allocated to a candidate - get rid of the all to one candidate rule. This would keep the EC votes closer to the actual citizen's vote.

Only citizens of the United States of America, should be allowed to vote in ANY election of the U.S.A.

Actually very few states have that law Independant Turkeys! Very few have a law that states that all votes have to go to one candidate! The majority of the states dont have said laws and allow their electors vote however they choose!

Actually very few states have that law Independant Turkeys! Very few have a law that states that all votes have to go to one candidate! The majority of the states dont have said laws and allow their electors vote however they choose!

Each state is allocated "electoral votes" equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives allocated to that state. The District of Columbia is also allocated 3 electoral votes. On election day, voters are actually voting for Electoral College members who promise to vote for the candidates of their respective political parties. In all but two states the party with the greatest number of votes receives all the electoral votes for that state, even if no candidate gets a majority. Nebraska and Maine allow their electoral votes to be split amoung candidates, but this has not actually happened in modern times.

Do your homework before you post!

Bush won TX, Florida, and Ohio(Florida had 25 at that time) so now Bush has 79 votes plus GA 15 equaling 94 votes!

Gore won NJ so 107 + 15 = 122 votes! and if you add NC to Bush you have 109 votes for him! lol Dissecting this is fun!

Consider this year! NC will probably go Bush as will TX so now he has automatically 34+15=49!

Kerry will probably win CA so now he has an automatic 55 votes!

PA, FL, and OH are toss up states! GA will go Bush so now Bush is up to 64 as well! Nine vote lead and we haven't yet factored in NY, probably Kerry's state so now Kerry has 81 votes now! now we have effectively eliminated 136 electoral Votes between the two candidates!

If I factored in all the states mentioned that went to both candidates, Kerry still has an EC edge in the said states!

Ah - so your entire premise regarding whether the electoral college is a "good" system or not is based entirely on the way the votes stack up this time around.

I believe that the discussion here is about the system in general, not the specific circumstances of this particular election.


Question: If the top 10 states were all firmly leaning towards the Democrats would you still feel that way?

Well we may never get rid of the electoral college if the small conservative christian states have anything to say about it but at least there is somethign being done to try to reduce election fraud:

MICHAEL MOORE, GREG PALAST, REPS. BROWN AND DEUTSCH:
"DON'T LET THEM STEAL FLORIDA AGAIN!"

(Boston) Author-filmmakers Michael Moore and Greg Palast joined with
Representatives Corrine Brown (D-Jacksonville) and Peter Deutsch (D-Ft.
Lauderdale) to demand steps, as Palast said, "To prevent Republican
hacks in Florida swiping the election of 2004 as they did four years ago."

At a press conference Wednesday morning before the Florida delegation
to the Democratic Convention in Boston, Moore endorsed a bill introduced
by Brown to make it easier for Congress to challenge an election
tainted by apparent fraud.

"Don't let them steal Florida again," said Palast, the investigative
reporter who in 2000 first uncovered for BBC Television that Katherine
Harris and Jeb Bush had wrongly removed tens of thousand of Black
citizens from voter rolls. Palast's reports on the theft of the elections are
featured in Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Palast has discovered that current lists of 47,000 "felon" voters which
Florida has targeted for removal is at least 90% wrong. "

"These so-called criminals' only crime," said Palast, "is VWD - voting
while Democratic." The "purge" list contains four Democrats for every
Republican.

Palast pointed out such names on the lists as Thomas Cooper whose date
of conviction is entered as January 30, 2007, "a criminal of the
future."

Earlier this month, after Palast testified before the US Civil Rights
Commission in Washington, the CRC voted to ask the Justice Department to
open a criminal investigation of the State of Florida's handling of
voter rolls.

Palast's exposé of the "fake felon purge" for Harper's Magazine was
nominated for a National Magazine Award in 2002.

For interviews with Palast, contact Ilene Proctor at 301-721-2336 or
media@gregpalast.com. For more information, see www.GregPalast.com.

Each state is allocated "electoral votes" equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives allocated to that state. The District of Columbia is also allocated 3 electoral votes. On election day, voters are actually voting for Electoral College members who promise to vote for the candidates of their respective political parties. In all but two states the party with the greatest number of votes receives all the electoral votes for that state, even if no candidate gets a majority. Nebraska and Maine allow their electoral votes to be split amoung candidates, but this has not actually happened in modern times.

Do your homework before you post!

Actually no! Read your state laws! I know in PA we allow our electoral voters to vote as they please! We don't tell them they have to vote for the candidate that won the state. Most states do the same. There are very few states that have laws on the books that tell their electoral voters to vote for the candidate that won their state.

Under the EC system, your right! Each state is allocated a certain number of votes that is based on their House and Senate number! However, under state law, most of those electoral voters can cast their vote for another candidate. That was a big fear in 2000 but it didn't happen.

I think it should be by the popular vote completely.

Electoral representatives are supposed to represent the county to which they are assigned. But really you can't count on that.

Ah - so your entire premise regarding whether the electoral college is a "good" system or not is based entirely on the way the votes stack up this time around.

I believe that the discussion here is about the system in general, not the specific circumstances of this particular election.


Question: If the top 10 states were all firmly leaning towards the Democrats would you still feel that way?

Yes I would Zeppistan!

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Electoral%20votes

It goes over the electing of a President (U.S.A.) rather well.

An elector can vote anyway they want but they don't - only a couple exceptions in over 200 years.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Electoral%20votes

It goes over the electing of a President (U.S.A.) rather well.

An elector can vote anyway they want but they don't - only a couple exceptions in over 200 years.

Which proves what I said that they could! Only in a very few states, don't know which ones, DON'T allow them to vote for the candidate they want, only for the one that won that state!

Yes I would Zeppistan!

OK.

OK.

Ah, but do you really believe that? LOL

Not that it matters to anyone but me, but it is Wyomingite, not wyominger. Raised in Wyoming.

Which proves what I said that they could! Only in a very few states, don't know which ones, DON'T allow them to vote for the candidate they want, only for the one that won that state!


My original post was about being able to split Electorial Votes in each State, not how a elector votes. Right now in 48 States, thier electorial votes all go to one candidate that get a MAJORITY of the popular vote.

FOB I am part Laramite and part Cheyenner

As it stands now...hypothetically, Candidate A could get 49.9% of the votes in 49 states, and 100% in California, making him the obvious winner of the general election, but Candidate B would get all but 54 of the 300 something Electoral College votes...

As it stands now...hypothetically, Candidate A could get 49.9% of the votes in 49 states, and 100% in California, making him the obvious winner of the general election, but Candidate B would get all but 54 of the 300 something Electoral College votes...

55 but who's counting! LOL

49% of of the population of non-Californian states is 127,662,662 plus the population of California, 35,484,453 comes to a total of 163,147,115. In a country of 290 million, 163 million makes up 56%. And this is with Candidate A only winning 1 state...you do realize that he could win upwards of 65-70% of the general election and hypothetically still actually lose the election. How is this democratic?

49% of of the population of non-Californian states is 127,662,662 plus the population of California, 35,484,453 comes to a total of 163,147,115. In a country of 290 million, 163 million makes up 56%. And this is with Candidate A only winning 1 state...you do realize that he could win upwards of 65-70% of the general election and hypothetically still actually lose the election. How is this democratic?

Opal, if someone wins 65% of the vote, he'll win the electoral college!

Steph, I guess you don't know that a Major Civil Rights group said that NO ONE WAS DISENFRANCIZED! I guess you also didn't know that Every LIBERAL network and newspaper went down to Florida and Recounted the damn votes. I guess you don't realize that when they counted up the said ballots that BUSH WON THE STATE! That is on public Record that all of this took place. I am not making this up.

Also the poll question doesn't answer wether it is fair or not. All 3 options make it that it isn't fair.
yes that was widly reported here in florida

Opal, if someone wins 65% of the vote, he'll win the electoral college!
Not necessarily. If you win 100% in just enough states to get just under the 207 required to win the Electoral College then get 49% in every other state (extremely hypothetical, but possible nonetheless), you can have a HUGE portion of the general eleection and still not win the presidency.

Well sure, if it was a one person one vote situation the big cities would decide who was president. The people living out in the countryside would never see a candidate as it wouldn't be worth their while to come and rally out there. They'd effectivly be ruled by the cities, with no chance of their say ever being part of the majority. If they had set up a democratic system in the first place, then they smaller states would have just not ratified the constitution. If you changed the rules today to a one person one vote system, I wouldn't be suprised if the smaller states just seceded from the Union, as they would effectivly be nothing more than colonial holdings.

You either have a federal republic of the USA, where some people have more of a say than others or vast tracks of sparsely populated countryside secede from the Union. If I was American then I know which one I'd choose.

Well sure, if it was a one person one vote situation the big cities would decide who was president. The people living out in the countryside would never see a candidate as it wouldn't be worth their while to come and rally out there. They'd effectivly be ruled by the cities, with no chance of their say ever being part of the majority. If they had set up a democratic system in the first place, then they smaller states would have just not ratified the constitution. If you changed the rules today to a one person one vote system, I wouldn't be suprised if the smaller states just seceded from the Union, as they would effectivly be nothing more than colonial holdings.

You either have a federal republic of the USA, where some people have more of a say than others or vast tracks of sparsely populated countryside secede from the Union. If I was American then I know which one I'd choose.

I totally agree with you Strensall! That is why I support the EC!

Well sure, if it was a one person one vote situation the big cities would decide who was president. The people living out in the countryside would never see a candidate as it wouldn't be worth their while to come and rally out there. They'd effectivly be ruled by the cities, with no chance of their say ever being part of the majority. If they had set up a democratic system in the first place, then they smaller states would have just not ratified the constitution. If you changed the rules today to a one person one vote system, I wouldn't be suprised if the smaller states just seceded from the Union, as they would effectivly be nothing more than colonial holdings.

You either have a federal republic of the USA, where some people have more of a say than others or vast tracks of sparsely populated countryside secede from the Union. If I was American then I know which one I'd choose.
The fact of the matter is, I calculated a "vote value" and it shows no trends really...some small states (Wyoming) have huge values, but other small states have miniscule values (Rhode Island). It has nothing to do with population over all, it has nothing to do with population density...

You both missed the point!

THink for a second. If there wasn't an electoral college, Cities like New York, LA, San Fran, Miami, Phili, Boston, etc. would decide the presidential Election. Thus there would be no need for anyone else to vote.

By having an Electoral System the way we do, ALL states have the capacity to decide who wins the Election!

Who cares if you live in a city? Los Angelenos are just as American as people who live out in the Mohave desert. Besides, in a state like Alaska, where most people live in Anchorage and Fairbanks (i.e. cities), those city-folk are going to determine where the state's electoral votes go anyway. Perhaps folks who live on the tundra should get 3 votes. Just to make it fair.

Can you show where this is on Pulic Record?

Do you know anythign about DBT/Choicepoint? 10's of thousands of people were taking off the voting rolls illegally!!!!! Mostly democrats who were people of color. Thats 70,000 votes taken away from Gore.

why dont you do a little home work instead of just crying. the number has been the same % for decades. and that goes back to when the dems where in control of the state

the EC was put in place FOR STATE RIGHTS. state rights was a very big issue for the founding fathers

Okay...I did a lot of math and calculated how much of a vote that each state's citizens would get if their votes had the same value as they do now without the electoral college. I think you'll find that this does not reflect population density at all...

Alabama 1.08
Alaska 2.50
Arizona 0.96
Arkansas 1.19
California 0.84
Colorado 1.07
Connecticut 1.09
Delaware 1.98
DC 2.88
Florida 0.86
Georgia 0.93
Hawaii 1.72
Idaho 1.58
Illinois 0.90
Indiana 0.96
Iowa 1.29
Kansas 1.19
Kentucky 1.05
Louisiana 1.08
Maine 1.66
Maryland 0.98
Massachusetts 1.01
Michigan 0.91
Minnesota 1.07
Mississippi 1.13
Missouri 1.04
Montana 1.77
Nebraska 1.55
Nevada 1.21
New Hampshire 1.68
New Jersey 0.94
New Mexico 1.44
New York 0.87
North Carolina 0.96
North Dakota 2.56
Ohio 0.95
Oklahoma 1.08
Oregon 1.06
Pennsylvania 0.92
Rhode Island 0.74
South Carolina 1.04
South Dakota 2.12
Tennessee 1.02
Texas 0.83
Utah 1.15
Vermont 2.62
Washington 0.97
West Virginia 1.49
Wisconsin 0.99
Wyoming 3.24

--If you'd like more detail as to how these numbers were figured, send me a telegram with your email address...

why dont you do a little home work instead of just crying. the number has been the same % for decades. and that goes back to when the dems where in control of the state

Crying? lol

I'm sorry for having a problem with fraud it. It will nev... it will happen again.

What the hell are you even talking about here anyway? The same as what? The same percentage of black democrats have been stricken from the voting rolls illegally for decades? If that were even true, would that make it okay and not somethign worth complaininng about?

please respond because you are obviously oh so intelligent and informed

Crying? lol

I'm sorry for having a problem with fraud it. It will nev... it will happen again.

What the hell are you even talking about here anyway? The same as what? The same percentage of black democrats have been stricken from the voting rolls illegally for decades? If that were even true, would that make it okay and not somethign worth complaininng about?

please respond because you are obviously oh so intelligent and informed
what fraud? if you meen gore trying to change the rules after the game was played than you are correct.

Okay...I did a lot of math and calculated how much of a vote that each state's citizens would get if their votes had the same value as they do now without the electoral college. I think you'll find that this does not reflect population density at all...

Alabama 1.08
Alaska 2.50
Arizona 0.96
Arkansas 1.19
California 0.84
Colorado 1.07
Connecticut 1.09
Delaware 1.98
DC 2.88
Florida 0.86
Georgia 0.93
Hawaii 1.72
Idaho 1.58
Illinois 0.90
Indiana 0.96
Iowa 1.29
Kansas 1.19
Kentucky 1.05
Louisiana 1.08
Maine 1.66
Maryland 0.98
Massachusetts 1.01
Michigan 0.91
Minnesota 1.07
Mississippi 1.13
Missouri 1.04
Montana 1.77
Nebraska 1.55
Nevada 1.21
New Hampshire 1.68
New Jersey 0.94
New Mexico 1.44
New York 0.87
North Carolina 0.96
North Dakota 2.56
Ohio 0.95
Oklahoma 1.08
Oregon 1.06
Pennsylvania 0.92
Rhode Island 0.74
South Carolina 1.04
South Dakota 2.12
Tennessee 1.02
Texas 0.83
Utah 1.15
Vermont 2.62
Washington 0.97
West Virginia 1.49
Wisconsin 0.99
Wyoming 3.24

--If you'd like more detail as to how these numbers were figured, send me a telegram with your email address...
lol does any one here even know how it works? you get one EC vote for evry house rep which is based on population. and you get 1 vote for every sentor which every state has 2. it was put in place for state rights

Okay...I did a lot of math and calculated how much of a vote that each state's citizens would get if their votes had the same value as they do now without the electoral college. I think you'll find that this does not reflect population density at all...

Alabama 1.08
Alaska 2.50
Arizona 0.96
Arkansas 1.19
California 0.84
Colorado 1.07
Connecticut 1.09
Delaware 1.98
DC 2.88
Florida 0.86
Georgia 0.93
Hawaii 1.72
Idaho 1.58
Illinois 0.90
Indiana 0.96
Iowa 1.29
Kansas 1.19
Kentucky 1.05
Louisiana 1.08
Maine 1.66
Maryland 0.98
Massachusetts 1.01
Michigan 0.91
Minnesota 1.07
Mississippi 1.13
Missouri 1.04
Montana 1.77
Nebraska 1.55
Nevada 1.21
New Hampshire 1.68
New Jersey 0.94
New Mexico 1.44
New York 0.87
North Carolina 0.96
North Dakota 2.56
Ohio 0.95
Oklahoma 1.08
Oregon 1.06
Pennsylvania 0.92
Rhode Island 0.74
South Carolina 1.04
South Dakota 2.12
Tennessee 1.02
Texas 0.83
Utah 1.15
Vermont 2.62
Washington 0.97
West Virginia 1.49
Wisconsin 0.99
Wyoming 3.24

--If you'd like more detail as to how these numbers were figured, send me a telegram with your email address...
Now...it looks as if the smaller states have more vote value and some of them do. That's only because the minimum electoral votes is three and there is no minimum for population, however...aside from that slight trend, there isn't much of a real trend. I mean honestly...by the Pro-EC logic, California should have the lowest vote value and it should ascend in value according to descending population...
After all, why does DC have the second highest vote value when they are one of the biggest cities in the nation? Are they more enlightened because they're closer to capitol hill?

kd4, good luck with that mental handicap of yours.

Steph and I have both pointed out numerous times what fraud took place... if you can't keep up with the discussion, maybe you shouldnt participate and read and learn instead.

lol does any one here even know how it works? you get one EC vote for evry house rep which is based on population. and you get 1 vote for every sentor which every state has 2. it was put in place for state rights
I know how it works but you obviously don't follow the logic used to arrive at these numbers, which aren't incorrect...telegram me with your email address if you want to understand where these numbers come from...other wise explain why it doesn't give the less populated areas the highest values 100% of the time as the Pro-EC people would like to argue...

Both sides of this debate have good arguments. I have thought of a simple way to keep both sides happy:

Keep the Electoral College system, but, if you have a situation like in 2000 where the popular vote and the EC vote contradict each other, the popular vote should take priority.

Am I right, or an irrational, raving lunatic?


P.S. I notice most of the people defending the EC system are conservatives who like Bush. Hmmm

Both sides of this debate have good arguments. I have thought of a simple way to keep both sides happy:

Keep the Electoral College system, but, if you have a situation like in 2000 where the popular vote and the EC vote contradict each other, the popular vote should take priority.

Am I right, or an irrational, raving lunatic?


P.S. I notice most of the people defending the EC system are conservatives who like Bush. Hmmm
If you did that, there would be no real point in having the Electoral College...I mean honestly...

Now...it looks as if the smaller states have more vote value and some of them do. That's only because the minimum electoral votes is three and there is no minimum for population, however...aside from that slight trend, there isn't much of a real trend. I mean honestly...by the Pro-EC logic, California should have the lowest vote value and it should ascend in value according to descending population...
After all, why does DC have the second highest vote value when they are one of the biggest cities in the nation? Are they more enlightened because they're closer to capitol hill?

Washington, DC has a population of 572,059, making it the 21st largest city in the country.

Washington, DC has a population of 572,059, making it the 21st largest city in the country.
and they have the 2nd highest vote value...
I feel this nullifies the "EC gives rural areas power in the presidential election" argument.

and they have the 2nd highest vote value...
I feel this nullifies the "EC gives rural areas power in the presidential election" argument.

I agree completely.

But DC is a special case because it is a Federal city, and as such Congress is its only representative body, and the president the only chartered leader. They have a city council, but they ultimately answer to congress in how they spend both federal and domestic tax money. It seems like they kinda deserve some kind of extra representation.

Also, if no canidate gets a majority in the presidential election, the election is thrown to the house of representatives. This is one of the founding father's reasons for the EC, so it was less likely a demagogue could take power. Think of how democratic an election decided by the House is. Then look at the popular vote from 2000. I'm willing to bet no canidate got a majority, only a plurality, so if the election were decided on popular vote, last election would have been decided not by the People, but by the House.

But DC is a special case because it is a Federal city, and as such Congress is its only representative body, and the president the only chartered leader. They have a city council, but they ultimately answer to congress in how they spend both federal and domestic tax money. It seems like they kinda deserve some kind of extra representation.

Also, if no canidate gets a majority in the presidential election, the election is thrown to the house of representatives. This is one of the founding father's reasons for the EC, so it was less likely a demagogue could take power. Think of how democratic an election decided by the House is. Then look at the popular vote from 2000. I'm willing to bet no canidate got a majority, only a plurality, so if the election were decided on popular vote, last election would have been decided not by the People, but by the House.
You are honestly arguing that some people deserve more voting power than other people?

Sango - where do you get that? In the last election Gore won the popular vote by a long shot. The house would have had no say.

Sango - where do you get that? In the last election Gore won the popular vote by a long shot. The house would have had no say.
a half million votes...which is like...less than .25%

Bush - 50,456,002 47.87%
Gore - 50,999,897 48.38%
Nader - 2,882,955 2.74%

Actually the difference is .01%, because such a low percentage of people vote (plus a lot of people are not of age to vote). If you notice here, no one canidate did get a majority. Also, New Mexico was decided by less than 500 votes, but was not contested because of the scandalous behaviour in Florida (roadblocks, chads... also voting rolls, etc).

I am not advocating political inequality of citizens, i'm just pointing out all systems of voting have holes in them (this has, in fact, been mathematically proven).

But if we want to be called a Federal Republic, in which we democratically choose our leaders, and get attacked by terrorists blaming us for the actions of our government, as they are really supposed to democratically elected, then shouldn't we at least elect them democratically since everything else says we should...

We do want to be called a federal republic, NOT a complete democracy, because a complete democracy would really follow the model of Plato, because maybe 3/4 of the citizens could vote to disenfranchise the other quarter, and then do it again and again until it becomes an oligarchy. Our refuge is not in democracy, as such, but the Constitution and its Amendments.

We do want to be called a federal republic, NOT a complete democracy, because a complete democracy would really follow the model of Plato, because maybe 3/4 of the citizens could vote to disenfranchise the other quarter, and then do it again and again until it becomes an oligarchy. Our refuge is not in democracy, as such, but the Constitution and its Amendments.
re·pub·lic
n.
1. a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. b. A nation that has such a political order.

2. a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. b. A nation that has such a political order.

3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.

4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.

5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

I never said we are or should be or are supposed to be a complete democracy. We are, as you pointed out, a Republic, which is (5) a group of people working as equals...we are created equal? are we not? Why can't we vote equally?

Gore - 50,999,897 48.38% > Bush - 50,456,002 47.87% > Nader - 2,882,955 2.74%

No holes - Gore wins popular vote. Even if by one vote he would have been President if there was no EC and no need for the house to decide anything.


*WOW Nader got nearly 3 million votes? Awesome*

:)

The house actually did decide TWO presidential elections! It was back in the year 1800 when The US House voted Thomas Jefferson as president. The US House also elected John Q Adams as President in 1824!

No the elctoral system is an obvious ploy to rig teh system anyway they want. They being the Dems and Reps who control the system.

It shouldnt even go by state. It should be 1 vote per person and whoover gets teh most votes wins. The electoral college is a scam and should be done away with.

I also think that having 1 president is dangerous and gives one man too much power. There should be 3 to 5 presidents so that they have to work with each other and vote for final decisions, and noone has ultimate power.
It doesn't quite work like that, actually. If any party's candidate gets 5% of the popular vote, they are eligible for federal matching funds the next year. In the past few years, only one party (the Greens) has recieved eligibility.

The house actually did decide TWO presidential elections! It was back in the year 1800 when The US House voted Thomas Jefferson as president. The US House also elected John Q Adams as President in 1824!

Yes, that is correct and here is a simple explantion of why (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20001213.html)

There are merits to limited democracy; in fact, if it was one person = one vote, or absolute democracy...then that would be pretty unfair and a horrible system to work with.

[edit: oops. thinking of something else.]

At any rate, someone said earlier that one person=one vote would result in group of people controlling another group by constantly overriding them in oligarchy...3/4 over 1/4...I think the system's fine.

If anything, we should be complaining about BCS.

There are merits to limited democracy; in fact, if it was one person = one vote, or absolute democracy...then that would be pretty unfair and a horrible system to work with.
One person = one vote does not mean absolute democracy...
Absolute democracy would mean we'd have no president (not one with any powers anyway, and everyone would be in the "senate"...
The "president" would just be a person that would conduct the meetings and everyone would debate in the issues and everyone would have a direct vote on all of the laws...
Directly voting for the president is in no way an absolute democracy...

Oh, and I'm also confused as to how "1 person = 1 vote" is unfair...someone seriously please explain...

Revolution...

Revolution...

I'm up for it. I'm sick of taxation without representation.

Oh, and I'm also confused as to how "1 person = 1 vote" is unfair...someone seriously please explain...

1 person = 1 vote is unfair because small states like Rhode Island should have an equal stake in the election. For example if 1 person = 1 vote, then the only place that the parties would campaign are highly populated states like California, Florida, and New York. Smaller states would be filled with uneducated and destitute citizens because no politician would care about them. The only way to let each of the 50 states (which are seen as equals federally) is to make smaller states votes worth more than they would be simply based on population. If you want tyranny by majority, then 1 person = 1 vote is the way to go. But if you want fair and just democracy, then the electoral college is the best thing we have going right now...

Oh, and I'm also confused as to how "1 person = 1 vote" is unfair...someone seriously please explain...
I believe that it is unfair because it allows for a tyranny of the majority. If the electoral college weren't in place, most candidates would focus on the coastal cities, which have the most people. That excludes a large swath of voters and interests, and not just the Fundementalist Right. There's miners, industrial workers in the dying rustbelt, things like that. The demographics may change, but it's a consensus that a large chunk of America will live in and around a few urban centers. The electoral college forces politicians to look at smaller states, while curbing the power of cities, or in other words, a tyranny of the majority. It may not be needed now, but in the future, there may be a climate that needs a significant minority protected from a majority. Besides, an electoral college helps prevent democracy from turning into mob rule.

I'm in favour of the Electoral Colleges but I think the amount of votes each state has needs to be changed, as Opal pointed out it doesn't bear any correlation to modern demographics. Maybe it bears a relation to the demographics of the time the EC was set up? I'm British so I'm not big on American history but I know how federal republics work.

In Britain, the Conservatives (centre-Right) won a higher share of the popular vote than New Labour (slightly less centre-Right) but got less seats.

If you went on the national popular vote, there would be no constituancies. If you went on the popular state vote, and the winner of the most states became president you could have something like 20% of the population electing a president. The EC system is a medium between the two systems, allowing each state give it's EC votes to the elected state governor or senator or whatever and the party with the most EC votes has it's presidential candidate elected.

Why not change the amount of EC votes per state to represent the amount of people in the state, say 2 votes per million citizens? But then, being a federal republic you need either a 2/3 or 3/4 majority to amend the constitution and it's going to be a 50:50 split of states that gain influence and those that lose influence. Unless the states see that it is the right thing to do in the interest of national democracy, then it'll never happen as human nature dictates people put themselves first.

1 person = 1 vote is unfair because small states like Rhode Island should have an equal stake in the election. For example if 1 person = 1 vote, then the only place that the parties would campaign are highly populated states like California, Florida, and New York. Smaller states would be filled with uneducated and destitute citizens because no politician would care about them. The only way to let each of the 50 states (which are seen as equals federally) is to make smaller states votes worth more than they would be simply based on population. If you want tyranny by majority, then 1 person = 1 vote is the way to go. But if you want fair and just democracy, then the electoral college is the best thing we have going right now...
I honestly don't understand where this is coming from...
Rhode Islanders have the SMALLEST VOTE VALUE of the 51 voting areas I calculated...I think you're logic is backwards. With the electoral college, it's about winning states and you can win the election by only getting 30-35% of the vote...without the electoral college it's about winning the people and you have to get 51% of the vote (or at least get more votes than any of your opponents...). I mean, if politicians just went for the big cities without EC, then why don't they just go for the states with the highest voting value with the EC? I mean, in Wyoming, you only have to convince about a quarter million voters (assuming EVERY CITIZEN VOTED) in order to get 3 EC votes, but in Rhode Island, you have to convince a half million (again, assuming EVERY CITIZEN VOTED) to get only 4 votes. This leads me to believe states like Rhode Island, with a low vote value and a low EC count, would be ignored.

I honestly don't understand where this is coming from...
Rhode Islanders have the SMALLEST VOTE VALUE of the 51 voting areas I calculated...I think you're logic is backwards. With the electoral college, it's about winning states and you can win the election by only getting 30-35% of the vote...without the electoral college it's about winning the people and you have to get 51% of the vote (or at least get more votes than any of your opponents...). I mean, if politicians just went for the big cities without EC, then why don't they just go for the states with the highest voting value with the EC? I mean, in Wyoming, you only have to convince about a quarter million voters (assuming EVERY CITIZEN VOTED) in order to get 3 EC votes, but in Rhode Island, you have to convince a half million (again, assuming EVERY CITIZEN VOTED) to get only 4 votes. This leads me to believe states like Rhode Island, with a low vote value and a low EC count, would be ignored.
which is why the EC is out of date

I agree with the comment that the EC creates easily recognizable constituencies.

But aside from that, there is a middle alternative between popular vote and the EC. I think two states do assign electors based on sectional majorities and not statewide majorities... maybe Iowa and north dakota?

In an election based on popular votes, though, third party canidates can effect the election much more than they can in the EC.

This is a link to a Scientific American article about voting systems: http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=878E2767-2B35-221B-69CC014464E24757&ARTICLEID_CHAR=87AD4BC1-2B35-221B-6269531B70360440&sc=I100322

# Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].

It means that 2 of the votes go to whoever wins the overall state vote, and the rest of their Electoral College votes go depending on how the congressional district votes...while this is a better system than most of the states have, it still isn't perfect.

I agree with the comment that the EC creates easily recognizable constituencies.

But aside from that, there is a middle alternative between popular vote and the EC. I think two states do assign electors based on sectional majorities and not statewide majorities... maybe Iowa and north dakota?

In an election based on popular votes, though, third party canidates can effect the election much more than they can in the EC.

This is a link to a Scientific American article about voting systems: http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=878E2767-2B35-221B-69CC014464E24757&ARTICLEID_CHAR=87AD4BC1-2B35-221B-6269531B70360440&sc=I100322

by your own admission the EC because keeps third parties out of the game by making it near impossible for a third party to have a viable footing as the EC creates difficulties

isnt this why we should get rid of the EC? To give someone other than rich white men a chance at leading our country to greatness, rather than a secretive corrupt warmongering morass of evil.

Yes, that is correct and here is a simple explantion of why (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20001213.html)

Steph, don't insult my intelligence!

In 1800, Jefferson was elected by the US House of Representatives after he and Burr received the same number of Electoral Votes. They each got 73 whereas John adams got 65, Pinckney got 64 and John Jay got 1! No one received the majority needed to win the election! Under the US Constitution, when this happens it gets tossed into the US House. By ballot, the US House voted for Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson went on to win re-election!

In 1824, Adams was chosen by the US House after no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes. Adams had 84, Jackson 99, Crawford 41 and clay 37! Again under the US Constitution, the election was tossed into the US House. After tallying votes, Adams was awarded the presidency. He didn't win relection in 1828.

by your own admission the EC because keeps third parties out of the game by making it near impossible for a third party to have a viable footing as the EC creates difficulties

isnt this why we should get rid of the EC? To give someone other than rich white men a chance at leading our country to greatness, rather than a secretive corrupt warmongering morass of evil.

You'd have to implement IRV for your system to be democratic, if we had 3 strong parties, then one party could win with 34% whereas 66% of the population didn't want that person to be president. The point being, democracy is supposed to majority not minority. A third party that has made is the republican party... they used to be a third party and now they are one of the major 2. It's kinda how our system works that the majortiy rules, the system you seem to want to implement could lead to minority rule...

You'd have to implement IRV for your system to be democratic, if we had 3 strong parties, then one party could with witn 34% whereas 66% of the population didn't want that person to be president. The point being, democracy is supposed to majority not minority. A third that has made is the republican party... they used to be a third party and now they are one of the major 2. It's kinda how our system works that the majortiy rules, the system you seem to want to implement could lead to minority rule...
Run offs...

Run offs...

There are problems to IRV, although in principal I support it, for further reading either google "flaws of instant runoff voting" or check out http://www.electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm

The worst case scenario is that it in fact works against third parties ensuring more of their votes in the first round of voting, possibly even a pluralistic majortiy, but also ensuring their loss in the second round of votes.

There are problems to IRV, although in principal I support it, for further reading either google "flaws of instant runoff voting" or check out http://www.electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm

The worst case scenario is that it in fact works against third parties ensuring more of their votes in the first round of voting, possibly even a pluralistic majortiy, but also ensuring their loss in the second round of votes.

Thanks, I'll read up on that.

Are there any ideas you personally have on making a fair voting system?

Thanks, I'll read up on that.

Are there any ideas you personally have on making a fair voting system?

I'm more interested in justice than fairness. I've abandoned democratic ideology because of it's impracticality. So, no, I pretty much just point out the problems with everything... Although I believe that IRV is a step towards fairness... Democracy is inherently prone to problems. To be "fair" every single democratic citizen would have to be equally educated, vote and have equal oppurtunity to be elected. That's direct democracy which is possible only in theory.

However, there are 2 ends to democracy, just like any other thing. You have the tyranny by majority-ists on one side, and the democratic pluralists on the other. Both have their merits and both have their problems. I guess the most "fair and balanced" way (to steal a popular slogan) would be to stay exactly centrist. Which is what I believe the point of the electoral college has been.

I'm more interested in justice than fairness. I've abandoned democratic ideology because of it's impracticality. So, no, I pretty much just point out the problems with everything... Although I believe that IRV is a step towards fairness... Democracy is inherently prone to problems. To be "fair" every single democratic citizen would have to be equally educated, vote and have equal oppurtunity to be elected. That's direct democracy which is possible only in theory.
Representative Democracy...not Direct

Representative Democracy...not Direct
Representative democracy doesn't rely on equal education, everyone voting, or equal oppurtunity be elected...

In fact it relies on a minorty being educated, any amount of voting, and an unequal oppurtunity to be elected.

I guess I should clarify, Representative democracy doesn't seem like a step towards a "fair" sytem. (voting or otherwise) So that's why I brought up direct democracy. Seeing as how it's more "fair".

For arguments sake, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt here , they still would not of won the election with those ballots that I might add were counted and added to the final count. The election would of been won easily in Florida by Gore had they not taken thousands of legal registered Democrats off the voters list.BLAH BLAH BLAH, and if the networks had not called Florida for Gore before all the polls closed, millions of disenfranchised voters in the panhandle would have given Florida and the entire countries popular vote to Bush.

Actually, that link states that if ALL votes are included - under-votes and over votes - then Gore won.

"In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. "


Nice choice of supporting material!So if all the stupid people not smart enough to figure out a balot, and all the felons, and all teh dead people, and all the illegal votes had been counted, gore would have won by 200 votes. Almost stole that one, didn't they.

So if all the stupid people not smart enough to figure out a balot, and all the felons, and all teh dead people, and all the illegal votes had been counted, gore would have won by 200 votes. Almost stole that one, didn't they.

No, that's not what he's saying.. but we don't expect you to get that.

The reason the electoral college is nessary, is because if you just go with indvisuals, because of the fact the biggest areas of people, for some reasons take the same amount of space, means that an indi vote, for someone who is just interested in those high pop areas, (as they would, as that's all they'd have to win.) would receve all the benifits. While this means that the most amount of pop would get what they needed, and other benifits. The rest wouldn't get such luxeries, and would suffer. Because of the EC, the Big citys still have alot of say, but the less densly populated, but almost as populated amounts can stop a man from winning, thereby creating benifits for both, allowing both to prosper.

The reason the electoral college is nessary, is because if you just go with indvisuals, because of the fact the biggest areas of people, for some reasons take the same amount of space, means that an indi vote, for someone who is just interested in those high pop areas, (as they would, as that's all they'd have to win.) would receve all the benifits. While this means that the most amount of pop would get what they needed, and other benifits. The rest wouldn't get such luxeries, and would suffer. Because of the EC, the Big citys still have alot of say, but the less densly populated, but almost as populated amounts can stop a man from winning, thereby creating benifits for both, allowing both to prosper.
Is Rhode Island a densely populated place? I don't think they are. They get the lowest vote value.

Is Washint D.C. a densely populated place? I'd have to give that a big yes. They get the second highest vote value.

Please go to the post in which I explain the Electoral college gives random vote values.

Also, please realize there are more rural citizens in the United States then there are urban. Additionally, realize by taking the side that you are taking, you are saying that some citizens deserve more of a say in who should be president in others. You are also saying that a person can win 65-70% of the general election and still not get the presidency. (I'll do the math some day and figure out the highest percentage possible that a person could get and still lose the presidency, but until then, I'm guesstimating.)

I may agree with you if you can come up with something better than slavery. Although I think that since the majority of America is Liberal and liberals basically want what is best for everybody and not just the elite, then I would say that there is no chance in hell that there would be situations like that coming up.

Um...I did... that's why I put up Roe v. Wade ( you know the abortion debate ) But if you want further examples: Taxing the internet or Censorship of books or speech considered vile or not politically correct.

I disagree that the majority of Americans are liberal. I say the majority are moderate. I took the political poll and it lists me as liberal. That's really funny. Me, with the near dozen guns I own and the Marine Corp. flag flying off my front porch. However, I have voted both Rep. and Dem. in the past. It just depends on who I like best.

I think Americans ( and average citizens of any other nation ) in general want to do what is best for their country.

The far left is just as Elitest as the far right.

Is Rhode Island a densely populated place? I don't think they are. They get the lowest vote value.



Actually, with a population of 1,048,319 and an area of 1,545 sq. mi., Rhode Island's population density is 1,003.2 people per sqare mile.
Just for comparison, Pennsylvania's is 274 per sq. mi., Alaska is 1.1 per sq. mi., California is 217.2 per sq. mi., and Washington, DC is 9,378 per sq. mi.

Actually, with a population of 1,048,319 and an area of 1,545 sq. mi., Rhode Island's population density is 1,003.2 people per sqare mile.
Just for comparison, Pennsylvania's is 274 per sq. mi., Alaska is 1.1 per sq. mi., California is 217.2 per sq. mi., and Washington, DC is 9,378 per sq. mi.
And Wyomings?

And Wyomings?

How could I have missed Wyoming?

5.1 per sq. mi.

I've said this in the UN forums, but I'd rather see polls that are less biased. Ask the general question and allow for people to choose their responses as they will.

Is the purpose of the poll to get an honest sample or to serve as propoganda? I'm assuming it is a small bit of both.

In any event, I live in California and the Electoral College seems biased against California, on the basis that the *entire* West Coast is treated as a freakin ATM machine by Presidents. They ask for our money, but don't really campaign for our EC votes (of which IIRC California has around 54). I'd like to see *all* polls open and close at the exact same time and for the President / Vice-President to be choosen based on a popular vote.

Now to be fair, California is part to blame. The US Code allows *states* the right to decide how to issue their EC votes, and California is by its own Election Code an all-or-nothing state. If we would slip our votes, it is possible that US Presidents would fight for their slice of the 54 votes.

Irony has it that in 2004 I'm a *bit* happy that Kerry will be starting the election with 54 votes, even though the popular election here will not be so completely one-sided.

*grrrrh* ;)

California has 55.


Wyoming has the highest vote value with a population density of 5.1 citizens per square mile.

Washington DC has the second highest vote value with a population density of 9,378 citizens per square mile.

With there being approximately the same amount of urban and rural voters in this country, and with the Electoral College giving high vote values to dense and non-dense areas, I don't see how it supports the rural populations...

So formal... did you actually READ the recount link and note that it clearly states that if ALL votes were counted then Gore won?

Or not?

Or will you just excuse it away that somehow the premise of voter intent cannot be determined on those overcounts?

Oh, and while you are stating that no group has deemed that illegal disenfranchisement occured...

http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/votehearings.htm

I think you have a lot of reading to do....


http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/printer_881.shtml

I know how it works but you obviously don't follow the logic used to arrive at these numbers, which aren't incorrect...telegram me with your email address if you want to understand where these numbers come from...other wise explain why it doesn't give the less populated areas the highest values 100% of the time as the Pro-EC people would like to argue...
here ya go http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

kd4, good luck with that mental handicap of yours.

Steph and I have both pointed out numerous times what fraud took place... if you can't keep up with the discussion, maybe you shouldnt participate and read and learn instead.
did you ride the short buss?

Someone posted an article from Judicial Watch, and I took it a step further and checked some of the other Judicial Watch sites that reconciled the balloting. I couldn't make head nor tail out of them, simply due to the complexity of the information presented. I also came away with the belief that it is an anti-Democrat web site? Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Home page: http://www.judicialwatch.org/

Recount info:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/63/recountreport.htm

Being a Canuck who has only ever seen straight forward paper ballots that are basically what you see is what you get, I found it difficult to understand the difference between the following:

§ Clear Punch – The chad was cleanly punched through and totally detached

§ Hanging Chad- The chad was punched through and hanging by one corner

§ Swinging Chad- The chad was punched through and hanging by two corners

§ Tri Chad- The chad was through with one corner detached

§ Other Hole – A pinhole was punched through some portion of the candidate box but not necessarily the chad.

§ Other Marks- The presidential chad had a distinguishing mark from a writing instrument, such as a circle or an “X”, which clearly showed intent to caste a vote in that instance.

§ Pregnant Chad – The Chad was indented or dimpled to the extent that light was visible through a portion of the chad.

§ Dimpled Chad – The individual chad showed some sign of physical disturbance to its originally smooth surface.

Then it got into undervotes and overvotes. Why is this system so complicated?

Anyways, if someone has the time to look at the site and tell me what the final numbers mean, I would really appreciate that. Thanks.

BTW, here is the site again:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/63/recountreport.htm

I dont agree with the electoral college. In all acutality, the American public doesnt get to choose their president. Out votes dont count! One could go as far to say that America actually isnt a democracy. I think the popular vote should count.

Someone posted an article from Judicial Watch, and I took it a step further and checked some of the other Judicial Watch sites that reconciled the balloting. I couldn't make head nor tail out of them, simply due to the complexity of the information presented. I also came away with the belief that it is an anti-Democrat web site? Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Home page: http://www.judicialwatch.org/

Recount info:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/63/recountreport.htm

Being a Canuck who has only ever seen straight forward paper ballots that are basically what you see is what you get, I found it difficult to understand the difference between the following:

§ Clear Punch – The chad was cleanly punched through and totally detached

§ Hanging Chad- The chad was punched through and hanging by one corner

§ Swinging Chad- The chad was punched through and hanging by two corners

§ Tri Chad- The chad was through with one corner detached

§ Other Hole – A pinhole was punched through some portion of the candidate box but not necessarily the chad.

§ Other Marks- The presidential chad had a distinguishing mark from a writing instrument, such as a circle or an “X”, which clearly showed intent to caste a vote in that instance.

§ Pregnant Chad – The Chad was indented or dimpled to the extent that light was visible through a portion of the chad.

§ Dimpled Chad – The individual chad showed some sign of physical disturbance to its originally smooth surface.

Then it got into undervotes and overvotes. Why is this system so complicated?

Anyways, if someone has the time to look at the site and tell me what the final numbers mean, I would really appreciate that. Thanks.

BTW, here is the site again:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/63/recountreport.htm


it is time for me to go to bed but from what i glanced at it seems bush was picking up votes

it is time for me to go to bed but from what i glanced at it seems bush was picking up votes

He was Kd4! Your right about that! And I saw another post on here regarding the calling of Gore? FNC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC all called it for Gore FORGETTING that the panhandle of Florida was STILL VOTING! How many people didn't vote because of the Botched call? We will never know. The Panhandle is also mostly Republican. It is possible that if the people in the Panhandle, had the vote not been called for Gore, would have given Bush the state of Florida that WOULDN'T require the automatic recount. The Vote still would've been close, don't get me wrong, but Bush would've carried the panhandle, hell he did anyway, and win the state.

here ya go http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
Uh...like I said, I know how it works. You guys aren't paying too much attention...

Kd4... Until you have something worthwhile and intelligent (or at least thought out) to add to this arguement, just STFU. Please. And don't childishly respond to this with insults; prove me wrong by making sense and adding to the debate.

It seems to me that a possible solution to this debate would be if the system worked the same in theory as in practice. If EC votes were distributed properly, or at least closer to proper, then they would reflect the popular vote. But since, as it works now, all EC votes go to the candidate with the most votes, the minority of votes don't count for diddly.

Kd4... Until you have something worthwhile and intelligent (or at least thought out) to add to this arguement, just STFU. Please. And don't childishly respond to this with insults; prove me wrong by making sense and adding to the debate.

It seems to me that a possible solution to this debate would be if the system worked the same in theory as in practice. If EC votes were distributed properly, or at least closer to proper, then they would reflect the popular vote. But since, as it works now, all EC votes go to the candidate with the most votes, the minority of votes don't count for diddly.

Actually he does bring up some good points. I don't know where you think he doesn't but he actually does. Walther.

I see him more often poking fun than making sense. But back to the topic here.

Kd4... Until you have something worthwhile and intelligent (or at least thought out) to add to this arguement, just STFU. Please. And don't childishly respond to this with insults; prove me wrong by making sense and adding to the debate.

It seems to me that a possible solution to this debate would be if the system worked the same in theory as in practice. If EC votes were distributed properly, or at least closer to proper, then they would reflect the popular vote. But since, as it works now, all EC votes go to the candidate with the most votes, the minority of votes don't count for diddly.
I admit that doing that would help, but it would work well enough as it would not properly balance voter/elector ratios. That's really my problem with the Electoral College. Some areas have out-of-balance V/E ration on the voter end, like in Rhode Island, giving the voter less power because their vote makes up a smaller percentage of the elector's decision, but in other areas, like in Wyoming and Washington D.C. the V/E is high on the Elector end meaning each vote makes up a larger percentage of the elector's decision, therefore giving people in this areas a greater power over all in choosing president.


-In other words, all that is just to further clarify what I don't like about the EC, but I really meant to point out that changing from all-or-nothing to split EC votes in all states like ME and NE already are wouldn't change the E/V proportion.

The reason for this skewing being the senators added to the EC total?

it is not entirely fair no system will be,however i do think that the folks ,in less populous states do not deserve to be totally ignored which would happen with popular vote only , i support the electral college ,however do believe it could use some updating.

it is not entirely fair no system will be,however i do think that the folks ,in less populous states do not deserve to be totally ignored which would happen with popular vote only , i support the electral college ,however do believe it could use some updating.

That I can agree with. It probably does need to be upgraded to these current times but that will definitely take time to do.

it is not entirely fair no system will be,however i do think that the folks ,in less populous states do not deserve to be totally ignored which would happen with popular vote only , i support the electral college ,however do believe it could use some updating.


Less populous states are given the advantage of the 2 senator votes added to the EC vote total. Thus, winning several smaller states is closer in EC votes to winning a single large state. But the minority of votes in each state are still ignored under the current situation.

The reason for this skewing being the senators added to the EC total?
Well, that accounts for the major skewing because without that there would not be as huge of difference. I really just think that since we have 290 million American (and the EC is 538 votes), we should just take those 538 electors and assign them to geographical regions of a little under 500,000. I mean, that is only if you want to keep the EC. However, those geographical regions would have to ignore state boundaries also. That's require a larger change to the constitution however...

Less populous states are given the advantage of the 2 senator votes added to the EC vote total. Thus, winning several smaller states is closer in EC votes to winning a single large state. But the minority of votes in each state are still ignored under the current situation.

Well with any system, the Majority make the decisions. If the majority in one state vote for a particular candidate, that candidate will win that state and the electoral votes. What do you think the minority votes in the state should get?

Less populous states are given the advantage of the 2 senator votes added to the EC vote total. Thus, winning several smaller states is closer in EC votes to winning a single large state. But the minority of votes in each state are still ignored under the current situation.
Well, Rhode Island only has 1 million citizens, and they have 4 Electoral Votes. They have the lowest electoral value. I don't think 1 million is a large population for a state...

Well with any system, the Majority make the decisions. If the majority in one state vote for a particular candidate, that candidate will win that state and the electoral votes. What do you think the minority votes in the state should get?
If you divide each Elector into their congressional districts (like Maine and Nebraska) then sometimes the minority gets a few Electoral votes, but only if say one districts is one party and the other is the other party. However, if the second party is a minority in both regions, they'd still get no EC votes.

Well with any system, the Majority make the decisions. If the majority in one state vote for a particular candidate, that candidate will win that state and the electoral votes. What do you think the minority votes in the state should get?

At least a fair number (appropriate ratio) of Electoral College votes.

As an example: In the 2000 election (since it's so often mentioned here), Florida was such a big deal because it was all-or-nothing. The candidate with the most votes got every one of the Electoral votes. Had there been a law or even a compulsion to split the Electoral votes in such a close win (either way), Gore probably would have won. (Check my math)

Originally Posted by Walther Atkinson
Less populous states are given the advantage of the 2 senator votes added to the EC vote total. Thus, winning several smaller states is closer in EC votes to winning a single large state. But the minority of votes in each state are still ignored under the current situation.
Well, Rhode Island only has 1 million citizens, and they have 4 Electoral Votes. They have the lowest electoral value. I don't think 1 million is a large population for a state...

That's the theory, at least (adding the senator votes to balance the larger states). But as it's been proven, the EC works far different in practice than on paper.

At least a fair number (appropriate ratio) of Electoral College votes.

As an example: In the 2000 election (since it's so often mentioned here), Florida was such a big deal because it was all-or-nothing. The candidate with the most votes got every one of the Electoral votes. Had there been a law or even a compulsion to split the Electoral votes in such a close win (either way), Gore probably would have won. (Check my math)

Actually if I split some of the numbers, it might have ended up in the house. I'm not sure! I'll have to check my facts.

California has 55.

With there being approximately the same amount of urban and rural voters in this country, and with the Electoral College giving high vote values to dense and non-dense areas, I don't see how it supports the rural populations...

The problem about looking at density, is that it is often averaged across a state. Parts of California are sparse, others are not ... I wouldn't say a single published either value represents Modok county or Los Angeles county.

California has around 35 million people. The United States has around 290 million. That is 12% of the US population (though this may not be the same as the US voting population).

California has 55 EC votes. The entire Electoral College has a total of 538, I could be wrong here, I was off by 1 for California ... my memory just can't keep up with the census. That means California gets 10% of the votes. Somebody else is getting *our* 2%.

The first problem is that the EC favours *smaller* states, due to the Senators being included in the totals.

The second problem with the EC is that even though it is a Federal election, it is State Codes and State election proceedures that determine how the EC votes are distributed. California is a winner take all state. Though common wisdom here is that Kerry has his 55 votes already, Senator Fienstien just warned that the recall election has shown that California voters are willing to put Republicans in power (though I'd point out that I believe she is wrong, Gray Davis *lost* the recall in part because he really was corrupt ... Sacramento news papers literally *hated* the man, and I feel that Kerry will win with over 60% of the vote).

But what if I'm right and only 60% of the California vote is needed to collect 10% of the Federal prize? It seems to me as if 4% of the American public is again shut out.

I'd like to see the entire system removed and a direct election to be held. While I'm optimistic that *this* time the EC will work against Bush, my objections to the system are based on the same idea that others have stated ... there are inconsistencies in the state codes as to whom needs to be elected, and our Federal government is not a true democracy. (Though our state governments often are.)

I'd like to point out that Mikitivity probably has the best grasp on the subject of this debate than anybody else.

I just finished reading this entire thread, and I'd like to point a few things out.

The biggest problem with this debate is that very few people seem to grasp federalism anymore. I noticed Opal Isle reciting the definition of a republic every time it was declared that the United States is a federal republic, but never did I see a definition of federalism.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism) :
Federalism denotes a system of government in which power is divided by constitutional right between national and local units of government in regions.

Our states are borders were created so a region of people that shared similar values and beliefs could be heard under our US Constitution and govern themselves in certain ways. If we suddenly assigned votes by blocks of half a mil population, there'd be almost little use for states borders.

The idea that one vote for one person to elect the President by majority relies on the assumption that there will only be two parties. The problem is there are more than two parties. I am not for either party, but Gore did not win the majority, he won the plurality. That means he did not win the more than 50% of the votes. Hypothetically, if there were 10 parties in the United States, and we had some sort of elect by whoever gets the most votes wins, we could end up with a winner that only had 10% + 1 votes. Of course there are ways to get a majority in these systems with runoffs and the sort, but they all have their flaws, including the electoral college.

Another note. The number of electoral votes is not "random". It is a simple formula of the number of representatives + the number of senators for each particular state, except for Washington, D.C. which gets the exception of having the minimum 3 votes. If you think this system is bad, then you must also thing our system of representatives is bad. We might as well abolish the Senate, they give all their power to the little states (population-wise, NOT AREA WISE e.g. Wyoming may be bigger, but less people live there than Rhode Island). I mean seriously, California has the least amount of power in the Senate if you are talking about person per senate seat.

The point I'm trying to make is that this argument is ridiculous. The general population has lost hold of the fact that we are a collection of states. This is mostly because the federal government has been using power that should be delegated to the states because of one small clause in the Constitution. It's also because distances that used to seem long, (Atlanta to Los Angeles), is now just a 3 hour flight with a cool censored movie in-flight.

Each state has the power to change how they chose their electors for the electoral college. If you would like it changed for your state, you should write your district representative. Don't just argue about it on a forum where it will make very little difference, write the person that represents you. The best way to change the system is to use the system.

In closing, I'd like to say that our system works well. It's not perfect, but it's better than most of our other choices. Remember, there will always be hypothetical situations that causes a system to fail, I just think that our system handles a lot of these situations better.

Go out and vote and make a difference.

Kd4... Until you have something worthwhile and intelligent (or at least thought out) to add to this arguement, just STFU. Please. And don't childishly respond to this with insults; prove me wrong by making sense and adding to the debate.

It seems to me that a possible solution to this debate would be if the system worked the same in theory as in practice. If EC votes were distributed properly, or at least closer to proper, then they would reflect the popular vote. But since, as it works now, all EC votes go to the candidate with the most votes, the minority of votes don't count for diddly.

lol it is the senators and it still does not come out perfect. it is called state rights. and if you have not gatherd by now i am trying to make you think! i learned all of this in school and am supprised you did not.

I'd like to point out that Mikitivity probably has the best grasp on the subject of this debate than anybody else.

Agreed.

lol it is the senators and it still does not come out perfect. it is called state rights. and if you have not gatherd by now i am trying to make you think! i learned all of this in school and am supprised you did not.

Huh?

(Please note I have retracted my earlier statement. I just get a bit miffed when people come in and start slinging insults.)

I'd like to point out that Mikitivity probably has the best grasp on the subject of this debate than anybody else.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism) :

Our states are borders were created so a region of people that shared similar values and beliefs could be heard under our US Constitution and govern themselves in certain ways. If we suddenly assigned votes by blocks of half a mil population, there'd be almost little use for states borders.

The idea that one vote for one person to elect the President by majority relies on the assumption that there will only be two parties. The problem is there are more than two parties. I am not for either party, but Gore did not win the majority, he won the plurality. That means he did not win the more than 50% of the votes. Hypothetically, if there were 10 parties in the United States, and we had some sort of elect by whoever gets the most votes wins, we could end up with a winner that only had 10% + 1 votes. Of course there are ways to get a majority in these systems with runoffs and the sort, but they all have their flaws, including the electoral college.

If you think this system is bad, then you must also thing our system of representatives is bad. We might as well abolish the Senate, they give all their power to the little states (population-wise, NOT AREA WISE e.g. Wyoming may be bigger, but less people live there than Rhode Island). I mean seriously, California has the least amount of power in the Senate if you are talking about person per senate seat.

The point I'm trying to make is that this argument is ridiculous. The general population has lost hold of the fact that we are a collection of states. This is mostly because the federal government has been using power that should be delegated to the states because of one small clause in the Constitution. It's also because distances that used to seem long, (Atlanta to Los Angeles), is now just a 3 hour flight with a cool censored movie in-flight.

Go out and vote and make a difference.

First thank you for your kind words ... but you do realize I'm the guy who was pushing the Needle Exchange Program resolution through the UN, no? ;) And I do have an idea who voted no and yes. (Just teasing ya here.)

As an aside, I'm a volunteer poll worker here in California (as well as a state employee the rest of the time). Elections are democracy in action ... and I encourage everybody to try working an election once.

You are completely correct to point out that people whom have a bone to pick with the EC, *also* should not be happy with the Congress's division into two houses: the House and the Senate.

I do think it is problematic, but not on the same order of magnitude. When I suggested I want *our* 2% vote back (for California), I'm less concerned about the Senate, because Congress *is* the Compromise, not the Executive branch. There are a few balances at work:

(1) The House of Representatives and Senate must agree.

(2) Smaller States have less population, and a smaller pool of people *might* mean that you have a harder time finding that really great political shaker and mover.

(3) Larger States *may* have more corporations, which means more $$$ for Senators and Representatives to play around with.

Another way to think of this might be to say, that I don't mind the inconsistencies in Congress nearly as much, because power is spread out more through both formal and informal channels. While 12% of the US population speaks through 2 people, and in other states a much smaller number does so, the Senate is checked by the House. This is good IMHO.

The President on the other hand, isn't *supposed* to be a law maker. The Executive should be out representing the nation in international affairs and seeing to it that the laws are basically enforced. I'd much rather see a directly elected President (bearing in mind that many non-Americans don't completely appreciate that Dallas, Texas and San Francisco, California, are *less* alike than Berlin, Germany and Paris, France).

But if you think about it, swing states often do represent a bit of a middle ground ... and maybe this is a good thing. I certainly feel that of all of the Federal politicians, that the US President should be the *most* moderate.

I think ultimately you are right ... there are softer spots in the US system that need more attention than the EC, but I personally would rather leave Congress as is and revamp the EC in one of two ways: (1) hasta la vista baby, or (2) pressure the states into dropping the all or nothing systems. This might not be the brightest idea, but it would be curious to bring the system back to what I always thought the Constitution was hoping for: a President to represent us all, and a Congress to represent the individual parts.

It really still comes down to, even if you don't directly elect a President, your vote and participation in the process still can make a difference.

p.s. I like wikipedia as well!

See my thread:

Why I like the Electoral College (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343987)

67% say it's not. That's enough to outlaw it in the senate.

Here’s how the electoral college system works based on what I learned from high school. Each state has a number of senators (2) and representatives (1+). In the senate each state has an equal say, in the house of representatives seats are decided by the states population. It’s a system so that in in the senate every state has an equal say as to passing laws. In the house greater voting power is given to states with larger populations making it more fair to states with larger populations. The electoral college is based on the number of senators and the total number of representatives that each state has. It blends equality and fairness into something that obviously isn’t equal and fair. The electoral college was established because “our founding fathers didn’t trust the people to have a direct control over who became the president.” So the electoral college is set up so that we vote for who we want our elected officials to vote for, and they’re the ones who actually vote for who becomes president. A Wyoming vote is still worth as much a Rhode Island vote. It’s just that what they’re voting for is worth less. In essence electing a president is similar to passing any other law, only faster and with more direct involvement. Therefore making it more fair than the rest of the legislative process.

Majority rule is oppression democracy is flawed it leads to oppression. The majority is often wrong obviously and I'd prefer anarchy or the current system over the one that seems to be most popular. Anarchy being best really.

Majority rule is oppression democracy is flawed it leads to oppression. The majority is often wrong obviously and I'd prefer anarchy or the current system over the one that seems to be most popular. Anarchy being best really.
I've asked this of everyone who has said this so far so I have to ask you: Do you support inequality in the value of American votes?

I've asked this of everyone who has said this so far so I have to ask you: Do you support inequality in the value of American votes?
Americans don’t even vote for presidents. They vote for the people who vote for presidents. And their votes are all equal.

I agree with you but, some states, such as California have bigger populations thatn Rhode Island, If 2 states;Rhode Island and Massachusettes vote for Kerry, and 2 states;California and Texas vote for Bush. Who will win? The bigger states of course!

Americans don’t even vote for presidents. They vote for the people who vote for presidents. And their votes are all equal.
Their votes aren't equal. In Wyoming, half a million citizens votes for 3 electors but in Rhode Island, a million citizens vote for 4 electors. If the votes were equal and a half million choose 3 electors, than Rhode Islanders million should vote for 6 electors.

Their votes aren't equal. In Wyoming, half a million citizens votes for 3 electors but in Rhode Island, a million citizens vote for 4 electors. If the votes were equal and a half million choose 3 electors, than Rhode Islanders million should vote for 6 electors.
Keep in mind that people aren’t voting directly. They’re voting for the electorates of the real election. And in that effect their votes are equal. One person = one vote in each individual states election. But those votes don’t mean anything in the real election. In fact the electorates can even vote against what the people in their state voted on.

Keep in mind that people aren’t voting directly. They’re voting for the electorates of the real election. And in that effect their votes are equal. One person = one vote in each individual states election. But those votes don’t mean anything in the real election. In fact the electorates can even vote against what the people in their state voted on.
Almost all states have laws saying that the elector votes the way the people voted. Additionally, the citizens in State A have votes equal to other citizens in State A, however, State A's citizens' votes are not equal to State B's citizens' votes.

Almost all states have laws saying that the elector votes the way the people voted. Additionally, the citizens in State A have votes equal to other citizens in State A, however, State A's citizens' votes are not equal to State B's citizens' votes.
They’re technically not even voting for the same thing though. Anyways try getting this past the senate. I’m sure that all of the smaller states will be willing to give up all of their extra voting power.

They’re technically not even voting for the same thing though. Anyways try getting this past the senate. I’m sure that all of the smaller states will be willing to give up all of their extra voting power.
Well...Arkansas is a fairly small state and I'm going to get all my stuff real organized and mail both of my senators as well as the congressmen for my district.

The electoral college was created to solve two real problems:
-At the time the constitution was created, the population was largely uneducated and (due to poor means of trasportation) ill informed. The electoral college guaranteed that educated and aware people would decide the leadership of the nation, while allowing the people to express their desires as well. This problem has since been addressed (to some extent at least) by public education and this provision has been removed by legally binding electoral voters to the state's popular vote. (If memory serves, one electoral voter did go against their state's popular vote in the 2000 election, and was fined.)
-Also, at the time the constitution was created, there were no "united" states, there was a loosely affiliated collection of independently functioning nations. As such, each state wished to be assured that it would not be rendered impotent under a national government (the small, less populated states in particular were concerned). To guarantee the acceptance of the constitution and the successful formation of a nation, the Electoral College was added to guarantee that the intrests of any given state would not be overwhelmed by another.

An example of that last one is probably needed. Say, for instance, your state had 1/100 the population of state B. This means that in an election, the votes coming from your state (which would be influenced by the local and state-wide problems of your state) would be effectively ignored by all political bodies. The electoral college guarantees that every state has a meaningful say in presidential elections, and therefore can guarantee some intrest (at a national level) in the problems facing it.

-------
It should be noted that the oft quoted 2000 election statistics do show that Gore caried the two states with the largest electoral votes California and New York (54 and 33 votes, respectively) while Bush caried the majority of States.

And just because I get sick of hearing people accuse Bush (or his party, or Gore and his party) of rigging or changing the recount results for Florida, here are some wonderful numbers. During the course of the recount 3,583 "new ballots" were found, of these 1,063 were recounted as votes for Bush and the remaing 2,520 were counted for Gore. In short, there's no hard evidence that anyone, at any level, did anything to in anyway rig the Florida recount.

Sorry for that rant, it just gets to me after awhile. :-/

-The Disordered Orderer

Well...I only skimmed that and probably missed your point if you had that because it seemed fairly demagogic. I don't think people get it. I know how the electoral college works. I know why it was put in place. If you want to disagree with me concerning removing the Electoral College that's fine, but I don't need a history lesson.

the founding fathers never intended there be a strong federal goverment. there intent was to leave most of the power in the hands of the states. there was a large difernce in the populations of the 13 states. the smaller states wanted equal say in the election of the president and the larger states wanted more say. the EC was a compromise between the 2.

the EC helps prevent tyranny of the masses. once people realize they can vote them selfs money and benifets they do. now lets say california has more than half of the population of the U.S. and has a major disaster or financal mistake. instead of them paying to repair the damages or say pay the bill for what ever. a candidate says he will have the rest of the country pay for it and it will not coast them a dime. having more than half the population they can vote him in all by them selfs. the EC prevents this.
this may be a little far fetched but some thing on a smaller scale would happen. i just put it in a way all could understand why the founding fathers made the EC.
for those of you to young to have experianced much of the world yet people are by nature greedy. not saying all are but enough that it could be a problem.

the founding fathers never intended there be a strong federal goverment. there intent was to leave most of the power in the hands of the states. there was a large difernce in the populations of the 13 states. the smaller states wanted equal say in the election of the president and the larger states wanted more say. the EC was a compromise between the 2.

the EC helps prevent tyranny of the masses. once people realize they can vote them selfs money and benifets they do. now lets say california has more than half of the population of the U.S. and has a major disaster or financal mistake. instead of them paying to repair the damages or say pay the bill for what ever. a candidate says he will have the rest of the country pay for it and it will not coast them a dime. having more than half the population they can vote him in all by them selfs. the EC prevents this.
this may be a little far fetched but some thing on a smaller scale would happen. i just put it in a way all could understand why the founding fathers made the EC.
for those of you to young to have experianced much of the world yet people are by nature greedy. not saying all are but enough that it could be a problem.
1) California has no where near half the population of the United States, much less more than half.
2) A president can say whatever he wants but laws and such can not be passed by a president. He is an executive, not a legistlator. California still only get 2% of the say in the senate and about 8% of the say in the House of Representatives.
3) If California did make up more than half of this country, should they just run the country anyway?

1) California has no where near half the population of the United States, much less more than half.
2) A president can say whatever he wants but laws and such can not be passed by a president. He is an executive, not a legistlator. California still only get 2% of the say in the senate and about 8% of the say in the House of Representatives.
3) If California did make up more than half of this country, should they just run the country anyway?
dam i know you understand that i was talking hypothetically. it was a example of what COULD happen with out the EC.