NationStates Jolt Archive

1876

Rutherford B. Hayes, Republican, 185 electorate, 4,033,768 votes
Samuel J. Tilden, Democrat, 184 electorate, 4,285,992 votes

Hayes lost the election by 252,224 votes. However, a special electoral commission was formed and the Republican was given the White House.

1888

Benjamin Harrison, Republican, 233 electorate, 5,440,216 votes
Grover Clevland, Democrat, 168 electorate, 5,538,233 votes

Harrison lost the election by 98,017 votes. The Republican still got the White House.

2000

George W. Bush, Republican, 271 electorate, 50,456,002 votes
Albert A. Gore, Democrat, 266 electorate, 50,999,897 votes

Bush lost the election by 543,895 votes. On December 12, 2000, the US Supreme Court gave the White House to the Republican.

---

*coff*

Face the facts that the Founders didn't want our President's directly elected.

The EC is biased in favour of the Republicans. Why, you ask? Well, small states like Wyoming have a disproportionately large amount of voting power.

Wyoming
Population: 493,782
EC Votes: 3
Population per EC vote: 164,594
Political loyalty: Republican

New York
Population: 18,976,457
EC Votes: 31
Population per EC vote: 612,144
Political loyalty: Democrat

A Wyoming vote is worth about 3.7 times what a New York vote is. As you see, Wyoming is a Republican state. This creates a bias in favour of Republicans nationally. What's worse, there are more similar states, such as Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, and so on. There are big states like New York, such as California and Illinois which are Democrat and suffer from less voting power than their less populous rural friends.

The current system is biased in favour of the Republican party.

Face the facts that the Founders didn't want our President's directly elected.
That's because they thought it would avoid "disruption" and that electors would have a better knowledge of politics than the average person.

However, I'd say having an unelected president is pretty disruptive. And, now that most states have penalties if electors don't vote for their party (the party that won the popular vote in the state), that sort of cancels out that second reason too, wouldn't you say?

We really need to get rid of the electoral college - and I say this being registered to vote in a small state with a disproportionate say in the present system.

1876

Rutherford B. Hayes, Republican, 185 electorate, 4,033,768 votes
Samuel J. Tilden, Democrat, 184 electorate, 4,285,992 votes

Hayes lost the election by 252,224 votes. However, a special electoral commission was formed and the Republican was given the White House.

1888

Benjamin Harrison, Republican, 233 electorate, 5,440,216 votes
Grover Clevland, Democrat, 168 electorate, 5,538,233 votes

Harrison lost the election by 98,017 votes. The Republican still got the White House.

2000

George W. Bush, Republican, 271 electorate, 50,456,002 votes
Albert A. Gore, Democrat, 266 electorate, 50,999,897 votes

Bush lost the election by 543,895 votes. On December 12, 2000, the US Supreme Court gave the White House to the Republican.

---

*coff*

If your point is that the Electoral College disproportionally helps the current Republican Party, you're right.

If your point is that this has happened throughout history and there is a legacy of Republican suppression of the popular vote, you're wrong.

Just remember that the Republican Party after Reconstruction was almost completely different than the Republican Party we have today. They were the ones who called for Emancipation for crying out loud!

Ugh, didn't you hear? This whole topic was argued to death during the founding of our nation. Give it a rest, it's not going to change, and all the protesting in the world wont make it change. Our voting system isn't very accurate anyways, so 98,000 votes does not meen much when compared to the 250+ million people in the US.
That is all I have to say on this topic. Good day.

The EC is biased in favour of the Republicans. Why, you ask? Well, small states like Wyoming have a disproportionately large amount of voting power.

Wyoming
Population: 493,782
EC Votes: 3
Population per EC vote: 164,594
Political loyalty: Republican

New York
Population: 18,976,457
EC Votes: 31
Population per EC vote: 612,144
Political loyalty: Democrat

A Wyoming vote is worth about 3.7 times what a New York vote is. As you see, Wyoming is a Republican state. This creates a bias in favour of Republicans nationally. What's worse, there are more similar states, such as Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, and so on. There are big states like New York, such as California and Illinois which are Democrat and suffer from less voting power than their less populous rural friends.

The current system is biased in favour of the Republican party.

Wyoming
Population : 493,782
EC Votes : 3
Political Loyalty : Republican
Democratic Votes : 60,481
Republican Votes : 147,947

New York
Population : 18,976,457
EC Votes : 31
Political Loyalty : Democrat
Democratic Votes : 4,107,697
Republican Votes : 2,403,374

The simple fact that the Democrats won New York means that in the winner-take all system, 2,403,374 - almost five times the population of Wyoming in total - Republican votes go for nought. Nice benefit for the Republicans. :rolleyes:

Ugh, didn't you hear? This whole topic was argued to death during the founding of our nation. Which means it's somehow invalid now, 200 years later? I don't think so; a ton of things have changed over those 200 years.

Give it a rest, it's not going to change, and all the protesting in the world wont make it change. That's not true; it's called 'getting involved in the political process' and 'a constituational amendment'.

Our voting system isn't very accurate anyways, so 98,000 votes does not meen much when compared to the 250+ million people in the US.Which means that we should give up trying to fix it and basically forget about the democratic process? Hell, let's just crown Bush dictator-for-life while we're at it.


When something is wrong with a 200 year old system, you don't sit down and shut up about it. You stand up and try to change it.

Hey, don't feel bad; John Quincy Adams didn't win the popular vote or the electoral vote.

Which means it's somehow invalid now, 200 years later? I don't think so; a ton of things have changed over those 200 years.

That's not true; it's called 'getting involved in the political process' and 'a constituational amendment'.

Which means that we should give up trying to fix it and basically forget about the democratic process? Hell, let's just crown Bush dictator-for-life while we're at it.


When something is wrong with a 200 year old system, you don't sit down and shut up about it. You stand up and try to change it.

That's not what I meant. So, you want a constitutional ammendment, but think about it: Why would our legislature(spelling?) vote to limit their own power? That is what I meant. There is still some sense to it anyways. That system was passed to somewhat equalize the power of each state while still giving larger states a fair ammount more power. Last time I checked, the United States is still made up of states. How is it invalid now? If anything, abolishing the electoral system would only bring us closer to dictatorships by putting even more power in the federal government, instead of keeping the ballance between state and federal governments.

Parliamentary direct democracy NOW!

The EC is biased in favour of the Republicans. Why, you ask? Well, small states like Wyoming have a disproportionately large amount of voting power.

Wyoming
Population: 493,782
EC Votes: 3
Population per EC vote: 164,594
Political loyalty: Republican

New York
Population: 18,976,457
EC Votes: 31
Population per EC vote: 612,144
Political loyalty: Democrat

A Wyoming vote is worth about 3.7 times what a New York vote is. As you see, Wyoming is a Republican state. This creates a bias in favour of Republicans nationally. What's worse, there are more similar states, such as Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, and so on. There are big states like New York, such as California and Illinois which are Democrat and suffer from less voting power than their less populous rural friends.

The current system is biased in favour of the Republican party.
except the winner of the elctoral college system is the one with the most electoral votes, not the one being supported by the states with the most power. can you say illusion?

Face the facts that the Founders didn't want our President's directly elected.

false. the electoral college was created as a compromise between the various ideas held by various members of the constitutional convention. many held that direct election would be the best. the guy who gerrymandering is named after claimed that the public was to stupid to directly elect a national leader. a bunch thought that the president should be appointed by congress. there was even a suggestion that the governors of each state would choose the president. a bunch of southerners opposed direct election because they wanted slaves to count without slaves getting to vote - otherwise the south would be totally out voted on every issue. and since the 3/5 compromise had already been made, a system that awarded a number of votes on the basis of population regardless of the number of people voting suited them just fine. and thus was born the electoral college. just another pro-slavery compromise.

I want to interject, that the Republican and Democratic parties basically switched in the 50s in response to civil rights.

The GOP just absorbed the racists. And the progressives jumped ship for the Democrats.


In any case, Republican or Democrat, you must admit it irritates you that your vote doesn't count if you are not in a battle-ground state.

For instance, Republicans in Hawaii, and Democrats in Alaska. YOUR VOTE DOES NOT COUNT. As well, even the Democrats in Hawaii and the Republicans in Alaska, your vote really doesn't count either, cause your state is already going your way. Consequently, the presidential candidates never come to your state, cause they either assume they own you, or that they never will get you.

Just makes ya feel worthless, that's all.

false. the electoral college was created as a compromise between the various ideas held by various members of the constitutional convention. many held that direct election would be the best. the guy who gerrymandering is named after claimed that the public was to stupid to directly elect a national leader. a bunch thought that the president should be appointed by congress. there was even a suggestion that the governors of each state would choose the president. a bunch of southerners opposed direct election because they wanted slaves to count without slaves getting to vote - otherwise the south would be totally out voted on every issue. and since the 3/5 compromise had already been made, a system that awarded a number of votes on the basis of population regardless of the number of people voting suited them just fine. and thus was born the electoral college. just another pro-slavery compromise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

not only is elbridge gerry remembered by the continual jerrymandering of the country,but he also was the second vice-president to die in office. may all vp's strive to achieve his greatness.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/19/MNGIN8RF6D1.DTL


Well, I'm sure most of you would be interested to know that Colorado may, in November, switch from the winner-take-all electoral system (currently in force everywhere except Maine and Nebraska, which award electoral votes by congressional district -- one to the winner of each House district plus two statewide votes) to a proportional system (Colorado would be the first state to do this).

Now this is big, people. Big. Why?

Because if this change is approved, it will go into effect for the 2004 presidential election.

And had it been in effect in 2000, George W. Bush would not the President of the United States.

It may end up with Nader or another minor candidate getting some votes. It should be very interesting.



Actually, we had a debate about this in Government class last year. It was fairly obvious that the teacher wanted the "keep the College" side to win, but I'll be damned if I can remember any of the arguments they made. They were good ones, though.

And I'm quite interested in this, because I come from the great state of Florida and, in fact, Palm Beach County, the very county that brought you the butterfly ballot. (Don't worry, that particular supervisor of elections was defeated in the August elections, but she stays on until January. We shall have to see.) You may not know that our governor J.E.B. (stands for John Ellis Bush, by the way) had a slate of 25 Republican electors ready to go before the vote-counting was done.

All definitely worth a look, in my opinion.

As to the reasons for keeping the electoral college--and I'm one of those Democrats living in a safe state that is underrepresented--the reason to keep it is in my mind twofold.

First, and most importantly, any move to direct election would have to require a pure majority of votes in my opinion--none of this plurality stuff anymore--and that means either a runoff system or instant runoff voting, either of which would be fine by me (although I'd prefer IRV).

Secondly, the electoral college protects the rights of places that have no population centers from the tyranny of the majority. It forces candidates to acknowledge them and pay attention to their needs. The downside is that minority parties in the largest states get shafted, but there's a solution to that.

Do what Maine already does and what Colorado is thinking about doing--get rid of the winner-take-all electoral system. That's the best option in my book--but only if the whole country does it. The effect in Maine on the nationwide election is small because so few electoral votes are at stake, but imagine if Texas went to that right before an election--suddenly those electoral votes wouldn't be "safe" anymore. Only part of them would be. And if Texas did it while say, California didn't, then the Democrats would be at a huge advantage. I want to win, but I want to do it fairly.

That's because they thought it would avoid "disruption" and that electors would have a better knowledge of politics than the average person.

However, I'd say having an unelected president is pretty disruptive. And, now that most states have penalties if electors don't vote for their party (the party that won the popular vote in the state), that sort of cancels out that second reason too, wouldn't you say?

We really need to get rid of the electoral college - and I say this being registered to vote in a small state with a disproportionate say in the present system.

Heck no!! I come from a small state (CT), and without it, there is no reason to HAVE elections. Just let CA, NY and Texas decide.

Simple concept: That more people elect a candidate is no more valid than if more square acreage vote for a particular candidate. The whole idea behind the EC is so that LARGE states don't dominate the nation. That's why we have a SENATE. Maybe there is a fairer way to elect a President, but making it a straight vote count is NOT it. Not given the usual issues in American politics -- rich vs. poor, racial, what state you hail from...etc.

As to the reasons for keeping the electoral college--and I'm one of those Democrats living in a safe state that is underrepresented--the reason to keep it is in my mind twofold.

First, and most importantly, any move to direct election would have to require a pure majority of votes in my opinion--none of this plurality stuff anymore--and that means either a runoff system or instant runoff voting, either of which would be fine by me (although I'd prefer IRV).

Secondly, the electoral college protects the rights of places that have no population centers from the tyranny of the majority. It forces candidates to acknowledge them and pay attention to their needs. The downside is that minority parties in the largest states get shafted, but there's a solution to that.

Do what Maine already does and what Colorado is thinking about doing--get rid of the winner-take-all electoral system. That's the best option in my book--but only if the whole country does it. The effect in Maine on the nationwide election is small because so few electoral votes are at stake, but imagine if Texas went to that right before an election--suddenly those electoral votes wouldn't be "safe" anymore. Only part of them would be. And if Texas did it while say, California didn't, then the Democrats would be at a huge advantage. I want to win, but I want to do it fairly.

Bravo :cool:

I think the system Colorado is proposing, or something very similar, is a much better idea than the current electoral college setup, but again, only if all states implement it.

wow...idiots. it is the fucking constitution. it is what our entire country is based upon. it is not going to change. the United States is a Republic not a true Democracy. if you don't like it...move to france.

wow...idiots. it is the fucking constitution. it is what our entire country is based upon. it is not going to change.

perhaps you have heard of amendments? they can change the constitution. in fact, they've had a couple of them already - including one about the electoral college in particular.

man, why is it always the anarchist that has to explain basic stuff about the government you people support?

perhaps you have heard of amendments? they can change the constitution. in fact, they've had a couple of them already - including one about the electoral college in particular.

man, why is it always the anarchist that has to explain basic stuff about the government you people support?
Because the loudmouthed morons don't have any real sense of what governance entails. They've been spoonfed Limbaugh and O'Reilley and think it's substantive discussion. What can you do?

As to the reasons for keeping the electoral college--and I'm one of those Democrats living in a safe state that is underrepresented--the reason to keep it is in my mind twofold.

First, and most importantly, any move to direct election would have to require a pure majority of votes in my opinion--none of this plurality stuff anymore--and that means either a runoff system or instant runoff voting, either of which would be fine by me (although I'd prefer IRV).

Secondly, the electoral college protects the rights of places that have no population centers from the tyranny of the majority. It forces candidates to acknowledge them and pay attention to their needs. The downside is that minority parties in the largest states get shafted, but there's a solution to that.

Do what Maine already does and what Colorado is thinking about doing--get rid of the winner-take-all electoral system. That's the best option in my book--but only if the whole country does it. The effect in Maine on the nationwide election is small because so few electoral votes are at stake, but imagine if Texas went to that right before an election--suddenly those electoral votes wouldn't be "safe" anymore. Only part of them would be. And if Texas did it while say, California didn't, then the Democrats would be at a huge advantage. I want to win, but I want to do it fairly.

dear god(whom I dont believe in) no.

One of the whole reasons that America is so great is because of all the checks and balances built into the system.

The electorial college is one of them. We have proportional representation in the house and senate. If we had this in the executive branch, it would devolve into another branch of government solely dependant on the popular vote.

1) dense urban area's would receive all the benefits of both the legislative branch AND the executive branch. There would be no competing interests. side note: I live in a dense urban area.

2) think of all the voter fraud/contested elections. They would happen everywhere in a close election, instead of in a few select state/counties.

3) it would definately give rise to more parties(kinda good). But it would force our executive branch to form consencus on every major issue. We would be hamstrung like the UK, most of of europe, India is. This would be okay if the US was some two bit country that wasnt the defacto leader in world issues, but then again we arent some two bit country BECAUSE of our govt structure. Please understand, we took the "garbage" from all other countries and turned them into something great BECAUSE of our system.

Side note: winner takes all gives a huge advantage to dems(except for the 2000 election) because NY, IL, and CA automatically goes to the DEMS. Thats over 40% of electorial votes needed to win. Under a proportional system, 1/3 of NY and 1/2 of CA would go to republicans(I dont know about IL)

Like I said, I'm a fan of the electoral college in general, and I don't blame it for the current Commander in Chief--that's the Supreme Court's fault. I was merely suggesting potential changes in case we wanted to go to something else.

Like I said, I'm a fan of the electoral college in general, and I don't blame it for the current Commander in Chief--that's the Supreme Court's fault. I was merely suggesting potential changes in case we wanted to go to something else.


Given the improvement in technology, things might change SOMETIME in the futres. I dont think we are there yet though.

I dont know how to get around the checks and balances thing though. The more I read/learn about our election(legislative, judicial and exectutive) the more I appreciate the brilliance of our founding fathers. Their understanding of human nature was simply outstanding.

They even micromanaged the differant election cycles between executive, senatorial, and house members to ensure competing interests.

I look at countries where the majority elect BOTH the legislative bodies AND the ececutive branch and it looks so twisted to my eyes.

It's dangerous at best to have the majority in control of everything. I never really appreciated that until just a few years ago when I discovered just how assholish a large portion of the country could be if they tried.

Face the facts that the Founders didn't want our President's directly elected.

Sounds like they were all Republicans to me.

wow...idiots. it is the fucking constitution. it is what our entire country is based upon. it is not going to change. the United States is a Republic not a true Democracy. if you don't like it...move to france.

No way...the constitution is over 200 years old...and if it's old, it must be right.

Ugh, didn't you hear? This whole topic was argued to death during the founding of our nation. Give it a rest, it's not going to change, and all the protesting in the world wont make it change. Our voting system isn't very accurate anyways, so 98,000 votes does not meen much when compared to the 250+ million people in the US.
That is all I have to say on this topic. Good day.


Oh so you have spoken.... ask me if I really care

That's not what I meant. So, you want a constitutional ammendment, but think about it: Why would our legislature(spelling?) vote to limit their own power? That is what I meant. There is still some sense to it anyways. That system was passed to somewhat equalize the power of each state while still giving larger states a fair ammount more power. Last time I checked, the United States is still made up of states. How is it invalid now? If anything, abolishing the electoral system would only bring us closer to dictatorships by putting even more power in the federal government, instead of keeping the ballance between state and federal governments.

It still needs to be changed Gronde because to many politicians have the
process figured out so they can use it to cheat... ie.... bush.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]I want to interject, that the Republican and Democratic parties basically switched in the 50s in response to civil rights.

The GOP just absorbed the racists. And the progressives jumped ship for the Democrats.


In any case, Republican or Democrat, you must admit it irritates you that your vote doesn't count if you are not in a battle-ground state.

For instance, Republicans in Hawaii, and Democrats in Alaska. YOUR VOTE DOES NOT COUNT. As well, even the Democrats in Hawaii and the Republicans in Alaska, your vote really doesn't count either, cause your state is already going your way. Consequently, the presidential candidates never come to your state, cause they either assume they own you, or that they never will get you.


Hey I live in Ohio and my vote didn't wasn't counted this last election. It pisses me off that they just brush us off as if we are nothing. Bush is a snake in the grass thats going to end up biting us all square in the ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Very Interesting

Try being decline to state in CA, and supporting any republican over any democrat for any reason. Then complain about beeing disenfranchised.

Seeing as voting is theoreticallly no different than polling now any way (Three % difference in popular vote is within margin of error, but allows for an electoral victory, and the entire populace does not vote)- why not cast electoral votes by congressional district? This way the representative vote reflects the sentiment of his district.

wow...idiots. it is the fucking constitution. it is what our entire country is based upon. it is not going to change. the United States is a Republic not a true Democracy. if you don't like it...move to france.

I don't like it .... and I'm going to stay right here just to piss people like you off! Deal with it jerk ass .... elections are supposed to be about what the
TRUE majority of the PEOPLE want. Not what some underhanded lowlife
politician ( bush ) wants.

No way...the constitution is over 200 years old...and if it's old, it must be right.

If that were true their wouldn't be any amendments to the constitution
...... think about it.

I truely don't know what the best change would be. All I know is that the
system as is ..... isn't working.

Not working because the country has grown such that the method is no longer valid. Or, because you disagree with the outcome?
If it is the latter, drop it. If it is the former. State complaints as to the process, so that others may take them into consideration when postulating a solution.

Keep in mind that without a true majority in a two party system, the popular vote is within the margin of error, and is not a valid representation of what the nation desires. Which is in part why the EC was adopted.

Read the federalist papers.

Not working because the country has grown such that the method is no longer valid. Or, because you disagree with the outcome?
If it is the latter, drop it. If it is the former. State complaints as to the process, so that others may take them into consideration when postulating a solution.

What I disagree with is the fact that even in a so called battlefield state
my vote and many others vote wasn't counted. So I would say that its not
working because the method is being used by politicians to cheat. Oh and
who exactly are you to tell me to drop it?

Keep in mind that without a true majority in a two party system, the popular vote is within the margin of error, and is not a valid representation of what the nation desires. Which is in part why the EC was adopted.

Read the federalist papers.

Well if thats the case then I'd say we need to add some more parties to the system.

I think we need to double the size of the House. That way, we bring our people-per-rep more in line with every other First World democracy, and the resulting redistribution of electoral votes would bring the voters/vote towards parity.

And it would be very difficult for special interests to unduly interfere in 800 political races every two years...

I think we need to double the size of the House. That way, we bring our people-per-rep more in line with every other First World democracy, and the resulting redistribution of electoral votes would bring the voters/vote towards parity.

And it would be very difficult for special interests to unduly interfere in 800 political races every two years...

That requires doubling the size of the House in which the House is... eh... housed. And right as it may be, I think those opposed could argue against it just on those grounds.

one thing I just wanted to bring up, isn't the number of electorial colage votes figured out by a formula of some number + however many x amout of people they have in their population? I may be wrong on this or thinking of something else, but if im correct, then the disperportunate power of people per EC vote would not be particularly in favor of a certin party but it just happens to be that way in some states.

[

George W. Bush, Republican, 271 electorate, 50,456,002 votes
Albert A. Gore, Democrat, 266 electorate, 50,999,897 votes

Bush lost the election by 543,895 votes. On December 12, 2000, the US Supreme Court gave the White House to the Republican.


No, he won by 5 votes and the electoral college gave the White House to a Republican.

wow...idiots. it is the fucking constitution. it is what our entire country is based upon. it is not going to change. the United States is a Republic not a true Democracy. if you don't like it...move to france.
wow...idiot. France is a Republic too....duh

I want to interject, that the Republican and Democratic parties basically switched in the 50s in response to civil rights.

The GOP just absorbed the racists. And the progressives jumped ship for the Democrats.
It actually began in the 1910s. That's when the Progressives, led by Teddy Roosevelt, from the Republican party split from the fiscally conservative section. The progressives joined the Democrats. This way the North-East gradually turned solidly Democratic. The Democrats held onto the South until the 60s. This gave Democrats dominance of US politics from the 30s until the late 60s (after which the South turned solidly Republican).

I don't want to get particularly involved in this, but I'd like to add my support to those who've stated how wrong it seems to them that you can vote in the US presidential election and never have your vote counted, because of the current system.

Whatever alternative you suggest, that at the very least is wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this year the winner was declared before several states had even been counted?

"Winner takes all" and the battle-ground states/secure states are both difficult-to-morally-justify oddities in the US political system. But then again, presidents (in my opinion) have too much power, particularly considering how narrowly they can win by.

What it does assure is that every four years a very definite and unshakable power is in control of the USA, but it's seriously dubious if even a strong minority is strongly against the policies of that power.

I truely don't know what the best change would be. All I know is that the
system as is ..... isn't working.
I know, Kerry came perilously close to winning the EC without having a majority of the popular vote. It would have been a disaster! Bush carried 50% more states than Kerry!

Ugh, you guys couldn't just let this thread die in dignity, could you. *sigh*
Well, while I'm here. . .
Perhaps we should move this topic away from simply complaining about our electoral system, and begin descussing what needs to be changed and how to execute those changes.

If that were true their wouldn't be any amendments to the constitution
...... think about it.


Erm...next time remind me to use "/sarcasm" so everyone will pick up on it...

Keep the electoral college, making 340 electoral votes the winning number. IF either candidate fails to get 340, take the top two candidates with the most POPULAR votes and have a steel-cage-last-man-standing-base-ball match. Pay-per-view, of course. Proceeds to go to relieve African poverty!

:D

Which means it's somehow invalid now, 200 years later? I don't think so; a ton of things have changed over those 200 years.

That's not true; it's called 'getting involved in the political process' and 'a constituational amendment'.

Which means that we should give up trying to fix it and basically forget about the democratic process? Hell, let's just crown Bush dictator-for-life while we're at it.


When something is wrong with a 200 year old system, you don't sit down and shut up about it. You stand up and try to change it.
Oh man. After this post, of all the mods, UP has to be my fave. Not that I'm brown-nosing or anything. ;)

It actually began in the 1910s. That's when the Progressives, led by Teddy Roosevelt, from the Republican party split from the fiscally conservative section. The progressives joined the Democrats. This way the North-East gradually turned solidly Democratic. The Democrats held onto the South until the 60s. This gave Democrats dominance of US politics from the 30s until the late 60s (after which the South turned solidly Republican).
The south mysteriously went republican after 1964 why?

The south mysteriously went republican after 1964 why?
Are you stoned, stupid or just a liar? - because that statement is defiantly not a fact.

Keep the electoral college, making 340 electoral votes the winning number. IF either candidate fails to get 340, take the top two candidates with the most POPULAR votes and have a steel-cage-last-man-standing-base-ball match. Pay-per-view, of course. Proceeds to go to relieve African poverty!

:D

African poverty? Screw that, take care of AMERICAN poverty!!

The Electoral College is a good system because it forces candidates to pay attention to areas with small populations. If we went by popular vote the only places that would get any atention would be the two coasts.

Are you stoned, stupid or just a liar? - because that statement is defiantly not a fact.
Sorry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1960-Large.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1964-Large.png

Hmm

Sorry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1960-Large.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1964-Large.png

Hmm

Damn, I didn't know how close the '60 election was. At least VA didn't vote Kennedy.

I know, Kerry came perilously close to winning the EC without having a majority of the popular vote. It would have been a disaster! Bush carried 50% more states than Kerry!
Yeah, he took a greater number of states, but many of those states are mostly empty of people.

George W. Bush, Republican, 271 electorate, 50,456,002 votes
Albert A. Gore, Democrat, 266 electorate, 50,999,897 votes

Bush lost the election by 543,895 votes. On December 12, 2000, the US Supreme Court gave the White House to the Republican.
The US Supreme Court did not give Bush the White House...they made a ruling which resulted him in winning the Florida and thus the election.

I truely don't know what the best change would be. All I know is that the
system as is ..... isn't working.
You mean, isn't working for you . Face it: a majority voted for Bush. Obviously, it's working for someone.

Well if thats the case then I'd say we need to add some more parties to the system.
And have a parliamentary system like the British!? I'm sure you would just love that....read up on Jefferson as well.

The US Supreme Court did not give Bush the White House...they made a ruling which resulted him in winning the Florida and thus the election.
Which was the only way Bush could win the Presidency--and they knew that going in. I suggest you read an article from last month's Vanity Fair (not available online, sorry) which has interviews with some of the Supreme Court clerks who were working during Bush v. Gore. It's amazing to see just how partisan these "justices" were.

The US Supreme Court did not give Bush the White House...they made a ruling which resulted him in winning the Florida and thus the election.They ruled to stop the recount in Florida, even though it would have gone for Gore otherwise. You need to readjust your defintion of 'give' if that doesn't seem highly subjective to you.

You mean, isn't working for you . Face it: a majority voted for Bush. Obviously, it's working for someone.So what do you say to everyone who in 2000 voted for Gore, hmmm? You can't have it both ways. He lost the majority in 2000, so the argument that the democracy is working certainly doesn't hold water - but as long as he wins the majority in 2004, the democrocy is just fine!

Sounds a tad hypocritical to me.

Apperantly, the EC isn't totally biased to Republicans. For example, nearly all the swing states had razor-thin margins. If Kerry won Ohio and Iowa, Bush would have a three million vote lead, but Kerry would be president. Still, the EC is a great idea, and I'd have said that even if it made Nader win.

If Kerry won Ohio and Iowa, Bush would have a three million vote lead, but Kerry would be president. Still, the EC is a great idea, and I'd have said that even if it made Nader win.
But he... didn't, now did he... most likely on account of Diebold. If that's not bias I dunno what is...

Hey, don't feel bad; John Quincy Adams didn't win the popular vote or the electoral vote.

Licoln didn't have a majority in either catagory either lol.

One thing to remember: at the time of the founding of the Constitution, political parties were inconceivable. They were nonexistant. The only thing close were the Federalists and Anti-federalists, but that was nothing compared to what political parties have become today. It wasn't until Jefferson Democracy and Jacksonian Democracy, that there was a rift between groups that caused the modern "political party." So, basing the Electoral College on what the founding fathers wanted is not necessarily the best way to approach this issue. Remember that in the election of 1800, the 12th amendment was passed because of a flaw in the election design. If there is an apparant need for change, we need to do it through an amendment process, because the founding fathers did not see the problems of our time, particularly political parties.

One thing to remember: at the time of the founding of the Constitution, political parties were inconceivable. They were nonexistant. The only thing close were the Federalists and Anti-federalists, but that was nothing compared to what political parties have become today. It wasn't until Jefferson Democracy and Jacksonian Democracy, that there was a rift between groups that caused the modern "political party." So, basing the Electoral College on what the founding fathers wanted is not necessarily the best way to approach this issue. Remember that in the election of 1800, the 12th amendment was passed because of a flaw in the election design. If there is an apparant need for change, we need to do it through an amendment process, because the founding fathers did not see the problems of our time, particularly political parties.

They were political parties for their time, and a party system was heavily discused by the founding fathers.

Do not apply modern standards to history. To do so is misleading.

Oh man. After this post, of all the mods, UP has to be my fave. Not that I'm brown-nosing or anything. ;)Erm... yay? :p