NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of the U.S. Electoral College? Should it be kept, or should it be gotten rid of? Why or why not?

Note: Option #5 is a typo, it's meant to say: "I am not an American and I think the U.S. should not keep the Electoral College," rather than "I not am an American and I think the U.S. should not keep the Electoral College."

I'm sort of indifferent. I can imagine a case being made to either keep it or be rid of it.

Personally, I think the electorial college does good in that it does keep the smaller states involved in presidental politics and it means that canditates do actually have to pay attention to the issues of the smaller states along with the larger ones.

That said, it is also obvious that en electorial win does not always mean a popular vote win. I'd like to see a system where the popular vote winner is awarded 5 electorial votes to reflect the will of the people.

Oh, and I am an American BTW.

Undecided. On the one hand, I like the concept. The Presidency is an important office, and unlike many nations, our President is both the Chief of State and the Head of Government, in theory and practice. Great care must be taken in choosing the Commander-in-Chief, independent of potentially impassioned people or a self-interested Congress. The Electoral College was designed with great care to accomodate those concerns.
However, US Presidential elections have been like popular votes since at least the Gilded Age. The only time it has been important is as a stumbling block, like in the 2000 elections. So yeah, I hold hope that it might still work, but maybe I've held that hope for too long.

I'd like to see the votes of the states divided either by popular percent or congressional district. A couple states do this but they are states where there is an overwhelming majority of one party so the division hasn't happened.

I think that it has value, but that many of its bad points could be mitigated by dividing state electoral votes on a proportional basis.

I'm in favour of abolishing it for several reasons.

For one, it keeps the Two-Party System entrenched and quashes the number of so-called "Third Parties" from ever gaining a majority or holding office. You have the Republicans, traditionalist jerks, and the Democrats, progressive jerks. No Libertarians who arguably embody the very principles America was founded on; the Greens are for all intents and purposes a joke, and anyone who supports those parties is berated by the Two-Headed Monster for being "sissies" and "spoilers," variously.

I voted for Nader in 2000 because I couldn't stand Bush, and was wary of Gore (remember the PMRC?) at first and was full-blown against him when he hooked up with that nutcase Lieberman. Guess what happened? The day after Election Day, all my friends were chewing my ears off for helping Bush get elected. I spent a whole year and a half in this NONSENSICAL pissant fight that went "Bush is President and it's YOUR fault!" "No it isn't, we got stuck with a crappy ticket full of bad choices however way you sliced it!" Some of us finally reached a detente when they agreed Lieberman was a monster and I admitted that I should have held my nose and voted Democrat, instead of my conscience.

I grew up in California when Nader was the Consumer Advocate and he did a lot of good things for the people. I honestly thought he was the man to support. Was I right to have voted for him? Possibly, but because of the Electoral College, we'll never know because the Greens will never get in. He'll have to run as an independent...like Lieberman [shudder]...or like Perot...or Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party. If you want to get into the nuts 'n bolts, we could make an argument that it was TR and the Bull Mooses who threw the 2000 Election because their run for power turned the Repubs and Dems into an embattled and defensive minority...who joined forces into the Bicameral System to keep a hold on their bloc.

And it is a bloc. How many Independents are in Congress? How many Greens? How many Libertarians? How many Peace And Freedoms? A handful, compared to hundreds of Repubs and Demos.

At the same time...I'm not averse to the political stability that a Bicameral system provides. The same force that keeps the Libertarians and the Greens from gaining a foothold keeps Anarchists, Constitutional Party, Neo-Nazis, the Taliban and other political whackjobs on ice. Republicans who want to turn the U.S. into a Biblical Theocracy? That I can deal with. And I'd rather deal with that than sweat under the jaundiced eye of a couple hundred Neo-Fascists on the Hill with plans to purge the United States of Amerika of the Red Man, including mixed-bloods like me (and the majority of my friends), once and for all.

The value of the electoral college has been all but annihilated since radio was widely available to the masses. Nowadays it keeps the focus of the elections in "Swing states" while everyone else's votes are irrelevant. Occasionally even when a person is popularly wanted--such as, say, Al Gore--the electoral vote will screw up the election.

So, ditch. Ditch it completely. It's a worthless waste of time.

The value of the electoral college has been all but annihilated since radio was widely available to the masses. Nowadays it keeps the focus of the elections in "Swing states" while everyone else's votes are irrelevant. Occasionally even when a person is popularly wanted--such as, say, Al Gore--the electoral vote will screw up the election.

So, ditch. Ditch it completely. It's a worthless waste of time.
See, I disagree. The last election saw the candiates actually pay attention to Nevada and Nevadan issues. Without the college, candidates would pretty much ignore everything besides the large cities.

See, I disagree. The last election saw the candiates actually pay attention to Nevada and Nevadan issues. Without the college, candidates would pretty much ignore everything besides the large cities.

Bullshit. Every single vote would count, everywhere. Any value the electoral college gives is taken away by the fact that votes in a large number of states literally do not matter. It's the largest single reason for voter apathy in this nation.

...

Bah. It's not as if I care that much...I'm going to move to Canada in a few years anyway.

See, I disagree. The last election saw the candiates actually pay attention to Nevada and Nevadan issues. Without the college, candidates would pretty much ignore everything besides the large cities.
That does still, in many ways, happen. Sure, a place like Ohio can become the deciding factor, but New England (aside from New Hampshire, and then, only for the primary) is ignored...Boston is still a massive city, and it is all but entirely ignored in elections. Hell, even New York City is overall ignored.

The electoral system narrows elections to individual states. Without one, it seems that there are two ways to win: focus on cities or focus on rural areas

Bullshit. Every single vote would count, everywhere. Any value the electoral college gives is taken away by the fact that votes in a large number of states literally do not matter. It's the largest single reason for voter apathy in this nation.
That's because said states always vote a certain way. But, if you take away the electoral college, why would any canditate go out to a rual community tand talk when the votes are in the cities? Far more folks live in cities than in the rual hindlands.

The college forces canditates to at least mention them.

I think that it has value, but that many of its bad points could be mitigated by dividing state electoral votes on a proportional basis.

I am not a US citizen...

I remember the State of Colorado put this proposal to a vote and it got rejected. At the time I regarded that rejection as proof of the US's collective insanity.

The Electoral College was designed to limit the ability of the people of the US to elect whomsoever they wanted. The people vote for Electors - the Electors vote for who gets to be President. In theory the People could vote for a complete idiot (of course in practice we know that would never happen :rolleyes:) but the Electoral College doesn't have to abide by that decision as the electors are mostly bound by law to vote for the person they have already said they would vote for.
The system means that a Candidate need only win 51% of the vote in the 6 most populous states to become President whether s/he wins a single vote in the other 44 states or not.

That is not democracy.

That does still, in many ways, happen. Sure, a place like Ohio can become the deciding factor, but New England (aside from New Hampshire, and then, only for the primary) is ignored...Boston is still a massive city, and it is all but entirely ignored in elections. Hell, even New York City is overall ignored.

The electoral system narrows elections to individual states. Without one, it seems that there are two ways to win: focus on cities or focus on rural areas
I did say it needs to be fixed, perhaps with porprotional votes, but getting rid of it would effectively cut out large parts of the US.

Or to put it another way, why would anyone want to come or even run a capaign in Nevada, pop 2.5 million, when LA has that alone?

Because ignoring those large populations is a really bad idea? By just farming the large cities, millions of citizens would be ignored, and those citizens can influence the election because their votes are not tied to electoral votes by the state they live in!

The whole point is that every single vote matters, that no matter where you live in the country your vote will be counted and important. Votes in a large number of states right now don't matter worth a damn because a slight majority will vote a certain way thus damning all of the other votes.

By eliminating the electoral college you allow everyone to be heard, no matter what. And any candidate who just tried to farm the large cities would almost guarantee a loss.

It's the largest single reason for voter apathy in this nation.

I thought it was because we had two major parties who are both as useless as 12 rows of tits on an NFL quarterback.

Anyway, as long as we're a federal union I'll be in favor of the Electoral College.

I thought it was because we had two major parties who are both as useless as 12 rows of tits on an NFL quarterback.

Anyway, as long as we're a federal union I'll be in favor of the Electoral College.

Well, there's that too, certainly. It's all part of an overreaching horrible governmental system that has been entrenched for far too long.

...

But once I move to Canada it will no longer be my problem, so meh.

That's because said states always vote a certain way. But, if you take away the electoral college, why would any canditate go out to a rual community tand talk when the votes are in the cities? Far more folks live in cities than in the rual hindlands.

The college forces canditates to at least mention them.

I did say it needs to be fixed, perhaps with porprotional votes, but getting rid of it would effectively cut out large parts of the US.

Or to put it another way, why would anyone want to come or even run a capaign in Nevada, pop 2.5 million, when LA has that alone?
Because urban centers (even those in the deep south) tend to be heavily liberal. And rural areas tend to be conservative. Sure, it shifts the problem, but the issue is no longer state-related, and becomes more district-by district. All in all, the residents of rural Texas do share some concerns as urban Texas, same as Nevada, Mass, CT, NY, et. al...sure some issues strongly differ, but there is something that is universal by region.

And does the electoral college require candidates to mention rural areas? Like, you said, a place like LA has the population of some states...win the local urban area, win the state. Connecticut never gets mentioned, nor does Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, etc. No major urban center. Nevada atleast has Las Vegas (one of the fastest growing cities), reno, and the like. New York has Albany, NYC, Buffalo...

states without urban centers are still ignored.

the electoral college is the factor that makes american elections "winner takes all" with all the tendency this has to inhibit the growth of alternative political parties and as a consiquence likewise their ability pressure existing extablished ones to evolve in anything like a sensible direction based on anything other then kissing the posterior of major economic interests.

it is thus one of the american constitution's two great flaws. the other being that the attourny general is appointed by the president, once he gets in to office.

i believe there are several and much better approaches to dealing with this issue, to be found in a few of the constitutions that have been addopted since.

=^^=
.../\...

I'm going to move to Canada in a few years anyway.

:eek:
You know, the United States will be at a loss for that. :(

n/k

I am not a US citizen...

I remember the State of Colorado put this proposal to a vote and it got rejected. At the time I regarded that rejection as proof of the US's collective insanity.

Colorado rejected it because when a single state adopts a measure like this, it's basically unilateral disarmament. No candidate will waste effort campaigning in a state that divides its votes up like this unless every other state is doing it too, because there's less to gain.

The only practical way to implement this would be for every state to pass an amendment stating that the proportional division of electoral votes will begin when all the other states have adopted similar measures.

Colorado rejected it because when a single state adopts a measure like this, it's basically unilateral disarmament. No candidate will waste effort campaigning in a state that divides its votes up like this unless every other state is doing it too, because there's less to gain.

The only practical way to implement this would be for every state to pass an amendment stating that the proportional division of electoral votes will begin when all the other states have adopted similar measures.
not all states...just enough for a majority vote in the electorate.

:eek:
You know, the United States will be at a loss for that. :(

n/k
Perhaps. It all depends on how well a job I do at the Coast Guard first.

...how good? Which is it there?

Colorado rejected it because when a single state adopts a measure like this, it's basically unilateral disarmament. No candidate will waste effort campaigning in a state that divides its votes up like this unless every other state is doing it too, because there's less to gain.

The only practical way to implement this would be for every state to pass an amendment stating that the proportional division of electoral votes will begin when all the other states have adopted similar measures.

Unfortunately, I agree, even though I did vote for this when it came up. At the time I thought it a step in the right direction, but if only Colorado implemented it, it would be basically useless.

Which is part of the problem...the whole situation is very difficult to correct by its very nature.

What do you think of the U.S. Electoral College? Should it be kept, or should it be gotten rid of? Why or why not?

I like it and it should stay. Just revamped.

The Electoral College is outdated, corrupt, and broken, and it's ripe for abuse. It also succeeds in keeping third-party candidates completely off the board. Therefore, at the very least, there needs to be significant change to it.

We could go strictly by popular vote, though that changes the focus from swing states to...well, probably large population centers and large states with rural populations. I imagine that Chicago, NYC, California, Texas, and south Florida will be the hotbeds of political campaigning.

We could go by Congressional district, which takes away the boost given to small states (Vermont is only worth 1 in this case, but the same is true of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and all those nowhere states.) That destroys an advantage the GOP has, but it takes away the virtually automatic 55 electoral votes for the Democrats. (Then again, the Dems pick up a few districts in Texas, so it might just even out.)

We could go with my American Idol idea, which I've explained before and falls under the realm of "Hey, that just might work, but it would be a hell of a feat to implement."

Or we could settle it Jeopardy! style. Top three vote-getters go on a game show a la Jaopardy! asking questions about U.S. history, government, law, and American responses to issues. Winner becomes President.

Get rid. If you're really desperate to augment the power of smaller states, give voters there a 0.0001% extra vote or something.

It should be kept but changed. Instead of being all or nothing it should be proportionate to the number of votes the candidate received.


A national recount with a margin of less than 250,000 votes difference would be a nightmare.

It should be kept but changed. Instead of being all or nothing it should be proportionate to the number of votes the candidate received.


A national recount with a margin of less than 250,000 votes difference would be a nightmare.
Out of interest, under a proportional scheme (as people here have advocated), if a candidate did not get a majority of votes, would there be a different way of dealing with it or would the vote go to to the House?

It should be kept but changed. Instead of being all or nothing it should be proportionate to the number of votes the candidate received.


A national recount with a margin of less than 250,000 votes difference would be a nightmare.

I can agree with that.

Out of interest, under a proportional scheme (as people here have advocated), if a candidate did not get a majority of votes, would there be a different way of dealing with it or would the vote go to to the House?

If a candidate for president fails to get the necessary 270 electoral votes, according to the US Constitution, the US House of Representatives will decide who is President and the US Senate will decide who is Vice President. Each state gets one vote if I remember right.

I support the Electoral College just the way it is. Without it, elections will be determined, to an even greater degree than is already the case, by whomever can pander most effectively to large-city collectivists.

That's because said states always vote a certain way. But, if you take away the electoral college, why would any canditate go out to a rual community tand talk when the votes are in the cities? Far more folks live in cities than in the rual hindlands.

The college forces canditates to at least mention them.

Because far more people in the US live in rural communities than in cities--there are more votes out there to be had. The last time the debate came up, I think I looked at the census and figured that the top 100 cities in the US combined had just over 30 million people living in them. It took Bush over 60 million votes to win last time--no candidate who focuses solely on cities is going to even come close.

Maybe the US should adopt a form of qualified majority voting combined with the single transferable vote.

You count each vote within its state and see who the state favours overall. And then

You then count each vote within the entire country and see who is the popular leader.

And if both results are the same you have a winner. If not, then the candidate who won by the greatest majority in either election wins.

If a candidate for president fails to get the necessary 270 electoral votes, according to the US Constitution, the US House of Representatives will decide who is President and the US Senate will decide who is Vice President. Each state gets one vote if I remember right.
Yeah, but would this change under a proportional system - it defeats the point of letting the people elect if (almost) every time the election is going to be rerun by Congress. Surely under a proportional system, there would have to be an alternative method of dealing with getting less than 270 votes.

I support the Electoral College just the way it is. Without it, elections will be determined, to an even greater degree than is already the case, by whomever can pander most effectively to large-city collectivists.
A case of 'people who don't vote the way I do shouldn't vote', perchance?

I would vote the joke option, but you don't have one, so your poll is made of epic fail.

I think the electoral college is a Single point of failure in a democratic process. theoretically one could use that to install a candidate who is not preferred by the majority.

I would vote the joke option, but you don't have one, so your poll is made of epic fail.This is a bring your own joke thread, pal. Didn't you see the '(please elaborate)', in the 'other' poll option.

I think the electoral college is a Single point of failure in a democratic process. theoretically one could use that to install a candidate who is not preferred by the majority.Since when is the will of the majority divine mandate? Isn't that what the constitution is supposed to be about.

The Electoral College is a horrible system, a holdover from the early days when it was the state legislatures, not the people, who chose the president. It leads to voter apathy. A Democratic vote in Utah and a Republican vote in New York means nothing at all. Only people who live in swing states like Ohio have their votes actually matter. There's no point in even trying to campaign in a red state or blue state if your party is the opposite one. If I were to try and make Utah vote Democratic in 2008, it would be impossible because I could never get a majority in that state. Even if I got 49.9% of the voters in Utah to go blue, it would count for nothing.

The electoral college is one of the worst things to happen to the political stage, because it encourages a system of states defined by party.

This is a bring your own joke thread, pal. Didn't you see the '(please elaborate)', in the 'other' poll option.

Let's see... In soviet russia joke option excludes you?

No, that doesn't sound right.

Since when is the will of the majority divine mandate? Isn't that what the constitution is supposed to be about.

Oh, I was just thinking that democracy kinda implies the will of the majority and that a constitution among other things, needs to be rated by this criteria. Call me naive but otherwise the Grundgesetz of the German Democratic Republic was as good as that of the USA. :)

Oh, I was just thinking that democracy kinda implies the will of the majority and that a constitution among other things, needs to be rated by this criteria. Call me naive but otherwise the Grundgesetz of the German Democratic Republic was as good as that of the USA. :)Yep, well the yanks don't have a democracy, they have a republic. It's like a democracy, except when the elected representives turn round and tell their electorate that they're stupid.

Yeah, but would this change under a proportional system - it defeats the point of letting the people elect if (almost) every time the election is going to be rerun by Congress. Surely under a proportional system, there would have to be an alternative method of dealing with getting less than 270 votes.

The problem lies in the states. They can proportion their votes however they like in reality.

I think the electoral college is a Single point of failure in a democratic process. theoretically one could use that to install a candidate who is not preferred by the majority.

Which happens very rarely so it is not theoretical. It has happened in the past.

The electoral college is one of the worst things to happen to the political stage, because it encourages a system of states defined by party.

And yet very few states outlaw faithless electors.

And yet very few states outlaw faithless electors.
24 states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors) have laws on the books to punish faithless electors. That's not quite outlawing, but it's close.

Personally, I think the electorial college does good in that it does keep the smaller states involved in presidental politics and it means that canditates do actually have to pay attention to the issues of the smaller states along with the larger ones.

That said, it is also obvious that en electorial win does not always mean a popular vote win. I'd like to see a system where the popular vote winner is awarded 5 electorial votes to reflect the will of the people.

Oh, and I am an American BTW.

I think this is the first time I've agreed with you. XD

But yeah, no change is going to happen, as it would require a constitutional amendment, which would require a lot of the small states' legislatures to consent to it, which won't happen. No government willingly gives up power, and removing the college would be removing the smaller states' importance and power. Won't happen.

Which happens very rarely so it is not theoretical. It has happened in the past.

Yes, it happened twice, but it's not like it's a tyranny by the minority in the sense of a small party ruling the nation. You still have to have sizable support in order to win the states.

Oh, I was just thinking that democracy kinda implies the will of the majority and that a constitution among other things, needs to be rated by this criteria.

Yes, basically, a pure and total democracy is what amounts to tyranny by majority. That's one of the purposes of the constitution, to help stop the government from having said tyranny by majority.

Let's see... In soviet russia joke option excludes you?

No, that doesn't sound right.

No, but it's the only way it would work.

In Soviet Russia, reversal doesn't work on YOU. :(

I think this is the first time I've agreed with you. XD

But yeah, no change is going to happen, as it would require a constitutional amendment, which would require a lot of the small states' legislatures to consent to it, which won't happen. No government willingly gives up power, and removing the college would be removing the smaller states' importance and power. Won't happen.

That is horribly true! Who was that mobster guy who said that if voting wasn't rigged, then politicians wouldn't allow it.

Yes, it happened twice, but it's not like it's a tyranny by the minority in the sense of a small party ruling the nation. You still have to have sizable support in order to win the states.

Try three times sir.

Maybe the US should adopt a form of qualified majority voting combined with the single transferable vote.

You count each vote within its state and see who the state favours overall. And then

You then count each vote within the entire country and see who is the popular leader.

And if both results are the same you have a winner. If not, then the candidate who won by the greatest majority in either election wins.

Sounds like a good idea.

I believe that the Electoral College should be thrown out and instead determine presidential candidates by popular vote. The fact of the matter is that the electoral college used to be quite useful when determining the president. Before 2000 it never contradicted the popular vote and was good as an organizational tool. However, with today's information technology it would be quite possible to securely tally an individual vote regardless of what state or territory you are from. Also, the electoral college promotes a divisive mentality of "red states" versus "blue states" that is tearing our nation apart in partisan bickering, none of which the United states needs right now.

While it's not perfect the electoral system is actually very good. As stated by some folks it makes candidates pay attention to each and every state and not just the largest cities which is what would happen if it was abolished.

Only twice has an election not been decided by popular vote and in each case it was only was less than 1% in fact Gore only won by .005 % of the poplular vote (less than 1/2 of 1%) so certainly not a vast majority.

The electoral system works and works well for a country made up of varying states of different sizes and allows for each and every state to be important while still giving proper importance to larger states and cities.

The US should ditch this little "Republic" experiment they've implemented and become a Constitutional Monarchy like all of the other former British Colonies...

:p

Try three times sir.

2000, 1876...and when else?

2000, 1876...and when else?

COuld look at the 1824 election of John Quincy Adams. Andrew Jackson got the most votes (both popular and Electoral) but not a majority of electoral votes.

In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not become president. The 1824 election was eventually decided by Congress and thus distinct from the last three which were decided without.

There were three elections where the popular vote getter did not become president (1876, 1888, and 2000). The one in 1824 (mentioned above) was decided by the House of Representatives.

COuld look at the 1824 election of John Quincy Adams. Andrew Jackson got the most votes (both popular and Electoral) but not a majority of electoral votes.



There were three elections where the popular vote getter did not become president (1876, 1888, and 2000). The one in 1824 (mentioned above) was decided by the House of Representatives.

Ah, okay. Thanks. Yeah, I knew the 1824 one.

The US should ditch this little "Republic" experiment they've implemented and become a Constitutional Monarchy like all of the other former British Colonies...

:pLOL. Now this is something that needs to be on the poll, it would make an excellent joke option.

For all the ignoramuses from outside and inside the USA who believe the electoral college should not be kept - then I propose at the same time that UN votes be allocated according to population as well. Nations with larger populations should have a larger say n what the UN does - afterall - there is no reason why a nation with a small population should have an equal say to nations with a large population.

If you have to believe one you must believe both to be consistent.

For all the ignoramuses from outside and inside the USA who believe the electoral college should not be kept - then I propose at the same time that UN votes be allocated according to population as well. Nations with larger populations should have a larger say n what the UN does - afterall - there is no reason why a nation with a small population should have an equal say to nations with a large population.

If you have to believe one you must believe both to be consistent.

okay... why do you just bring up the UN?

Because of how the EC is aligned, and the alignment of the really big safe states, smaller states are suddenly phenomenally more competitive than they'd be otherwise.

For all the ignoramuses from outside and inside the USA who believe the electoral college should not be kept - then I propose at the same time that UN votes be allocated according to population as well. Nations with larger populations should have a larger say n what the UN does - afterall - there is no reason why a nation with a small population should have an equal say to nations with a large population.

If you have to believe one you must believe both to be consistent.
*sings*
One of these things is not like the other
One of these things is dumb.
:rolleyes:

Ditch it. Have a national election with runoffs. Also have runoffs in the primaries which should all occur on the same day.

Ditch it. Have a national election with runoffs. Also have runoffs in the primaries which should all occur on the same day.

The cost of that is not worth mentioning.

The cost of that is not worth mentioning.

I don't see why it would be any more expensive than the current system. While we're at it, we should make election day a federal holiday, and require all employers to allow their employees either the day off or paid time off to go and vote.

I don't see why it would be any more expensive than the current system. While we're at it, we should make election day a federal holiday, and require all employers to allow their employees either the day off or paid time off to go and vote.

I am all in favor of Election Day to be a federal holiday. That way, people will have no excuse not to vote. As to cost, a run off system would jack up the price of the elections. I do not know how the people who handle the budget is going to like that. It is expensive enough to hold a one round election. Before I say I am for or against it, I would like to see the cost benefit analysis on it.

I am all in favor of Election Day to be a federal holiday. That way, people will have no excuse not to vote. As to cost, a run off system would jack up the price of the elections. I do not know how the people who handle the budget is going to like that. It is expensive enough to hold a one round election. Before I say I am for or against it, I would like to see the cost benefit analysis on it.

I agree on both counts, I've long favoured Election Day being a National Holiday. Unfortunately, pubs and bars are still closed, but meh.

I support it.

I think it should be kept, as a counterbalance to the actual election, but it is pretty clear that changes need to be made in how the votes are distributed and make all the states adhere to the same method of assigning those delegates. Having some states placing all the delegates to one party while other states split them up between the candidates according to the popular vote clearly doesn't work and leads to an unequal application of those votes and a misleading representation of the public mandate for the results.

Having some states placing all the delegates to one party while other states split them up between the candidates according to the popular vote clearly doesn't work and leads to an unequal application of those votes and a misleading representation of the public mandate for the results.
So, if candidate A receives 50.01% of the popular vote in a State and candidate B receives 49.99% of the popular vote, then candidate A should receive 100% of the EC votes?

So, if candidate A receives 50.01% of the popular vote in a State and candidate B receives 49.99% of the popular vote, then candidate A should receive 100% of the EC votes?

Not necessarily. I do however, object to different states having different standards for application of their delegates on a state to state basis, then having those votes dumped into the same bean pot to be counted. Some states split up those votes in a direct relation to the results of the popular vote. Others have a all-or-nothing rule. It should be all just one method or the other, not a mix of both methods. At least then you'd know what to expect. It would be cut and dried and beyond dispute.

Many other iniquities still exist in the present system, such as allowing "ghost voting" to occur in some states, and allowing the votes of undocumented aliens, for instance. Moreover, all votes cast should have a definite paper trail that can be followed, in the case of close elections where a recount is requested.

Announcing the results before the polls even close should be also be illegal and punishable by law. This also happened in Florida in the 2000 election.

Moreover, the Miami Herald in 2001 reported that some two thousand convicted felons cast votes in that same election. Only two states presently allow felons the right to vote. Florida is not even one of them. So why some folks consider this to be an outrage or a glaring example of voter fraud is beyond me. The law was on the books. End of story. If you don't like the existing law, change it. Tell your local representative what you expect of him and then let your vote do the talking.

My overall and underlying point is that many different states have many different and conflicting ways and rules governing the electoral process. In a national election, ONE set of laws should govern that process. Pick one. Apply it equally to all states in the case of national elections. I don't even care what one you pick. The present system is hopelessly corrupted. It obviously needs to be overhauled.

The present system is hopelessly corrupted. It obviously needs to be overhauled.
I totally agree.

My overall and underlying point is that many different states have many different and conflicting ways and rules governing the electoral process. In a national election, ONE set of laws should govern that process. Pick one. Apply it equally to all states in the case of national elections. I don't even care what one you pick. The present system is hopelessly corrupted. It obviously needs to be overhauled.
Only one way to do that--Constitutional amendment. Get busy.

The US should ditch this little "Republic" experiment they've implemented and become a Constitutional Monarchy like all of the other former British Colonies...

:p

No.

The Monarchy does nothing, so whats the point of having it.

No.

The Monarchy does nothing, so whats the point of having it.

It keeps the vicious, back-stabbing, power-hungry, lying, thieving and cheating politicians in line - they can never get the top spot.

Do you think that George W Bush and Jacques Chirac got to the top spot by being nice?

No.

The Monarchy does nothing, so whats the point of having it.
It gives us some stability, something to rally around when things go wrong, means the government can't do anything too outrageous, because the monarchy can dissolve it with a good enough reason, and it's also a fantastic tourist attraction.

Electoral college is quite frankly ridiculous.

Go for a system like the Germans - proportional representation, with a 5% minimum to get seats to stop the extreme right and other such fringe groups from getting any kind of influence on politics.

Job's a good 'un.

It keeps the vicious, back-stabbing, power-hungry, lying, thieving and cheating politicians in line - they can never get the top spot.


:eek:really? no one was ever over thrown?

It gives us some stability, something to rally around when things go wrong, means the government can't do anything too outrageous, because the monarchy can dissolve it with a good enough reason, and it's also a fantastic tourist attraction.
I know this isn't the place but...

I doubt the monarchy would dissolve the government unilaterally (or on the advice of the opposition) if it didn't like what it were doing. There's not been any precedent for that for years, and would fatally undermine its support - as soon as Monarchy becomes a partisan policy, as opposed to the current monarchist consensus, it's days are limited. Monarchy or not, without any kind of enforceable bill of rights and constitution, we're pretty much at the mercy of our elected politicians, with few checks on power.

It keeps the vicious, back-stabbing, power-hungry, lying, thieving and cheating politicians in line - they can never get the top spot.

Do you think that George W Bush and Jacques Chirac got to the top spot by being nice?
I have two words to prove that to be the most hopeless theory ever:

Tony Blair

There are good reasons to keep the Monarchy, but not this one.

:eek:really? no one was ever over thrown?

Well, Oliver Cromwell ousted and killed Charles I but the monarchy was re-established not that long after he (Cromwell) died. The main reason being that rule by Parliament and Cromwell was actually worse than by the king.

Elizabeth II has been Queen for 55 years and in that time has seen 11 prime ministers come and 10 of them go. She knows everything about everyone in world politics and even Tony Blair quickly learned that she knows more useful stuff than any of his faceless drones. Boris Yeltsin said that she was the only person in the world that he felt he could speak to openly without the sound of a knife being sharpened. She is an asset, more of an asset than Tony Blair ever could have been whether he had been an elected President or not, so why change a perfectly good system?