Author Topic: Electorial College (Read 781 times)

mcbammer · « **on:** December 31, 2011, 02:22:48 PM »

Doesnt seem fair that a candidate can win three states like Texas California & Florida and win election . I feel my vote is worthless. Will we ever go back to the Popular vote system ?

subdjoe · « **Reply #1 on:** December 31, 2011, 03:35:16 PM »

Quote from: mcbammer on December 31, 2011, 02:22:48 PM

Doesnt seem fair that a candidate can win three states like Texas California & Florida and win election . I feel my vote is worthless. Will we ever go back to the Popular vote system ?

What do you mean "go back to the Popular vote system?" Try reading a little document known as The Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically Art. II, Sec. 2.

And, since it takes 270 electoral votes to take the presidency, they need more than the ~~132~~ 122 (OK, who's the joker who put the 2 and 3 keys next to each other?) in the states you mentioned.

What really needs to change is the number of members in the House of Representatives, since that is the main number that controls the number of electors. The members of the House has been fixed since 1911 at 435 members. Since then our population has roughly tripled, we have added 4 or 5 states. Running the number up to 1000 or 1200 would dilute the "prestige" of being a member of the House, and give us better representation, lowering the number each represents to about 250,000 rather than the 750,000 now. But still not close to the 1:30,000 that the Constitution says it could be.

JustaShooter · « **Reply #2 on:** December 31, 2011, 03:36:18 PM »

First, a candidate needs many more than the three states you list - Texas has 38, California 55, and Florida 29 electoral votes for a total of 122 electoral votes. A candidate needs 270 to win the presidency.

Second, the US has always used the electoral college since the adoption of the Constitution so there is no "go back to the Popular vote". It would take a change to the constitution to begin using popular vote to elect the president.

Just a Shooter

bilmac · « **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2011, 06:41:18 PM »

The electoral college empowers those of us who live in small states. The number of votes a state gets is the number of congressmen plus the number of senators it has, so the small states are way over represented. I don't know the current numbers, but I think it is on the order of one vote in Wyo, is worth like 400 votes in New York.

sidewinder319 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2011, 07:21:28 PM »

Subjoe, BillM you fellows are very much on the ball. Nice to see.

ironglow · « **Reply #5 on:** December 31, 2011, 11:20:52 PM »

Dropping the electoral college would be the worst mistake we ever made...
If we did that we could just let the east coast megalopolis, the left coast population cluster and Chicago vote... the rest of us could just stay home.
The electoral was designed by the God-given wisdom of our founders, to allow such places as Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming , Montana...and rural folks everywhere cast a vote that counts. Politicians who want to disenfranchise such citizens (e.g. Hellery Clinton) are often heard trying to trash the electoral college.
I'm no Rpublican, but the following rings closer than not, to the truth:

Origin of Left and Right
I often wondered why it is that Conservatives are called the "right" and Liberals are called the "left".
By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible:
"A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left" Ecclesiastes 10:2 (KJV)
Thus sayeth the Lord. Amen.
Can't get any simpler than that.

Spelling lesson

The last four letters in American......I can
The last four letters in Republican.....I can
The last four letters in Democrats......rats
End of lesson

Test to follow in November, 2012.
Remember, November is to be set aside as rodent extermination month.

PowPow · « **Reply #6 on:** January 01, 2012, 04:44:05 AM »

Beyond representation of small states, the electoral college was intended to overcome the education and communication of the day.
An uneducated rural person may not have the means to know about the candidates or issues, but they could vote for a local person they trusted to represent them in the decisionmaking. Now, I don't even recognize the names of the electoral college delegates I vote for, just the top name, probably because its one delegate for every 3/4 million or so.

mcbammer - assuming you are a "bammer" like me, (actually I would be a barner, the rest of my family are bammers), I think our issue is actually when the primaries are held. We have Super Tuesday primaries, but by the time that comes around, a handful of folks in Iowa and New Hampshire have sat around in living rooms deciding what our choices are. A lot of candidates we might like don't make it to Super Tuesday because of being discouraged in these early caucuses and primaries.

magooch · « **Reply #7 on:** January 01, 2012, 04:55:14 AM »

The one thing for which I shall be eternally grateful that we do have the Electoral vote is that Algore would have been elected President if the election were based on popular vote.

The Electoral vote might need some tweaking, but the idea of increasing the the numbers in the House is too scary to contemplate.

Val · « **Reply #8 on:** January 01, 2012, 05:03:58 AM »

If the popular vote was our method of election of our Presidents, this Country would have become socialists/communists decades ago.

PowPow · « **Reply #9 on:** January 01, 2012, 05:07:42 AM »

Quote

If the popular vote was our method of election of our Presidents....

P-Diddy would be president.

bilmac · « **Reply #10 on:** January 01, 2012, 05:16:35 AM »

Pow Pow makes a good point, it is the primaries that are screwed up. Letting a few states, some conservative some not, some even let democrats vote in a Republican election, letting these few states decide who the Republican nominee is, definitely disinfranchises most of us. The whole country should vote at the same time in the primaries. If just Republicans were voting, I would trust that even screwed up states like New York and Calif. would do the right thing.

subdjoe · « **Reply #11 on:** January 01, 2012, 07:08:36 AM »

Quote from: magooch on January 01, 2012, 04:55:14 AM

The Electoral vote might need some tweaking, but the idea of increasing the the numbers in the House is too scary to contemplate.

Scary at first glance, yeah. But consider it for a few minutes. Instead of being one voice in 750,000, yours would be one in 250,000 (actually better than that since only about 1% ever bother to contact their member of the House). Increasing their number would decrease their power/authority. It would make it much harder to lobby effectively in the lower house of Congress. It would be harder to get legislation through Congress. We would see more factions in Congress. Third party candidates would have a better chance of getting elected since it is easier to sway a majority of 250,000 than a majority of 750,000.

Biggest reason, though, is that the Constitution says we can have 1 member of the House for every 30,000 people. We are now at about 1 for every 750,000, about 25 times greater than what the founders wrote.

OldSchoolRanger · « **Reply #12 on:** January 01, 2012, 08:24:26 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on December 31, 2011, 11:20:52 PM

Dropping the electoral college would be the worst mistake we ever made...
If we did that we could just let the east coast megalopolis, the left coast population cluster and Chicago vote... the rest of us could just stay home.
The electoral was designed by the God-given wisdom of our founders, to allow such places as Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming , Montana...and rural folks everywhere cast a vote that counts. Politicians who want to disenfranchise such citizens (e.g. Hellery Clinton) are often heard trying to trash the electoral college.
I'm no Rpublican, but ....

IG hits the nail right on the head. I'm a Republican and I agree with the preceding message.

Quote from: magooch on January 01, 2012, 04:55:14 AM

The one thing for which I shall be eternally grateful that we do have the Electoral vote is that Algore would have been elected President if the election were based on popular vote....

Or

Quote from: PowPow on January 01, 2012, 05:07:42 AM

P-Diddy would be president.

And finally the best reason for the Electoral College electing the President, instead of the popular vote:

Quote from: Val on January 01, 2012, 05:03:58 AM

If the popular vote was our method of election of our Presidents, this Country would have become socialists/communists decades ago.

ironglow · « **Reply #13 on:** January 01, 2012, 10:27:18 AM »

Actually, those states which decided they would have the first primary are the ones which messed us up. Primaries should all be held on the same day, just like the regular election. here in the people's republic of NY, the two major parties have rigged it so independants can't vote in primaries, if you don't belong to a party which has a candidate running..you can't vote in the primaries..
I could falsely register with a major and play with my vote, except I have scruples. The two majors by this rule, attract the unscruplous..but that's their problem.

The biggest inequity is the campaign financing..no restrictions on how much is raised/spent on a campaign. By that measure, it is not at all difficult to see how an election could be BOUGHT. We have seen graphically, how the Obamanites got huge campaign funds by handing out many times greater sums of taxpayer's money to their "bundlers" (e.g. Solyndra). I doubt they are alone, likely 'earmarks' were furnished by both sides to favored contributors..

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 01, 2012, 03:25:34 PM »

If we did away with the electoral college we would be a full on socialist dictatorship after a couple election cycles. Those of us in small states like NH would become completely irrelevant. The metro welfare states would run the country.

magooch · « **Reply #15 on:** January 02, 2012, 04:48:30 AM »

Theoretically speaking, we probably shouldn't have primary elections in the first place. Each political party, or non-party individual for that matter should decide who to place on the ballot. It should be up to political parties, or individuals to bear the cost of and provide the venue for candidate selection. Neither the federal, state, or any local government should spend a dime on the candidate selection process. Only at the time of the actual election should state governments attend to the process and that would be to publish the ballots and validate that the candidates satisfy all legal requirements.

kevinsmith5 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 02, 2012, 05:25:35 AM »

It is odd that the states pay the cost of primaries. They're exclusively for the use of the parties (none of which I am a member of) so it would seem they need to foot the bill. Taxes don't pay for the conventions, so why do they pay for the selection of the delegates?

mcbammer · « **Reply #17 on:** January 02, 2012, 08:34:14 AM »

Good input from all . Good history lesson.

BAGTIC · « **Reply #18 on:** January 04, 2012, 06:51:38 PM »

Quote from: mcbammer on December 31, 2011, 02:22:48 PM

Doesnt seem fair that a candidate can win three states like Texas California & Florida and win election . I feel my vote is worthless. Will we ever go back to the Popular vote system ?

GO BACK! We never did.

BAGTIC · « **Reply #19 on:** January 04, 2012, 06:56:39 PM »

Quote from: ironglow on January 01, 2012, 10:27:18 AM

Actually, those states which decided they would have the first primary are the ones which messed us up. Primaries should all be held on the same day, just like the regular election. here in the people's republic of NY, the two major parties have rigged it so independants can't vote in primaries, if you don't belong to a party which has a candidate running..you can't vote in the primaries..
I could falsely register with a major and play with my vote, except I have scruples. The two majors by this rule, attract the unscruplous..but that's their problem.

The biggest inequity is the campaign financing..no restrictions on how much is raised/spent on a campaign. By that measure, it is not at all difficult to see how an election could be BOUGHT. We have seen graphically, how the Obamanites got huge campaign funds by handing out many times greater sums of taxpayer's money to their "bundlers" (e.g. Solyndra). I doubt they are alone, likely 'earmarks' were furnished by both sides to favored contributors..

Quote from: ironglow on January 01, 2012, 10:27:18 AM

Actually, those states which decided they would have the first primary are the ones which messed us up. Primaries should all be held on the same day, just like the regular election. here in the people's republic of NY, the two major parties have rigged it so independants can't vote in primaries, if you don't belong to a party which has a candidate running..you can't vote in the primaries..
I could falsely register with a major and play with my vote, except I have scruples. The two majors by this rule, attract the unscruplous..but that's their problem.

The biggest inequity is the campaign financing..no restrictions on how much is raised/spent on a campaign. By that measure, it is not at all difficult to see how an election could be BOUGHT. We have seen graphically, how the Obamanites got huge campaign funds by handing out many times greater sums of taxpayer's money to their "bundlers" (e.g. Solyndra). I doubt they are alone, likely 'earmarks' were furnished by both sides to favored contributors..

Quote from: subdjoe on December 31, 2011, 03:35:16 PM

Quote from: mcbammer on December 31, 2011, 02:22:48 PM
Doesnt seem fair that a candidate can win three states like Texas California & Florida and win election . I feel my vote is worthless. Will we ever go back to the Popular vote system ?

What do you mean "go back to the Popular vote system?" Try reading a little document known as The Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically Art. II, Sec. 2.

And, since it takes 270 electoral votes to take the presidency, they need more than the ~~132~~ 122 (OK, who's the joker who put the 2 and 3 keys next to each other?) in the states you mentioned.

What really needs to change is the number of members in the House of Representatives, since that is the main number that controls the number of electors. The members of the House has been fixed since 1911 at 435 members. Since then our population has roughly tripled, we have added 4 or 5 states. Running the number up to 1000 or 1200 would dilute the "prestige" of being a member of the House, and give us better representation, lowering the number each represents to about 250,000 rather than the 750,000 now. But still not close to the 1:30,000 that the Constitution says it could be.

SURE ... and Congress could convene in the Rose Bowl. Making Congress more numerous will not change anything except to make it more cumbersome and expensive.

BAGTIC · « **Reply #20 on:** January 04, 2012, 07:01:10 PM »

Quote from: bilmac on January 01, 2012, 05:16:35 AM

Pow Pow makes a good point, it is the primaries that are screwed up. Letting a few states, some conservative some not, some even let democrats vote in a Republican election, letting these few states decide who the Republican nominee is, definitely disinfranchises most of us. The whole country should vote at the same time in the primaries. If just Republicans were voting, I would trust that even screwed up states like New York and Calif. would do the right thing.

If the whole country voted at the same time imagine how long the ballot would be. How many candidates would be able to qualify on all 50 ballots? Only those with VERY DEEP pockets.

BAGTIC · « **Reply #21 on:** January 04, 2012, 07:04:30 PM »

You want MORE representation? Make EVERYONE a member of Congress. Pay us ALL $200,000-plus a year with gold plated pensions and fringe benefits.

sidewinder319 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 05, 2012, 03:10:29 PM »

What a great idea. That would end the high unemployment. No new laws would ever pass. We could vote for or selves. We could all have free airline tickets and take our families and friends on expensive vacation. I can hardly wait for this to start.

Gary G · « **Reply #23 on:** January 05, 2012, 05:07:43 PM »

In the beginning electorate choices were made by the state legislature to be good men with no connection with government and receiving no profits from government and equal in number to that of the representatives. Each electorate would submit two names, one from within the state and one from another state. If a name submitted had the majority, he would become president. If there was not one having a clear majority, then the president would be selected by Congress from the top three.

Voting for president and the two party system began later with Jackson I believe.

Senators were appointed by state legislatures. It made them responsible to the states and guaranteed state rights.

Only the representatives were elected by the people.

You had:
President - an able man to execute the laws of congress.
Senators - representing the states.
Representatives - representing the people.

(A system of checks and balances)

BAGTIC · « **Reply #24 on:** January 08, 2012, 09:10:46 AM »

Representatives were always elected directly by the people.
Senators were originally appointed by the state legislators. This was changed due to corruption and vote buying. Even then it waas difficult to find an honest politician.

I don't know where you got the part about the Presidents.. Jefferson, not Jackson, was the first President sponsored by an organized political party. Parties set their own procedures for nominations. Political parties are private social clubs. Most of the founders were opposed to political parties. Unfortunately the level of intelligent among America's political elite has devolved considerably since then resulting in the degenerate class of today.
Electoral law is as follows. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#appointing

Gary G · « **Reply #25 on:** January 08, 2012, 11:06:08 AM »

Quote

I don't know where you got the part about the Presidents

From this book:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0945466293/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=6884721141&ref=pd_sl_7g9ppxggsf_e

Read some of the reviews. It is a collection of very well researched essays. You would be surprised how loathsome some of our presidents were (some of the popular ones too).