Electoral College

[BanginJimmy]

We all know generally what it is, but most dont know any specifics. The electoral college was designed as a compromise between agricultural states and industrious states. The (mostly) southern agricultural states were worried about the northern states and their higher population having too much power when deciding on the presidency. Today things have changed. You have major population centers and you have rural areas in the same states. While these 2 areas may be part of the same state, they compromise two vastly different political ideologies. Just as a compromise was reached to spread the power between all states in the 1790's, I think now is the time to give everyone an equal vote. Lets be honest here. If you are a democrat in a Georgia statewide federal election, your vote means nothing. Just like the Republicans in New York, you are so heavily outnumbered your vote in nothing more than symbolic. Right now some states require all of the states electors to vote in accordance to the popular vote, some states vote in proportion to the popular vote, some can just vote for whoever they want. Lets get rid of all BS involved and simplify the process. Lets make the process simple, clean, and transparent. Lets replace the current version of the electoral college.

This is the 2008 Presidential election map from PA.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/presidential-election/results/maps/pennsylvania-2008.jpg

Do you really think the entire state of PA had their voices heard? Or was it just the major cities that decided for the entire state?




I want to make the process quite simple. Very few people know who your state electors are without looking it up, do you? Lets make our Electors the House members we just voted in or reelected to another term. We have 435 members of the House, I think thats plenty of electors. We dont need the 538 that the Constitution directs. For my plan, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 would have to be deleted by Constitutional Amendment.

Under my plan, every member of the House would vote in accordance with the popular vote in their district, and only in their district. If a GOP member is elected or re-elected to a seat in the House and a Dem gets the majority vote for President, that GOP House member must cast his vote for a Dem president.


Like I said, this plan is simple, its transparent, and I think it allows 100% of Americans to have their vote count for something.


What say you?

[.blank cd]

How bout independents/third parties?

[Browning151]

I think the Electoral College could be adjusted to better reflect current times, but I haven't studied it enough to form a concise opinion. I do like how both parties are allocating delegates for primaries now, could that possibly be a model for general elections? (That may be along the same lines that you are talking about, but again I haven't really studied it in detail)

[Vteckidd]

So what if you have 99 counties with a population of 1 per county (99 people) an 1 county with a population of 10,000

If 99 people vote GOP, and 10,000 people vote Democrat, I don't see how you can say the overwhelming population didnt vote Democrat.

Population wins out.

Right?

[Vteckidd]

If you live in a largely Republican state, and you're a Democrat, that sucks, but popular vote is pure numbers.

[BanginJimmy]

If you live in a largely Republican state, and you're a Democrat, that sucks, but popular vote is pure numbers.

I agree. If you live in a state that is dominated by the other party your vote is nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

It is time the electoral college reflects the current demographic of this country. The political ideology of the city goer is typically different of that of a suburbanite or those that live out in the country. This is why I said PA was a perfect example. Just like the south didn't want the more heavily populated north to ha e disproportionate control, today the cities have disproportionate control.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Vteckidd]

How is it no representative of the people? THe major population areas are kind of a moot point because if you add it all up, theres still MORE democrats than GOP right?

It would be different if say, the MAJOR CITIES counted as 5 votes and the rural counted as 1. YOu have 10 cities worth 50 DEM points, and 49 RURAL counting as 49 GOP Points, regardless of population.

but it doesnt work that way .

Of the sum of all the RED counties in PA = population of 1 million, and the sum of all the blue counties in PA =10 million, i think the 10 million win.

Am i missing something here?

[Vteckidd]

THe only way i see your presentation being valid is if somehow ALL THE RED COUNTIES =MORE PEOPLE than the BLUE counties. THen that would be cause for concern

[.blank cd]

The electoral college system is outdated.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Vteckidd]

The electoral college system is outdated.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

interesting, i see what the point was. Jimmys representation is incorrect on the population aspect, but correct on the winner take all aspect. what they are saying is if you win by 1 vote, you get all the electoral colleges allocated votes, and you also only need a few of the states with the votes to win. Makes sense even though their theoretical 22% election would NEVER happen.

It is possible to LOSE the popular vote and win the electoral college, as evident with 2000. BUt thats the way the framers wanted it. To keep elections from being stolen.

The electoral college can vote the OPPOSITE way of the state popular vote IIRC they are not bound by any rule to follow their states popular vote. That was a failsafe against voter fraud, rigging, whatever.

[Vteckidd]

I mean if 3 people vote in CALI , 2 GOP ,1 DEM , isnt that like 50 electoral college votes ? The only way to solve it is to really make every vote count, but that is a logistical nightmare with 300+ Million people, and , it takes away state powers.

[bu villain]

I actually don't know any good reasons why we shouldn't have a popular vote but I don't agree that a democrat's vote in a predominately republican state or vice versa "doesn't count". Whether the count is done at a state level or a national level, there is always a losing side. Just because you lost, doesn't mean your vote doesn't count.

[.blank cd]

I actually don't know any good reasons why we shouldn't have a popular vote but I don't agree that a democrat's vote in a predominately republican state or vice versa "doesn't count". Whether the count is done at a state level or a national level, there is always a losing side. Just because you lost, doesn't mean your vote doesn't count.
We don't cause have a popular vote system now because it will inevitably lean "left" and will re-balance the scales which are heavily weighted towards the upper class. See: "gerrymandering"

Wonder why election day is held during the middle of the week and is not a national holiday?

[Vteckidd]

We don't cause have a popular vote system now because it will inevitably lean "left" and will re-balance the scales which are heavily weighted towards the upper class. See: "gerrymandering"

Wonder why election day is held during the middle of the week and is not a national holiday?


LOL I think your tin hat is a little too tight.

I suppose you think requiring ID cards is bad too.

[BanginJimmy]

How is it no representative of the people? THe major population areas are kind of a moot point because if you add it all up, theres still MORE democrats than GOP right?

It would be different if say, the MAJOR CITIES counted as 5 votes and the rural counted as 1. YOu have 10 cities worth 50 DEM points, and 49 RURAL counting as 49 GOP Points, regardless of population.

but it doesnt work that way .

Of the sum of all the RED counties in PA = population of 1 million, and the sum of all the blue counties in PA =10 million, i think the 10 million win.

Am i missing something here?

Each congressional district gets one vote, which is independent from all other districts. It doesnt matter fi the district has 10,000 people or 10,000,000. They carry the same influence on the Electoral college.



I actually don't know any good reasons why we shouldn't have a popular vote

Cause mob rule never seems to work well.



I don't agree that a democrat's vote in a predominately republican state or vice versa "doesn't count". Whether the count is done at a state level or a national level, there is always a losing side. Just because you lost, doesn't mean your vote doesn't count.

Dont look at the election as a single event, look at the last 13 elections. A dem has won GA 3 times since 1964, which is when the party ideologies shifted. 2 were Jimmy Carter and the third was Clinton's first term. While voting trends will change in the future, right now a dem vote in GA is nothing more than a token. I can assure you now, Obama is not going to win GA.



We don't cause have a popular vote system now because it will inevitably lean "left" and will re-balance the scales which are heavily weighted towards the upper class. See: "gerrymandering"

Gerrymandering is widely used by both parties. Neither side has a leg to stand on in this argument.

Also, only 3x since the US started voting on a president did the loser of the popular vote win an election. 1876,1888, and 2000


Wonder why election day is held during the middle of the week and is not a national holiday?

Because it was mandated on that day in 1845.


A uniform date for choosing presidential electors was instituted by the Congress in 1845.[4] Many theories have been advanced as to why the Congress settled on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.[5] The actual reasons, as shown in records of Congressional debate on the bill in December 1844, were fairly prosaic. The bill initially set the national day for choosing presidential electors on "the first Tuesday in November," in years divisible by four (1848, 1852, etc.). But it was pointed out that in some years the period between the first Tuesday in November and the first Wednesday in December (when the electors met in their state capitals to vote) would be more than 34 days, in violation of the existing Electoral College law. So, the bill was amended to move the national date for choosing presidential electors forward to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, a date scheme already used in the state of New York.[6]

In 1845, the United States was largely an agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicles to the county seat to vote. Tuesday was established as election day because it did not interfere with the Biblical Sabbath or with market day, which was on Wednesday in many town

I would have no issues with the presidential election being a national holiday though. Maybe then more people would participate.

[BanginJimmy]

I suppose you think requiring ID cards is bad too.

Its racist and designed to minimize the black vote.

[Vteckidd]

Not at all. If you're 18 its your responsibility to have ID, its not racist at all.

Its $10 IIRC, you should be able to afford $10 to identify yourself to vote

[.blank cd]

Cause mob rule never seems to work well.We're not talking about mob rule though, we're talking about a presidential election. If you're saying a mob is just a majority of people, then what about the mob of electors?

[.blank cd]

Not at all. If you're 18 its your responsibility to have ID, its not racist at all.

Its $10 IIRC, you should be able to afford $10 to identify yourself to voteExcept we all carry ID cards around already

[Vteckidd]

Illegal immigrants is really what Id check is geared towards honestly, that and the dems love adding dead people to lists.

[BanginJimmy]

Not at all. If you're 18 its your responsibility to have ID, its not racist at all.


forgot to add the /sarcasm




Except we all carry ID cards around already

Then why do dems and 'black leaders' constantly say these laws are designed to discourage minority voters?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204464404577112631828248266.html



Illegal immigrants is really what Id check is geared towards honestly, that and the dems love adding dead people to lists.

There was just an issue like this involving dems in New York.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/17/voter-fraud-normal-political-tactic-in-upstate-ny-city/