Why is there an Electoral College

[synthesis2]

It started in the 1700's when people didn't have access to information and understanding as to what is going on with the canidates but with everything we have today to make a good informed decision, it simply dosent make any sense.

Examples: If you live in Texas and are a democrat your vote dosen't count

If you live in California and are a republican your vote dosen't count

I have never heard a good argument as to why a popular vote dosen't work in today's society.

If the majority of the people want one person but the electorial college says the other is the winner why is that right?

Look I really don't care who wins in the end with divided house/senate very little is going to happen, we all know that.

My rant is why we can't finally go to a vote that makes sense.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Tough to say. Bush won the EC, lost the Pop. In the current climate the split EC vote would probably favor R's.

I'm just trying to find some middle ground.

Here's my point, and maybe I'm coming out snarky, because that's not my intent. I've got to go in post election mode.

There are 2 options that will work: the current system, because it has this long or the popular vote. Any other option will be subjected to members of both parties navigating the waters looking for an edge, sort of the same way as gerrymandering is now.

[Guru]

you only need to carry 11 states to win the election. Balance I tell ya.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by petegz28

That would be true if it were a straight majority vote for the overall election. But it isn't.

To go with your argument, CA's votes should not count any more than KS's votes but they get 49 more EC votes.

I am just tossing out a theory that tries to meet that middle ground between the current EC and straight majority vote.

I don't understand. CA's votes probably don't count more than KS if you do the math, at least in terms of population/votes. That's the whole point of the electoral college to begin with, isn't it? Rural Kansas can't get wiped out by cities in Calfornia that have more people than the entire state of Kansas.

[L.A. Chieffan]

Originally Posted by petegz28

How so? Where did I say CA should get less than 55 EC's and Kansas should get more than 6?

Using you hypo the only area that might get more than 1 EC is Orange County. Other than that Romney wouldnt be getting 15 ECs, more like 5.

And then on the flip side of the coin, you have a state like Texas where 4 or 5 of the most heavily populated areas voted Obama yet Romney reaped the rewards of all 38 ECs

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Guru

you only need to carry 11 states to win the election. Balance I tell ya.

Aren't the majority of the US population in those states?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by L.A. Chieffan

Using you hypo the only area that might get more than 1 EC is Orange County. Other than that Romney wouldnt be getting 15 ECs, more like 5.

And then on the flip side of the coin, you have a state like Texas where 4 or 5 of the most heavily populated areas voted Obama yet Romney reaped the rewards of all 38 ECs

Depending on how you drew it up, you might be right. This is just an idea that will most likely never, ever happen.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by tk13

I don't understand. CA's votes probably don't count more than KS if you do the math, at least in terms of population/votes. That's the whole point of the electoral college to begin with, isn't it? Rural Kansas can't get wiped out by cities in Calfornia that have more people than the entire state of Kansas.

So just take that one step further to the intra-state level is all I am saying.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by tiptap

BEP, the start of this thread was about voter representation, direct democracy, win by the amount of votes garnished. If populations are in cities than it is lopsided, based upon population, to give representation to Wyoming or Rhode Island above their population numbers.

And as I said it won't happen because of that lost of power relative to population for those states. I am personally ambivalent about the Electorial College.

This was the end of the thread.

[synthesis2]

I still don't get the agrument that a popular vote is going to make places like north dakota not count as much as bigger cities.

They would count, every vote would count towards who does and does not get elected.

I am 100% possitive that if they went to a straight popular vote it would by far and away be the biggest turnout ever because people would feel there vote would count.

But to say that a person in a less populated area wouldn't count as much makes no sense.

a vote is a vote

[HMc]

Pete still has sand in his vagina about the result.

If you think this view of his about breaking up California gets posted if Romney won it...well, it's hard to know what to tell you.

[Gravedigger]

Originally Posted by synthesis2

I still don't get the agrument that a popular vote is going to make places like north dakota not count as much as bigger cities.

They would count, every vote would count towards who does and does not get elected.

I am 100% possitive that if they went to a straight popular vote it would by far and away be the biggest turnout ever because people would feel there vote would count.

But to say that a person in a less populated area wouldn't count as much makes no sense.

a vote is a vote

My thoughts exactly, if you want to Rock the Vote, you have to even the playing field. If you aren't in a swing state your vote doesn't matter as much as other states. There's no equality in it. The election always boils down to Florida, Ohio, Virginia, etc and I'm sick of keeping all eyes on one state out of 50. If you know where the chips are going to fall in 2/3 of the United States then it doesn't leave much up to the individual vote. Also if you made it the popular vote and split it up by states so that each state would be responsible for its votes to hinder against a national recount, then the Presidential Nominees would actually have to tour the country they are about to take over. Maybe I want to see Obama at Oklahoma Joe's getting a BBQ sandwich, or Romney at a Wendy's, but I won't get the opportunity to shake hands unless our state has a catastrophe in it or I'm just lucky enough to get the chance. We deserve to be watched just as much as the other states regardless of their populations.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by synthesis2

I still don't get the agrument that a popular vote is going to make places like north dakota not count as much as bigger cities.

They would count, every vote would count towards who does and does not get elected.

I am 100% possitive that if they went to a straight popular vote it would by far and away be the biggest turnout ever because people would feel there vote would count.

But to say that a person in a less populated area wouldn't count as much makes no sense.

a vote is a vote

But the vote of the individual is lumped in with every vote in the country. When counted as a total of the whole country a voter in North Dakota is .002 percent of the population. If you use the electorate they cast about the same .002 percent. As a total of the electoral college they are about twice as powerful with .005 percent.

The argument that there would be more voters with a popular vote may not ring true, but even if it does then that change would be across the board. You would also have a boost in voters if you amend the EC to the same program as Maine and Nebraska.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by Gravedigger

My thoughts exactly, if you want to Rock the Vote, you have to even the playing field. If you aren't in a swing state your vote doesn't matter as much as other states. There's no equality in it. The election always boils down to Florida, Ohio, Virginia, etc and I'm sick of keeping all eyes on one state out of 50. If you know where the chips are going to fall in 2/3 of the United States then it doesn't leave much up to the individual vote. Also if you made it the popular vote and split it up by states so that each state would be responsible for its votes to hinder against a national recount, then the Presidential Nominees would actually have to tour the country they are about to take over. Maybe I want to see Obama at Oklahoma Joe's getting a BBQ sandwich, or Romney at a Wendy's, but I won't get the opportunity to shake hands unless our state has a catastrophe in it or I'm just lucky enough to get the chance. We deserve to be watched just as much as the other states regardless of their populations.

In a popular vote candidates will campaign where they can get the most votes. They will still be in swing states because that's where the most undecided voters are.

Barack Obama was behind in the popular vote until they started counting California. That is not going to change.

[synthesis2]

I know that he won the popular as well as the elect. vote, I get it.

I also understand what you are saying about north dakota counting for .002 percent.

I still don't think this matters.

I think if you polled all of the people in the USA and had a vote as to elect. voting or popular vote it would be a landslide for the poplular, I wouldn't be suprised if it recieved 80% plus votes accross the nation.

If it went to a popular vote people woulnd't care about the states as much and they would just care about what the nation overall wants.

And people would feel like their vote counted as how it stands now many don't

Obama / Rommeny / superman I don't care, just making a point that it makes too much sense and I just don't understand why it hasn't been changed in the last 20 years.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by synthesis2

I know that he won the popular as well as the elect. vote, I get it.

I also understand what you are saying about north dakota counting for .002 percent.

I still don't think this matters.

I think if you polled all of the people in the USA and had a vote as to elect. voting or popular vote it would be a landslide for the poplular, I wouldn't be suprised if it recieved 80% plus votes accross the nation.

If it went to a popular vote people woulnd't care about the states as much and they would just care about what the nation overall wants.

And people would feel like their vote counted as how it stands now many don't

Obama / Rommeny / superman I don't care, just making a point that it makes too much sense and I just don't understand why it hasn't been changed in the last 20 years.

I'll give you one reason. Remember the recount in Florida in 2000 and the ensuing cluster ****. Now expand that to every vote in the country.