|
Electoral College
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dave Piazza |
Do you think the electoral college should be changed ?
For those unfamilar with the electoral college here is a link to learn more:
www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
I think that electoral votes should be divided by the % of votes the candiate receives in that state. This would make each vote have a greater impact on the election.
For example,
The state of Illinois has an electoral vote count of 10.
If Kerry gets 55% (Bush 45% )of the vote in Illinois instead of receiving all 10 electoral votes from Illinois ( the current structure) Kerry would get 5.5 electoral votes ( .55 X 10) and Bush would get 4.5 ( .45 X 10 ).
Debate.
Heres some extra info :
About the Electoral College
Number of Electors: 538, one for each of 435 House members, 100 senators and three for the District of Columbia.
Number Needed to Win: 270
Allocation: Each state's electors equal the number of its House members and two senators.
Selection: Electors are generally chosen by the political parties, but they are not required by law to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state.
Split Vote: In Maine and Nebraska, two electors are chosen at-large by statewide popular vote, while the rest are selected by popular vote in each congressional district. That means the electoral votes in those two states can result in a split slate of electors.
House Role: If no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the presidential election is decided by a majority vote of the U.S. House. Each state delegation receives one vote |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| Why even have electoral votes in the first place? Seriously, just count the number of votes, none of this other crap |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Why even have electoral votes in the first place? Seriously, just count the number of votes, none of this other crap |
Werd. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Why even have electoral votes in the first place? Seriously, just count the number of votes, none of this other crap |
I think that is based around the fact that large groups of people are stupid. When you get large groups of Americans, then you get really stupid. The population is too large to be able to trust it to have a direct election. You need to have a buffer in there somewhere for just in case. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| Then why have a popular election if it doesn't matter? Even if there is a tie the popular vote doesn't matter. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
Then why have a popular election if it doesn't matter? Even if there is a tie the popular vote doesn't matter. |
The popular vote does matter. The electorates always follow the popular vote some states have laws saying they have to follow the vote. But the general population is stupid and easily manipulated, especially now with modern media. So the buffer serves a purpose as a last line of defense so that the population doesn't end up picking Fidel Castro as the next president. Look at who it picked for the govenor of California...
I think thats just some of the reasoning for why it was set up that way. How meaningful the system is and how efficently it works is entirely subjective. You could easily argue both sides. Maybe there wouldn't be a huge difference if it was changed, maybe there would be. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| In most elections there probably wouldn't be a big discrepancy but I believe 4 or 5 times in our history the popular vote didn't match that of the electoral resulting in the other side winning. Before 2000 it hadn't happened since the 1800's but still... It really makes the people feel their vote means nothing. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
It really makes the people feel their vote means nothing. |
With or without the college your vote won't count. Statistically its pratically worthless, an election never comes down to one vote. Then there are all the votes that are forgoten or disgarded on purpose or by accident. Voting is a personal statement, nothing more. |
|
|
| policerobots |
| also because the guys in the middle of the country would have more representation rather than just by popular votes |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| As a foreigner who's not impressed by the US democracy, I would urge you to not only drop the electoral college (or at least abandon the winner-takes-all distribution system), but also to allow voting alliances, so that voters could vote for any candidate they felt represented their views without worrying about having their vote being "wasted". Unless of course that the majority of US citizens feel that US citizens in general are too stupid to handle a more democratic system. Then your system is just right. |
|
|
|
|
