Quoted: I have a question though, isn't the amount of electoral votes based on the population in the state? How do large states dominate any less now than they would if we just had a straight popular vote?

With the electoral college, only 51% of the population of  a large state really "counts".

Getting 51% of California's popular vote is good for 55 electoral votes.

Getting 80% of California's popular vote is still good for only 55 electoral votes.

Under a popular vote system, the difference between 51% and 80% in California is 5.8 million votes.  Those are 5.8 milllion votes that essentially wouldn't be counted under the electoral college system, but would be counted under a popular vote system.

Just that 29% difference in the California vote would be almost equal to 100% of the popular vote in Arizona, Nevada and Utah combined.

Quoted: With the electoral college, only 51% of the population of  a large state really "counts". Getting 51% of California's popular vote is good for 55 electoral votes. Getting 80% of California's popular vote is still good for only 55 electoral votes. Under a popular vote system, the difference between 51% and 80% in California is 5.8 million votes.  Those are 5.8 milllion votes that essentially wouldn't be counted under the electoral college system, but would be counted under a popular vote system. Just that 29% difference in the California vote would be almost equal to 100% of the popular vote in Arizona, Nevada and Utah combined.

Okay now this brings up a question that I've always wondered about. I understand how the electoral vote process works with the states. However, what about the votes for absentee? How long does it normally take *on average* for those to come in. I know that they have a lot to do with the voting as well. Don't they have specific deadline to meet if people are going to do the absentee votes? [:\]

Quoted: Quoted: I have a question though, isn't the amount of electoral votes based on the population in the state? How do large states dominate any less now than they would if we just had a straight popular vote? With the electoral college, only 51% of the population of  a large state really "counts". Getting 51% of California's popular vote is good for 55 electoral votes. Getting 80% of California's popular vote is still good for only 55 electoral votes. Under a popular vote system, the difference between 51% and 80% in California is 5.8 million votes.  Those are 5.8 milllion votes that essentially wouldn't be counted under the electoral college system, but would be counted under a popular vote system. Just that 29% difference in the California vote would be almost equal to 100% of the popular vote in Arizona, Nevada and Utah combined.

Beat me to it...thanks.

Quoted: They should just do away with the Electoral College, altogether. Majority wins.... period.

This is a sad statement from an uneducated person. Thank God for the Electorial College. It saves The US from being the way Kalifornias and New Yorkers want it to be i.e "Gun-less" and socialized.


Add up all the libs commies and gays in say kalifornia.
They out number the God fearing hard working people in Alabama , Georgia, and Miss. and maybe more. The Electorial College keeps the playing field even.
With exit polls the way they are now, the polls could be closed in the East and said candidate could be predicted to win.  Well, the left coast could all go out in mass and select who they want because their polls close later.
This is not the best example, but it is the only way I can explain it. Anyone else care to shed some light on this?

Quoted: Quoted: I have a question though, isn't the amount of electoral votes based on the population in the state? How do large states dominate any less now than they would if we just had a straight popular vote? With the electoral college, only 51% of the population of  a large state really "counts". Getting 51% of California's popular vote is good for 55 electoral votes. Getting 80% of California's popular vote is still good for only 55 electoral votes. Under a popular vote system, the difference between 51% and 80% in California is 5.8 million votes.  Those are 5.8 milllion votes that essentially wouldn't be counted under the electoral college system, but would be counted under a popular vote system. Just that 29% difference in the California vote would be almost equal to 100% of the popular vote in Arizona, Nevada and Utah combined.

This analysis would be somewhat valid if we lived in a democracy. We do not. We live in a Federal Republic,

The Founding Fathers were very clear on wanting to avoid the many problems of democracies, and saw a federal republic as the most effective way to do this. Candidates still need to keep in mind many different state and regional desires, rather than just playing for 50% +1 of the total popular vote.

Quoted: People in the rural states can't get to the polls? 100 yrs ago, ok. Now?

You either went to or are still in PUBLIC SCHOOL!

I bet your Social Studies book is where you are getting this crap from.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a question though, isn't the amount of electoral votes based on the population in the state? How do large states dominate any less now than they would if we just had a straight popular vote? With the electoral college, only 51% of the population of  a large state really "counts". Getting 51% of California's popular vote is good for 55 electoral votes. Getting 80% of California's popular vote is still good for only 55 electoral votes. Under a popular vote system, the difference between 51% and 80% in California is 5.8 million votes.  Those are 5.8 milllion votes that essentially wouldn't be counted under the electoral college system, but would be counted under a popular vote system. Just that 29% difference in the California vote would be almost equal to 100% of the popular vote in Arizona, Nevada and Utah combined. This analysis would be somewhat valid if we lived in a democracy. We do not. We live in a Federal Republic, The Founding Fathers were very clear on wanting to avoid the many problems of democracies, and saw a federal republic as the most effective way to do this. Candidates still need to keep in mind many different state and regional desires, rather than just playing for 50% +1 of the total popular vote.

Right... I thought that this was what I was trying to point out. I was trying to show the dangers of presidential elections held under a "true democracy", as opposed to what we have now.

Under a popular vote system, a candidate would only have to focus on the most populous areas of the country, whereas now they have to focus more on the nation as a whole.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a question though, isn't the amount of electoral votes based on the population in the state? How do large states dominate any less now than they would if we just had a straight popular vote? With the electoral college, only 51% of the population of  a large state really "counts". Getting 51% of California's popular vote is good for 55 electoral votes. Getting 80% of California's popular vote is still good for only 55 electoral votes. Under a popular vote system, the difference between 51% and 80% in California is 5.8 million votes.  Those are 5.8 milllion votes that essentially wouldn't be counted under the electoral college system, but would be counted under a popular vote system. Just that 29% difference in the California vote would be almost equal to 100% of the popular vote in Arizona, Nevada and Utah combined. This analysis would be somewhat valid if we lived in a democracy. We do not. We live in a Federal Republic, The Founding Fathers were very clear on wanting to avoid the many problems of democracies, and saw a federal republic as the most effective way to do this. Candidates still need to keep in mind many different state and regional desires, rather than just playing for 50% +1 of the total popular vote. Right... I thought that this was what I was trying to point out. I was trying to show the dangers of presidential elections held under a "true democracy", as opposed to what we have now. Under a popular vote system, a candidate would only have to focus on the most populous areas of the country, whereas now they have to focus more on the nation as a whole.

Let's chop up the Caliban, we'll name them The Caliban and California

New Rasmussen polls out today, and they give Kerry a slight lead in PA and FL.

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004:   Kerry 269   Bush 253

WTH When did WI turn blue?  I see many more Bush stickers than Kerry stickers.

I also like their final projected electoral college total:

Kerry 192
Bush  330


Really nothing more than a guesstimate, but it sure would be nice...

and while we are at it...........

Let's repeal the 17th amendment and restore Article I, section 3 of the Constitution.  The founding fathers intended for the State Legislatures to have a direct voice in Washington and the Senate was SUPPOSED to be that voice.  Instead, it has become a concentrated, easy to lobby whore for outside special interest groups.  IMO, this amendment did more to hinder state's rights than any other.

Quoted: and while we are at it........... Let's repeal the 17th amendment and restore Article I, section 3 of the Constitution.  The founding fathers intended for the State Legislatures to have a direct voice in Washington and the Senate was SUPPOSED to be that voice.  Instead, it has become a concentrated, easy to lobby whore for outside special interest groups.  IMO, this amendment did more to hinder state's rights than any other.

Heck, why stop there?!?!  Let's just go back to the original criteria the FF had for who could vote in the first place...

Quoted: Looking at the two maps above, what happened to New Mexico that is has become an outpost of New England?

Two things: Hispanic majority and a lot of people moving in from California.

Zogby polls are pretty much worthless.

Zogby claimed that the Davis Recall will fail and if it didn't, Davis will beat Schwarzenegger handily.

I don't know where he gathers his data from, but the California recall passed by a good margin and Ahnold is sitting in the Governors chair.

Since some of you guys still don't get it.

Some food for thought....

www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/04/081104-11.html



Aug. 11, 2004 - Political equality is one of the nation's most deeply ingrained democratic principles, but, surprisingly, the election system for selecting the president of the United States is at odds with this ideal, says George C. Edwards III, a distinguished professor of political science at Texas A&M University and a presidential scholar.
    Edwards contends the Electoral College is a system that disenfranchises voters who support losing candidates in each state, does not protect small states' interests or those of racial minorities, does not provide presidents with effective coalitions for governing and does little to protect the political system from the alleged harms of a direct election.
    "The Electoral College protects no one's interests and violates democratic principles," says Edwards, who has just written a book titled "Why the Electoral College is Bad for America."
    Edwards, whose career is devoted to studying the presidency, says there is no real justification for the Electoral College, which he calls an outdated, "capricious system" that has the potential to violate majority rule because it favors the votes of some citizens over others based on the state in which they live.
    In the winner-take-all system that is the Electoral College, Edwards says, presidential candidates are often inattentive to small states or states that are already conceded to their opponents. It does not make sense, he says, for candidates to allocate scare resources to states they cannot win or which the size of their victory is irrelevant.
    The Electoral College system, Edwards explains, also weakens incentives for voter participation in states that are safe for a candidate and similarly weakens incentives for either party to attempt to mobilize voters in those states.
    Edwards favors eliminating the Electoral College system and electing a president on the basis of the overall popular vote.
    "Candidates would be much more attentive to small states under direct election of the president," Edwards says. "Where votes are not aggregated by state, candidates would have incentives to appeal to all voters and not just those strategically located in swing states. An extra citizen's vote in Massachusetts or Texas would count as much as one in Michigan or Florida."
    Counting all votes equally and making all votes equally valuable to a candidate would also provide candidates an incentive to clarify their stances rather than hedging them to persuade only the undecided in competitive states.
    Advocates of the Electoral College defend it as protecting important interests that would be overlooked under a system of direct election, Edwards says. Proponents argue that the system ensures presidential candidates build broad national coalitions of voters in every region and that they be attentive to state-based interests, especially in states with small populations that would be overlooked in a national electorate, he explains.
    However, the result has been less than ideal, Edwards says, noting that in the presidential election of 2000, candidates campaigned actively in only 17 "battleground" states, ignoring the other 33 states. With few exceptions, he adds, small states were not among these battleground states.
    "Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how presidential candidates could be less attentive to small states," Edwards says.
    Further more, Edwards explains, states do not embody coherent, unified interests in need of protection. Even the smallest states have substantial diversity of interests, he notes. They represent a great diversity of core economic interests and agricultural interests.
    "It is not surprising that small-state representatives do not vote as a bloc in Congress or that their citizens do not vote as a bloc for president," he says. "The great political battles of American history have been over ideology and economic interests rather than between small states and large states."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact: George Edwards, (979) 845-9764 or via email: [email protected] or Ryan A. Garcia, (979) 845-4680 or via email: [email protected].

Quoted: Since some of you guys still don't get it. Some food for thought.... www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/04/081104-11.html Aug. 11, 2004 - Political equality is one of the nation's most deeply ingrained democratic principles, but, surprisingly, the election system for selecting the president of the United States is at odds with this ideal, says George C. Edwards III, a distinguished professor of political science at Texas A&M University and a presidential scholar. <snip> However, the result has been less than ideal, Edwards says, noting that in the presidential election of 2000, candidates campaigned actively in only 17 "battleground" states, ignoring the other 33 states. With few exceptions, he adds, small states were not among these battleground states.     "Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how presidential candidates could be less attentive to small states," Edwards says. <snip>

George C. Edwards III is a tard. His argument in self-refuting: If Gore had campaigned hard in just ONE of those small states and won it, he would be in the Oval Office right now.

I offer a compromise solution for the electoral college/popular vote debate. Keep the electoral college, but make the number of electors equal the number of senators for each state rather than the number of representatives.  
BTW, my Team membership dues are inbound, so this post will have credibility soon. That is unless the expost facto clause prevents it.

Quoted: Quoted: Since some of you guys still don't get it. Some food for thought.... www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/04/081104-11.html Aug. 11, 2004 - Political equality is one of the nation's most deeply ingrained democratic principles, but, surprisingly, the election system for selecting the president of the United States is at odds with this ideal, says George C. Edwards III, a distinguished professor of political science at Texas A&M University and a presidential scholar. <snip> However, the result has been less than ideal, Edwards says, noting that in the presidential election of 2000, candidates campaigned actively in only 17 "battleground" states, ignoring the other 33 states. With few exceptions, he adds, small states were not among these battleground states.     "Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how presidential candidates could be less attentive to small states," Edwards says. <snip> George C. Edwards III is a tard. His argument in self-refuting: If Gore had campaigned hard in just ONE of those small states and won it, he would be in the Oval Office right now.

Hmmmmm...sounds like conjecture?

Quoted: I offer a compromise solution for the electoral college/popular vote debate. Keep the electoral college, but make the number of electors equal the number of senators for each state rather than the number of representatives.

Actually the electoral college is based on the number of representatives plus the number of senators. Since everyone has and equal number of senators the EC is slightly biased towards the small states, as it should be.

Here is www.electoral-vote.com's "projected final map," "based on the projections from the least squares linear regression lines on the state polls."

Projected Electoral College Votes:   Kerry 192   Bush 330
Bush does not take 45 states, but it is good enough.

Quoted: Since some of you guys still don't get it. Some food for thought....       "Candidates would be much more attentive to small states under direct election of the president," Edwards says. "Where votes are not aggregated by state, candidates would have incentives to appeal to all voters and not just those strategically located in swing states. An extra citizen's vote in Massachusetts or Texas would count as much as one in Michigan or Florida."

These are what he defines as "small" states? These four states are ranked 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 13th in population.

I guess old George considers the other 37 states not even worthy of the "small" state label.  

Quoted: Since some of you guys still don't get it. Some food for thought....

And we would have to change our Country's name to the United Big Cities of America

What this guy is advocating is basically a Parlimentary System at the local level.......no thanks.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Since some of you guys still don't get it. Some food for thought.... www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/04/081104-11.html Aug. 11, 2004 - Political equality is one of the nation's most deeply ingrained democratic principles, but, surprisingly, the election system for selecting the president of the United States is at odds with this ideal, says George C. Edwards III, a distinguished professor of political science at Texas A&M University and a presidential scholar. <snip> However, the result has been less than ideal, Edwards says, noting that in the presidential election of 2000, candidates campaigned actively in only 17 "battleground" states, ignoring the other 33 states. With few exceptions, he adds, small states were not among these battleground states.     "Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how presidential candidates could be less attentive to small states," Edwards says. <snip> George C. Edwards III is a tard. His argument in self-refuting: If Gore had campaigned hard in just ONE of those small states and won it, he would be in the Oval Office right now. Hmmmmm...sounds like conjecture?

No, it is pointing out that Edwards argument is based upon a flawed premise: Because small states don't matter due the the Electoral College method of selecting Presidents, they are safe to ignore. My point is that Gore ignored the small states, as Edwards says he should have, and he lost - by a single eletoral vote. Ergo, Edwards argument that the small states can be safely ignored is demonstrably false. Ask President Gore. Bush on the other hand did campaign in the small states. Today he sits in the Oval Office. Hence, George C. Edwards III is a tard.

Edward is arguing for direct elections because he is a philosphical believer in direct democracy, not because, as the article you link claims, "Political equality is one of the nation's most deeply ingrained democratic principles, but, surprisingly, the election system for selecting the president of the United States is at odds with this ideal..." Our Constitution is intentionally structured to LIMIT "democratic principles."  For example, the already mentioned Electoral College for electing Presidents, the equal number of Senators for each state, regardless of population, strict limits on who may vote and hold office, etc.  It also recognizes that the states as states are to be important centers of power, regardless of their population.

For a man with as much education as he has, he still has not figured out that we do not live in a democracy, but in a federal republic. Apparently, neither have you.

Quoted: Here is www.electoral-vote.com's "projected final map," "based on the projections from the least squares linear regression lines on the state polls." www.electoral-vote.com/fin/sep22p.png Projected Electoral College Votes:   Kerry 192   Bush 330 Bush does not take 45 states, but it is good enough.

Please, Dear Lord! Make this map come true!

We've suffered enough at the hands of those leftist goons!

Earth to Zogby... Good News... Kerry all but conceeds Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri to Bush!!!

fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outlines/BushCountyMapMandate.htm


There's the page that talks about the big map with county-by-county coloring seen earlier in the thread......with a good (and brief) explanation of why a popular vote only system would suck ass and why the electoral college is a damned good idea.