Quoted: Quoted: I wish people would stop fucking with my constitution +1

+2

Quoted: I'm neither pro nor con at this point, but nobody has shown me how the EC does anything more than give the illusion of states rights.  The rural or less populated states do not fare any better with the EC, as the number of electors granted follows population anyway, and the winner takes all (on a state level) kills this argument by rendering the minority position null.

You miss the MAIN point: The states are important entities in and of themselves, and vote AS STATES for the President. You are still confused because you somehow think we live in a democracy. We do not. We live in a FEDERAL Republic.

BTW, the minority position is null in ALL elections where a majority +1 wins. If 20,000,000 people vote for candidate A, and 20,000,001 vote for candidate B,  the voice of 20,000,000 voters has been ignored.

Quoted: In response to the comments expressed by Repub18: 1. You commented that the reason the EC was established was because of the lack of knowledge   the common individual had about national affairs. This is no different today: a majority of people have no idea about the issues our nation is facing nor the possible solutions proposed both sides to resolve said problems. 2. We don't mean to attack you and if your feelings are hurt by people labeling you as a "Commie" or "Troll" then pack up your toys and roll on home. Furthermore, if you value the criticisms of individuals conversing over the Internet, then you may need some courses in self-confidence.

I dont mind criticism at all, as long as its productive

Wow, I'm surprised (and pleased) by the results of this poll.  Whenever this issue is brought up, it is like pulling teeth trying to explain to people the importance of the electoral college (probably because public schools have been teaching that it was invented because it was too hard to accurately count all of the votes in the 1800s and is therefor outdated).  I'd like to see popular public elections eliminated for senators as well, and return to the original method of senator selection.  That being said, I don't think that the current Electoral College is operating how it was intended.  I always thought that each member of the electoral college was supposed to thoroughly research each candidate, take the popular state vote (not just state, but particularly the vote in their local area) into account, and then cast their vote.  Different members of the Electoral College in the same state should be able to vote for different candidates.  Right now it seems that whichever candidate gets the majority vote in a given state, gets 100% of the EC votes.

Anyway, I voted hell no to popular vote only.

Quoted: You miss the MAIN point: The states are important entities in and of themselves, and vote AS STATES for the President. You are still confused because you somehow think we live in a democracy. We do not. We live in a FEDERAL Republic.

 This is not my point,  my point was countering the argument that somehow the EC provides protection from the majority.  The EC mirrors census population, so it can't do that.  

If the EC is procedural federalisim, so be it, but don't let these guys say that it is protection from something it isn't.  If they were concerned about that, they'd have removed the winner take all ideal.   They don't see that it works both ways.  In a non winner takes all system, some of the red states would lose some electors to the blue, but this would nearly wash due to some red districts poping out of the blue.  Sure it may work to your detriment, but it also may work in your favor.

BTW, the minority position is null in ALL elections where a majority +1 wins. If 20,000,000 people vote for candidate A, and 20,000,001 vote for candidate B,  the voice of 20,000,000 voters has been ignored.

This would be factual in a popular election, but it happens once removed in the EC.  Again, I'm confronting the argument that the EC was designed to stop the domination of the large states.  That's the job of the Senate.

What's broken that needs to be fixed?  You have to stop and think that this was one of the selling features of our new country.  It was a negotiated compromise to get the several states to Unite.  It's part and parcel of the rest of the state sovereignty negotiated in the Constitution.  

Another phase of this idea is electing representatives at large, whereby it is all national (no artificial boundaries like states, counties or districts).  You might also just do away with the Senate as it over-represents states with small populations and under-represents those with large populations.  The House could confirm judges or ratify treaties just as easily as the Senate.  In fact, with electronic voting you could vote directly on nearly everything  including judges, right up to the Supreme Court Justices (and you could vote them out, why should we stay old school with lifetime judgeships?).  Why stop with the Electoral College?  One man one vote on everything including the Health Care and Retirement Plan for Congress.

I vote no on this idea as it's logical conclusion is the abolition or neutering of state and local government and the consequent enlargement of the Federal government.  

No.



Look at the map. Now, this map tells you that the majority of the counties in the US voted for Bush. If a majority-vote systeem were to replace our current electoral system, that would mean that the person who wins the presidential election only has to win the counties with the major US cities like Los Angeles, NYC, Chicago, etc.

The system we have now is the way it should be. Take that to mean that the Electoral System allows the votes of states/counties without very large cities to have just as much say in the election of the president as the others.

If this were to be changed, we might as well burn the Constitution and BOR and collectively bend over and grab our ankles because freedom would be dead. I'd wager that such an action (majority rule determining president of the US) would be the straw that breaks the camel's back that would ignite a revolution, or at least I would hope that would be the case.

The rural or less populated states do not fare any better with the EC, as the number of electors granted follows population anyway,

It may generally follow it, but it's not proportional.

2000 Popular Vote
California: 33,871,653
Rhode Island: 1,048,319
Ratio: 32.3

2000 Electoral Votes
California: 54
Rhode Island: 4
Ratio: 13.5

Sources:
1) http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part6.html
2) http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

One thing this would logically do is create new and more powerful 3rd parties to counter the natural instinct of hatred for mobocracy.  Euro politics and Balkanization mentalities.

No, the electoral college system allows voices to be heard in proportion.
I dont want the city centers deciding the outcome of elections.

No, that would give the big states an advantage over small ones. We can't let that happen.

Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By arowneragain: Anyone remember the results of the popular vote in 1992? Sure. Bill Clinton: Pop. Vote: 44,909,326 George H. W. Bush: Pop. Vote: 39,103,882 H. Ross Perot: Pop. Vote: 19,741,657 I'm not sure what that proves. PWNED!

Do you know what the results of the popular vote was in 2000?

Republicans should promise to pay back the expense of illegal aliens in CA and try and get the 55 electoral votes there.  Makes more sense than beatin around the bush about the problem and the Dems getting the votes.

Quoted: No. www.esri.com/news/arcnews/spring01articles/spring01gifs/p15p1_600.gif Look at the map. Now, this map tells you that the majority of the counties in the US voted for Bush. If a majority-vote systeem were to replace our current electoral system, that would mean that the person who wins the presidential election only has to win the counties with the major US cities like Los Angeles, NYC, Chicago, etc. The system we have now is the way it should be. Take that to mean that the Electoral System allows the votes of states/counties without very large cities to have just as much say in the election of the president as the others. If this were to be changed, we might as well burn the Constitution and BOR and collectively bend over and grab our ankles because freedom would be dead. I'd wager that such an action (majority rule determining president of the US) would be the straw that breaks the camel's back that would ignite a revolution, or at least I would hope that would be the case.

exactly...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By arowneragain: Anyone remember the results of the popular vote in 1992? Sure. Bill Clinton: Pop. Vote: 44,909,326 George H. W. Bush: Pop. Vote: 39,103,882 H. Ross Perot: Pop. Vote: 19,741,657 I'm not sure what that proves. PWNED! Do you know what the results of the popular vote was in 2000?

yeah Gore won, thank god the EC was in place then

by the USA not being a 100% pure democracy, it has saved us from socialism....a democratic republic is best...however it really only works BEST when only property owners vote (because it is their money in the first place - they are the tax payers!) and not the freeloaders....we are on our way to socialism, then the system will collapse, and then anarchy/capitalism will begin the next cycle

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By arowneragain: Anyone remember the results of the popular vote in 1992? Sure. Bill Clinton: Pop. Vote: 44,909,326 George H. W. Bush: Pop. Vote: 39,103,882 H. Ross Perot: Pop. Vote: 19,741,657 I'm not sure what that proves. PWNED! Do you know what the results of the popular vote was in 2000? yeah Gore won, thank god the EC was in place then

same here

ah nevermind

absolutely not. the electoral system works.