Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/12/2004 5:28:39 PM EST
Based on the current polling data Kerry maintains a thin majority in the popular vote.
But the current electoral vote gives Bush a strong lead.

I think if that is the way it plays out the liberals are going to lose it. Hell, I almost hope it works out that way just to piss them off.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 5:47:10 PM EST
I'm not a big fan of the EC. It does give the illusion of a federal government, but that's about the only good that it does. This controversy about the EC, is misplaced. It's not the college per se, but the winner take all system that people should be bitching about.

However, this is not material, as it is the law. It's in our favor, so we just sit and grin. It's strange that these people who think that they are so smart, and that have so much faith in government bureaucracy can't seem go grasp the the EC is legitimate law.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 5:48:23 PM EST
... DU night of election

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 5:49:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... DU night of election

img79.exs.cx/img79/3321/DU-11-03-04.png



Link Posted: 10/12/2004 5:50:02 PM EST
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the point of the EC to prevent one or a few states from exerting undue influence over the rest of the country, despite their populations?

For example, If California had almost all the people in the country, and the other states had 100K each, (and the numbers were the same as now), would the purpose of the EC be to prevent California from overwhelming the other states?

Seems like a reasonable restriction to me....
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 5:51:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... DU night of election

img79.exs.cx/img79/3321/DU-11-03-04.png





Good one!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 5:53:39 PM EST
EC prevents socialism
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 5:57:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 5:58:41 PM EST by DriftPunch]

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the point of the EC to prevent one or a few states from exerting undue influence over the rest of the country, despite their populations?

For example, If California had almost all the people in the country, and the other states had 100K each, (and the numbers were the same as now), would the purpose of the EC be to prevent California from overwhelming the other states?

Seems like a reasonable restriction to me....


I don't see how people get that from the reality of the equation. A state gets one elector for each senator and each representative. Thus the number of electors follows the last census population anyway.

The winner takes all system actually makes the problem you mention even worse because the larger a state gets, the more electors can be 'swaped' due to winner takes all. Compare it to how the electors would end up if the two senator electors were WTA and the house district ones were allowed to follow their districts vote. In the current scenerio, CA is 55/45, all electors go for the 55 candidate. In the second scenerio, districts that went to the 45 candidate would be allowed to vote for their candidate. CA + NYs WTA electors trumps a large portion of the small states before things even get moving.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:00:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 6:05:21 PM EST by drjarhead]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the point of the EC to prevent one or a few states from exerting undue influence over the rest of the country, despite their populations?

For example, If California had almost all the people in the country, and the other states had 100K each, (and the numbers were the same as now), would the purpose of the EC be to prevent California from overwhelming the other states?

Seems like a reasonable restriction to me....


I don't see how people get that from the reality of the equation. A state gets one elector for each senator and each representative. Thus the number of electors follows the last census population anyway.

The winner takes all system actually makes the problem you mention even worse because the larger a state gets, the more electors can be 'swaped' due to winner takes all. Compare it to how the electors would end up if the two senator electors were WTA and the house district ones were allowed to follow their districts vote. In the current scenerio, CA is 55/45, all electors go for the 55 candidate. In the second scenerio, districts that went to the 45 candidate would be allowed to vote for their candidate. CA + NYs WTA electors trumps a large portion of the small states before things even get moving.



Actually, since each state has the same number of senators, 2, this gives the less populated states an advantage in preventing large population centers from dominating the elections.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:01:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the point of the EC to prevent one or a few states from exerting undue influence over the rest of the country, despite their populations?

For example, If California had almost all the people in the country, and the other states had 100K each, (and the numbers were the same as now), would the purpose of the EC be to prevent California from overwhelming the other states?

Seems like a reasonable restriction to me....



It's to prevent a few CITIES from dominating the vote...

Remember THE PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE NATION AS A WHOLE, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE

The purpose of the Electoral College was to complete the trifecta of elected government:
1) President : Represents the NATION
2) Senate : Represents the STATES
3) House of Reps : Represents the PEOPLE

Now, we screwed up #2 with direct election of senators.

Fortunately #1 is still in place

The Electoral College is SUPPOSED to be winner-take-all, it's the only way it works... If you du Colorado's REALLY STUPID IDEA and make it proportional by state, then you allow major metro areas to dominate elections - you basically defeat the purpose of having the EC, period...

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:01:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Based on the current polling data Kerry maintains a thin majority in the popular vote.
But the current electoral vote gives Bush a strong lead.

I think if that is the way it plays out the liberals are going to lose it. Hell, I almost hope it works out that way just to piss them off.hr


HELL YEAH! Maybe they'll even start a civil war!hope..
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:03:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By mikejohnson:
EC prevents socialism



That would seem to be the end result now. Certainly it prevents the socialists from shoving it down the rest of the nation' throats. Funny how shit works out.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:03:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 6:06:29 PM EST by Hank_Rearden1]
EC also prevents vast voter fraud/manupilation under the assumption that such manupilation occurs in high density areas, cities... so it protects the non-urban areas... same idea behind having 2 Senators with 6 year terms for each state versus the House where rep districts are assigned to states based on census with reps only having two year terms.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:11:59 PM EST
The best way to do it would be 1 electoral vote per county, with the county winner getting the vote.
That way, your urban centers like LA, San Fran, NYC, and Chitown wouldn't skew the electoral vote.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:13:53 PM EST
Yeah but if BUSH wins the Popular and SKERRY wins the EC, They will say "Well, thats the American way"
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:17:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... DU night of election

img79.exs.cx/img79/3321/DU-11-03-04.png



LMAO! I like FatSlob's poll question.

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:22:49 PM EST
The EC is great. It forces candidates to run broad-based campaigns that don't pander to one geographic region.

Suppose a candidate wants to run as an environmentalist, and his platform is to lock up all federal land in the West. If he wants to pull this off he can plausible run up a huge majority in the Northeast (say, 70% of the popular vote there) and write off all the popular votes in the West that are actually affected by the policy. This isn't exactly unheard of. In Candada something similar happens, when the Canadian federal government taxes the hell out of the oil-producing regions to support the welfare state. Something like that would be much harder in the US, where a national candidate can't appeal to exclusively one geographic region.

The founders were pretty smart guys. The EC as it works today may have been an accident, but it's an accident that works pretty well.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:40:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the point of the EC to prevent one or a few states from exerting undue influence over the rest of the country, despite their populations?

For example, If California had almost all the people in the country, and the other states had 100K each, (and the numbers were the same as now), would the purpose of the EC be to prevent California from overwhelming the other states?

Seems like a reasonable restriction to me....



+1
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:42:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... DU night of election

img79.exs.cx/img79/3321/DU-11-03-04.png



I swear - that's the hardest I've laughed in the past 3 days!

Outstanding!

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:50:05 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:51:10 PM EST
"DU'ers are going to go nuts! "



Good.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:54:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
I'm not a big fan of the EC. It does give the illusion of a federal government, but that's about the only good that it does. This controversy about the EC, is misplaced. It's not the college per se, but the winner take all system that people should be bitching about.

If you really think that, then you have no fucking grasp of what the Electoral College is actually for.
Nevermind, just reread your nonsensical "illusion of a federal government".
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:59:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
The EC is the most brillant thing the Founding Fathers gave us besides the Bill of Rights.
Those who cannot see this need to do some more reading.



+1
Top Top