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: 9/22/2004 8:49:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2004 8:51:08 AM EST by Greenhorn]
I understand the importance of the electoral college. The liberals do not. I think that we should offer a comprimise. If each county is counted as a single vote, rather than the entire state's counties as a whole, that would be closer to a popular vote count like the liberals want. However, even though it's closer to what they want, it will help us because it is mostly the big cities that go for democrats, and they often give a state to a democrat that would have gone to a rebublican if that city was not counted (I.E. California).

Thoughts?
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 8:57:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2004 8:59:42 AM EST by PONY_DRIVER]
Never happen, but it's a nice thought.

ETA: Do you mean that each county in the nation gets one (1) electoral vote? Or that they're tallied and the current state electoral votes go to whichever candidate won the most counties in that state?
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 8:59:17 AM EST
Thats not gonna happen. Here in CO they have a bill on the ballot to divide our electoral votes according to the popular vote. So if the popular vote is 45%/55%, then our electoral votes will be split 4/5. What a joke. It will make CO completely irrelevant in the election process.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 8:59:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
I understand the importance of the electoral college. The liberals do not.



They actually do understand.....that's the problem and the danger. They want the urban centers that are liberal hives to be the deciding vote.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:00:30 AM EST


I'm far from liberal but I do not fully understand the importance of the Electoral College. I've had several people tell me that without it politicians would ignore less populated states. But with it, they ignore states they have little or no chance of winning. It seems to me that with a popular vote, or some compromise like you suggested, they would have to campaign in EVERY state.

I'm sure that there is something I'm missing about this.



Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:00:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By hepcat85:

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
I understand the importance of the electoral college. The liberals do not.



They actually do understand.....that's the problem and the danger. They want the urban centers that are liberal hives to be the deciding vote.



They usually are.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:01:52 AM EST
Giving one vote to each county would never fly because then a county with a city that has several million people would count the same as a rural county with only a few thousand people.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:02:18 AM EST
Don't Hold you're breathe, Never happen!
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:03:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By jfrush:

I'm far from liberal but I do not fully understand the importance of the Electoral College. I've had several people tell me that without it politicians would ignore less populated states. But with it, they ignore states they have little or no chance of winning. It seems to me that with a popular vote, or some compromise like you suggested, they would have to campaign in EVERY state.

I'm sure that there is something I'm missing about this.






Go find a GOOD history book. The common vote ended up electing a president from one party and a VP of another...not very productive. Also if it were NOT for the EC candidates would campaign in NY, CA, NJ, Chicago, etc
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:04:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2004 9:13:40 AM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
I understand the importance of the electoral college. The liberals do not. I think that we should offer a comprimise.
<<< SNIP! >>>


When you sit down to negotiate on what you already have, you lose.



If each county is counted as a single vote, rather than the entire state's counties as a whole, that would be closer to a popular vote count like the liberals want. However, even though it's closer to what they want, it will help us because it is mostly the big cities that go for democrats, and they often give a state to a democrat that would have gone to a rebublican if that city was not counted (I.E. California).

Thoughts?

The leftists who control Illinois, New York, California etc. would immediately subdivide Chicago, New York City, LA, San Francisco and Oakland into a thousand "counties" each with probably more residents than any county in the south.

Then the conservative states would do the same and then the leftists would take their turn again, and so on and so on... until we're left with a pure popular election for President of the United States.


Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:12:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2004 9:13:25 AM EST by PAEBR332]
This is the same confusion as always when discussing this topic. It comes from people thinking we live in a DEMOCRACY. We don't. We live in a FEDERAL REPUBLIC. The electoral college was designed to give weight to the states as states in selecting the President. If you read your Constitution, you will also see that if no one gets a majority in the EC, the House votes on who becomes president, with each state getting 1 vote. Further evidence of the intent to have the states AS STATES play a fundamental role in selecting the President.

The Founding Father were afraid of democracy, and thought the passion of the mob should be filtered through several mechanisms: The Senate, the Electoral College, and independent judiciary,etc. I happen to believe they were very wise men.


Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin

Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:35:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By jfrush:

I'm far from liberal but I do not fully understand the importance of the Electoral College. I've had several people tell me that without it politicians would ignore less populated states. But with it, they ignore states they have little or no chance of winning. It seems to me that with a popular vote, or some compromise like you suggested, they would have to campaign in EVERY state.

I'm sure that there is something I'm missing about this.





In a popular vote system, 20% of the popular vote in California would be worth the same as 100% of the popular vote in Tennesse.

Politicians would find it much easier to campaign for a smaller percentage of a large state vote, than to try to capture 100% of the vote in a smaller state.

In an electoral system, "battleground" states can change from election to election.

With a popular vote, large sections of rural America would be permanently ignored, while urban areas would be competed for fiercely.

The likely result of this would be a massive increase in government programs benefiting major cities, while smaller states and rural areas get the shaft.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:37:59 AM EST
It will get shot down like the ERA.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:47:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2004 9:47:56 AM EST by Greenhorn]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
When you sit down to negotiate on what you already have, you lose.



I don't mean that we should be nice and thoughtful to the liberals and let them have some of what they want. I mean that we should take advantage of their lust for popular vote elections and give them something that is closer to it, thereby sealing their fate.

Of course, they're probably not stupid enough to fall for it.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 11:02:12 AM EST
For those that need a refresher course:

How the Electoral College works
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 11:10:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:
Thats not gonna happen. Here in CO they have a bill on the ballot to divide our electoral votes according to the popular vote. So if the popular vote is 45%/55%, then our electoral votes will be split 4/5. What a joke. It will make CO completely irrelevant in the election process.



If that law passes, it will most likely run afoul of Constitutional issues:


Electors constitutionally remain free to cast their ballots for any person they wish and occasionally they have done so. 87 A recent instance occurred when a 1968 Republican elector in North Carolina chose to cast his vote not for Richard M. Nixon, who had won a plurality in the State, but for George Wallace, the independent candidate who had won the second greatest number of votes. Members of both the House of Representatives and of the Senate objected to counting that vote for Mr. Wallace and insisted that it should be counted for Mr. Nixon, but both bodies decided to count the vote as cast. 88

The power of either Congress 89 or of the States to enact legislation binding electors to vote for the candidate of the party on the ticket of which they run has been the subject of much argument. 90 It remains unsettled and the Supreme Court has touched on the issue only once and then tangentially. In Ray v. Blair, 91 the Court upheld, against a challenge of invalidity under the Twelfth Amendment, a rule of the Democratic Party of Alabama, acting under delegated power of the legislature, which required each candidate for the office of presidential elector to take a pledge to support the nominees of the party's convention for President and Vice President. The state court had determined that the Twelfth Amendment, following language of Clause 3, required that electors be absolutely free to vote for anyone of their choice.



Constitutional Annotations regarding the status of Electors
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 11:28:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:
Thats not gonna happen. Here in CO they have a bill on the ballot to divide our electoral votes according to the popular vote. So if the popular vote is 45%/55%, then our electoral votes will be split 4/5. What a joke. It will make CO completely irrelevant in the election process.



If that law passes, it will most likely run afoul of Constitutional issues:

<snip>



Article II, Section 1:


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. {emphasis added}


There is no statute or case law banning a state from awarding electors based on the popular vote breakdown. It's up the the states to determine how this is done, as long as it does not run afoul of equal protection problems.

Of course, if it's not winner-take-all, both sides will effectively ignore Colorado, since they would likely only be able to swing at most one electoral vote by pouring in resources. The law of unintended consequences in action.
Top Top