Electoral College

Ok, I want a nice lovely debate about the electoral college system.

My opinion to get things started.
The electoral college system is an outdated method based off of an old landholders plan to hold onto controll of the presidency.
The fact that a handful of states can go to one man to give him the presidency, while the rest could vote against him giving him a clear minority of the popular vote, is a violation of the concept of fair elections and the idea of voting period.


For example. Gore won a clear majority of the popular vote in 2000, while the fact of one state (florida) turned the election for bush.

[Satchel]

I'm very much against it. I think no one vote should count more than the other. It also encourages less voting from people in states where the winner is predetermined. I'm only going to be voting out of pure spite.

[MysteryMeat]

No.

[bfp]

I think the electoral college is a shitty idea.

Do away with it.

Originally posted by Dropzone
Ok, I want a nice lovely debate about the electoral college system.

My opinion to get things started.
The electoral college system is an outdated method based off of an old landholders plan to hold onto controll of the presidency.
The fact that a handful of states can go to one man to give him the presidency, while the rest could vote against him giving him a clear minority of the popular vote, is a violation of the concept of fair elections and the idea of voting period.


For example. Gore won a clear majority of the popular vote in 2000, while the fact of one state (florida) turned the election for bush.

You could pick pretty much any "one" state and say the election turned on it. (kinda like the last second field goal that went wide is only as decisive as the dropped TD pass - pick your event - they're linked)

Electoral College is designed to help smaller population states not got lost in the shuffle.

Small population states' senators may represent say 500,000 people each (pop divided by 2) while senators in Texas may represent 10,000,000 each (I've no idea what the population of TX is and was too lazy to look it up).

It is disproportionate representation with intent.


having said that....New York, Texas, California, Florida, Ohio and Illinois, Pwennsylvania - - that's 188 of 270 needed!


I support the system as a method of preventing smaller population states from becoming irrelevent.....tyranny of the majority

[Satchel]

"Small population states' senators may represent say 500,000 people each (pop divided by 2) while senators in Texas may represent 10,000,000 each (I've no idea what the population of TX is and was too lazy to look it up). "

I'm confused as to your point here. To me that already gives those smaller states an advantage.

I also do not see where the protection comes from. The only difference is that is has been the minority ruling over the majority. Less people voted for Bush, but it took no time for him to start legislating his religious beliefs.

I'm not trying to reopen the 2000 debate, but rather making my point on why I'm for one man one vote. I don't see how someone from Iowa should have more power than me.

[Satchel]

oh sorry, I get the point about the senators now, but do you not think that is enough? Why make it even more disproportionate than that?

Originally posted by Satchel
oh sorry, I get the point about the senators now, but do you not think that is enough? Why make it even more disproportionate than that?

I'm not saying it should be changed to become more disproportionate. I'm saying I think the system has merit. (that's a luke warm approval)

Let's take Montana - 3 electoral votes - same with Alaska - and between the two probably 1/4 of the country's land area. They get 6 of 538 votes. While massachusettes, which is probably smaller than any county in Alaska and many in Montana gets twice as many as the two put together.

A benefit of the electoral college is permitting a bit of protection to the low population states from the high population states. Its essentailly the same principal for the manner in which we established legislative representation. The senate hedges small states against potential hegemony from the large ones. Again, an attempt to shelter the minority from the tryanny of the majority.