Does the electoral collage serve a perpose in this day and age?? I just want to know everyone's feeling on this, if you don't know what it is PM me and I'll give you the jist of it
Poll
Electoral collage Good or bad??
| Good | 40% | 40% - 25 | ||||
| Bad | 59% | 59% - 36 | ||||
| Total: 61 | ||||||
It absolutely does.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.
wordATG wrote:
It absolutely does.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.
evens things out for who? In the case of electing a "federal" politican, the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few?
And thats a bad thing? Those cities have the largest population which means they have more votes.ATG wrote:
It absolutely does.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.
In democracy you're meant to count votes and decide who has the most votes will win, not your stuffy "Electoral College" system. 1 vote = 1 vote and the person who gets the most votes should win.
In the official result of the 2000 election Al Gore got 543,816 more votes than George Bush did. In a true democratic country Al Gore would have won because he got more votes than Bush did.
The Electoral College is useless in a day and age where it's possible to count every single vote and determine a victor off the popular ballot.
Proponents of the Electoral College argue that organizing votes by regions forces a candidate to seek popular support over a majority of the country. Since a candidate cannot count on winning election based solely on a heavy concentration of votes in a few areas, the Electoral College avoids much of the sectionalism that has plagued other geographically large nations, such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and the Roman Empire. Electoral College opponents, however, argue that this regional system can dilute the overall will of the people in close elections by thwarting the candidate with the popular majority.Considering the distrust the Constitution's framers had of democracy, this result can be viewed as a foreseeable and desirable result of the arrangement.
So I've read..
So I've read..
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The electoral college comes from a time in which Senators weren't even popularly elected. That was changed with an amendment to the US constitution so why shouldn't the electoral college be done away with?
It's undemocratic and actually without the electoral college, US Presidential elections would be more democratic due to the candidates having to campaign across the nation. As it is candidates only focus on a few populous swing states and can largely avoid states safe for them or the opponent.
It's undemocratic and actually without the electoral college, US Presidential elections would be more democratic due to the candidates having to campaign across the nation. As it is candidates only focus on a few populous swing states and can largely avoid states safe for them or the opponent.
Do you know what constitutes a swing state or understand how these states get their total amount of votes?Masques wrote:
The electoral college comes from a time in which Senators weren't even popularly elected. That was changed with an amendment to the US constitution so why shouldn't the electoral college be done away with?
It's undemocratic and actually without the electoral college, US Presidential elections would be more democratic due to the candidates having to campaign across the nation. As it is candidates only focus on a few populous swing states and can largely avoid states safe for them or the opponent.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
rember, the united states are just that; united states. The eletoral collage is a show of how the goverment it not a true demokracy, but actually a federal democratic coalition.
its called popular vote..ATG wrote:
It absolutely does.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.
Scrap electoral college and have actual democratic elections.
But these people are some kind of elite or something? They sort things out in case the moron voters pick the wrong candidate?ATG wrote:
It absolutely does.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.
What truely sucks dude is in places like NY state, If it wasnt for NYC(that should be seprate from the state because of its size and economy anyways) The votes form the rest of the state would have gone to the republican side in the last 2 elections anyways. But NYC with all its districts and mass amount of people ALWAYS decide our states elections AND they get about 70% of our tax money. We have the Single most corrupt State Govt in the nation. Look up the stats some day. Highest Taxes, Highest Utilities, Highest everything, because we have to support a city that shouldnt be part of this state in the first place.ATG wrote:
It absolutely does.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.
If you look at the electoral vote system for NY, you will see that Most of them stem from NYC area. The same asshats that keep electing Hillary, that useless lump thats done nothing that has directly benefited NY STATE in the least. Nothing, Nodda. Zip.
Exactly. The founders of our nation realized that and put this system into place. This way politicians have to goto the smaller, less populated cities and towns instead of just the inner cities.ATG wrote:
It absolutely does.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.
Oligarchies FTW!
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
It just makes jerrymandering possible. Get rid of it and go by the popular vote.
It's still not a democracy to begin with...
It just over complicates things and in a few cases makes the minoriety win, which shouldn't happen.
It's been outdated since the invention of the telegraph. And what TeamZephyr is correct, the larger the population of the state the more electoral votes they receive. That nullifies many of the arguments given supporting the electoral college.
It was meant as a way to voice each region of America's opinion. Communications technology negates the need for such a system. I will say that I think computer voting is stupid, at least without a paper trail. People should vote, receive a printout of it, sign it, and receive a copy of it.
It was meant as a way to voice each region of America's opinion. Communications technology negates the need for such a system. I will say that I think computer voting is stupid, at least without a paper trail. People should vote, receive a printout of it, sign it, and receive a copy of it.
If everyone's vote is equal, then that SHOULD happen. Under the current system, rural people are valued higher than urban ones. So much for equality....ATG wrote:
It absolutely does.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.
bad just look at our current pres. that is the best argument for doing away with it.i voted but it did not mean shit!!and to the one that said that the larger cities would control it.they do now.i live in a small town and have yet to see a high ranking gov. official campaign to me or any town around me.
True the 500,000 vote difference in the 2000 election makes Bush the minority. But in reality they were even.doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
It just over complicates things and in a few cases makes the minoriety win, which shouldn't happen.
how were they even if one had more votes?topthrill05 wrote:
True the 500,000 vote difference in the 2000 election makes Bush the minority. But in reality they were even.doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
It just over complicates things and in a few cases makes the minoriety win, which shouldn't happen.
Last edited by nlsme (2006-11-06 12:02:14)
It's topthriller math, New York city get's all of new yorks taxes and 500,000 votes is even??
I do not personally agree with the way the Electoral College shapes our presidential races. I do not like the idea that a candidate can focus on a few regional powerhouse states to make sure that he gains a majority of the votes. Maybe if the votes from the college were given out based on percentages of votes instead of on majority of votes it would be a little different, but I am more of a direct democracy type of person. In fact, I am of the firm belief that Congress should only have the power to draw up initiatives for the citizens to vote on directly. But hey, that's just me.