Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Omnaka

Electoral colledge

Stop the electoral colledge?   23 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think we need the electoral Colledge

    • Yes
      5
    • No
      14
    • Let wall street figure it out
      1
    • I don't know
      0
    • Let those in power decide who should be the next president
      3

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

34 posts in this topic

What do you think, should your Vote count?

Do you need to elect someone to vote for you, or are you capeable of doing this task your self?

Edited by Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right who marked the last one, and are you serious?

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I marked No.

I think a popular vote would be more appropriate and less subject to possible corruption. The candidate that gets the most votes wins!

I don't like that a state could vote 51% for a candidate and get all the Electoral College vote. Kansas, I think is the only state that gives percentages to the candidates. I think the whole US should do it that way.

I also like the vote by mail that we use in Oregon. Those that care will pay for a stamp and vote and those that do not care can trash it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I marked No.

I think a popular vote would be more appropriate and less subject to possible corruption. The candidate that gets the most votes wins!

I don't like that a state could vote 51% for a candidate and get all the Electoral College vote. Kansas, I think is the only state that gives percentages to the candidates. I think the whole US should do it that way.

I also like the vote by mail that we use in Oregon. Those that care will pay for a stamp and vote and those that do not care can trash it.

Or you can just drop it in the balot box at city hall Or mac donnalds m Quiznoes or where ever there is one.

This year it's going to be at the liquor store, I predict.

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we do a popular vote for President, it needs to be coupled with a runoff election in case no candidate gets more than 50% of the votes.

One thing to keep in mind about a Popular-Vote-For-President is that suddenly, the big urban states are going to matter a whole lot more. Small states, like North Dakota, Iowa, and so forth will probably get less attention from the campaigns, simply because it is too costly for too few votes to spend more time in those areas. You could argue that that's a good thing, since most of the population lives in certain heavily populated urban and suburban areas anyways (like the Bos-Wash Megalopolis with its 55 million people, meaning roughly 18% of the population - and the 22 million in the emerging southern California megalopolis) and this would represent their interests better, but a lot of the hinterland would be ignored in the Presidential campaign.

With one exception. This would open up an interesting fork in possibilities for a Presidential campaign. Campaigns could either Run Up The Count by focusing on some large states and the big urban areas and simply going for as much voter turn-out as possible in these areas to get a majority, or an Insurgency in which they use modern communication tools and cheap snail mail to rally as much people to vote for the candidate as possible across the country, even if they don't get a majority in every state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mcain and Obama snuck their votes in here.

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, Clinton lost the popular vote to Bush I, but got in because of the electoral collage. The same thing happened with Gore and W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember, Clinton lost the popular vote to Bush I, but got in because of the electoral collage. The same thing happened with Gore and W.

Um --- what? Clinton never lost the popular vote. He didn't lose it to Bush or Dole.

1992 Election Results:

William Jefferson Clinton: 44,909,806 | 43.01%

George Bush: 39,104,550 | 37.45%

H. Ross Perot: 19,743,821 | 18.91%

Here

I'm not very good at math, but I'm pretty certain 44 is a bigger number than 39.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Clinton got a plurality (the largest share of votes out of all competitors) in the popular vote, not a majority. He's not the first, either; 13 of the 34 elections in 1836-1968 were plurality winners.

Edited by Guardsman Bass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we do a popular vote for President, it needs to be coupled with a runoff election in case no candidate gets more than 50% of the votes.

The alternative for this is allowing Coalition Governments. While the operation of such Governments has been problematic in other countries that allow such systems, it would have the benefit of increasing the visibility of the minor parties, and in Coalition situations they would become important so their policies would not be able to be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The alternative for this is allowing Coalition Governments. While the operation of such Governments has been problematic in other countries that allow such systems, it would have the benefit of increasing the visibility of the minor parties, and in Coalition situations they would become important so their policies would not be able to be ignored.

How would that work with the Presidency, though? Most of the other systems that do have coalition governments usually have weak Presidents who mainly serve as ceremonial Heads of State while the Prime Ministers (picked by the parties who form the coalition) hold all the real power. That doesn't exactly fit well in the framework of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need the electoral college to ensure every state has a voice. It's the same reason we have the senate and not only the congress. Balance between the power of the national population and state population to prevent mob rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Electoral College insures that all of the states, populous or not, have a proportional impact on the election of the President. In a nation made up of states with specific rights and powers, this is an important process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's an electoral "colledge" and what does it eat during winter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need the electoral college to ensure every state has a voice. It's the same reason we have the senate and not only the congress. Balance between the power of the national population and state population to prevent mob rule.

I agree. It also helps prevent candidates from promising things to the populated areas of the country while thumbing their nose at rural areas.

Long live the Electoral College

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. It also helps prevent candidates from promising things to the populated areas of the country while thumbing their nose at rural areas.

Long live the Electoral College

As I said, though, you could make the counter-argument that the President, as an elected representative of the people, ought to pay more attention to the cities and their suburban cohorts, since that's where most of the population lives, and where their concerns lie. The real issue is the across-the-board winner-takes-all system, since it requires distortions like the Electoral College to keep certain groups of voters from being ignored due to their size and location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe 52.94% voted for abolishing the system. Do those who voted for abolishing it even understand it or its purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. It also helps prevent candidates from promising things to the populated areas of the country while thumbing their nose at rural areas.

Long live the Electoral College

If we discontinued the EC, Democrats would almost always win. Sometimes I like that idea - like in the 2000 election. In the 2004 election, well, I think if the EC was banished, more people not registered to vote would get registered and Democrats would prevail. But that isn't always a good thing. The 80s, I feel, needed someone like Reagan. So, while I'm pretty liberal, I think Republicans can be a good thing at times.

Edited by IrishLexie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we discontinued the EC, Democrats would almost always win. Sometimes I like that idea - like in the 2000 election. In the 2004 election, well, I think if the EC was banished, more people not registered to vote would get registered and Democrats would prevail. But that isn't always a good thing. The 80s, I feel, needed someone like Reagan. So, while I'm pretty liberal, I think Republicans can be a good thing at times.

This has nothing to do with republicans and democrats. Also, Bush did win popular vote in '04. Hypothetical theories about what the masses would have done if a system they don't understand is abolished is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has nothing to do with republicans and democrats. Also, Bush did win popular vote in '04. Hypothetical theories about what the masses would have done if a system they don't understand is abolished is pointless.

What I said has everything to do with Republicans and Democrats. And I didn't say Bush won the popular in '04. And politics oftentimes is hypothetical this or that. I was giving an opinion. Of all persuasions, I would have thought the libertarian would support that right. Who kneeww.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I said has everything to do with Republicans and Democrats. And I didn't say Bush won the popular in '04. And politics oftentimes is hypothetical this or that. I was giving an opinion. Of all persuasions, I would have thought the libertarian would support that right. Who kneeww.

I don't think the electoral college has anything to do with republicans or democrats because it was around long before them. I also didn't say you couldn't give your opinion. I simply gave my opinion of your opinion. As far as I can see we both had the liberty to say what we wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the electoral college has anything to do with republicans or democrats because it was around long before them. I also didn't say you couldn't give your opinion. I simply gave my opinion of your opinion. As far as I can see we both had the liberty to say what we wanted.

Republicans and Democrats have everything to do with what I said! Not the EC specifically, but elections in general. I mean, we all know that no third party candidate has a prayer to win a national election - sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would that work with the Presidency, though? Most of the other systems that do have coalition governments usually have weak Presidents who mainly serve as ceremonial Heads of State while the Prime Ministers (picked by the parties who form the coalition) hold all the real power. That doesn't exactly fit well in the framework of the Constitution.

Well, it begs the question whether your President should have the power he or she currently holds. Look at how open to abuse this is. Representative power in politics should include checks and balances and the Parliamentary system is, I believe, a better system in this regard than the Presidential one. It is still subject to abuse, of course - just witness Toothpaste Tony Blair :angry2:

As for the Constitution, which system is a better representation of the people? This, in it's essence, is what the Constitution decrees a Government should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe 52.94% voted for abolishing the system. Do those who voted for abolishing it even understand it or its purpose?

Probably not. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we discontinued the EC, Democrats would almost always win. Sometimes I like that idea - like in the 2000 election. In the 2004 election, well, I think if the EC was banished, more people not registered to vote would get registered and Democrats would prevail. But that isn't always a good thing. The 80s, I feel, needed someone like Reagan. So, while I'm pretty liberal, I think Republicans can be a good thing at times.

I think, rather, than the parties' positions would shift leftward, since most of the urban areas tend to be more liberal than rural areas, and urban areas would be getting a lot more attention in a popular vote system. You could still have a strong conservative influence, though, in Congress, and President could potentially run with the "Insurgency" strategy I described in my earlier post, where he/she wins by running a bunch of grassroots campaigns grabbing votes from all over the US without necessarily getting a majority in most states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.