is it time to do away with the electoral college?

[OU_Sooners75]

I understand the purpose of it being implemented. But is it time to do away with it, or at least change it?

I know this type o f subject has been talked about here before...but since its election season, I want to bring it up again.

Now then, why do I want to bring it up again?

Well I know of quite a few eligible and registered voters that say they are not going to vote because no matter what, they feel their vote does not matter. I try to convince them otherwise, but what can I say when they all say something similar?

What do they say? Well, they feel it doesn't matter if they vote. The national elections always come down to the states with the most populace, therefore more electorates (hope I'm spelling that correctly).

They also know that Oklahoma and Kansas will be republican anyway. So why worry?

That said, they are correct, but wrong for not voting.

When states have more electorates it does make a lot of people feel that their vote don't matter when they live in a state that isn't a swing state.

My idea? Not to do away with the electoral college, but to change it or overhaul it.

1. Each state gets just 1 electoral college vote. This is determined by popular vote of each state.
2. If there is a 25 - 25 split, then go to the popluar vote. Where each vote does count.

What would have done? Well take 2000 as an example. I wouldn't have made a big deal in the election when it comes to the hanging chad. Bush had a lot more states than Gore. Bush would have won.

I just don't feel that its right that one state has a bigger say in national elections just because they have more people living there.

This would probably create a wider spread of voter fraud. So why not have every state require voters to submit a state issue ID when voting, along with their voter registration card?

[SicEmBaylor]

F.k you for even suggesting it.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'd be in favor of cutting CA and all the union controlled states back to 1 EC vote per. :biggrin:

[hawaii 5-0]

I've heard that with the Big Influx, next time around Texass will be a Swing State.

5-0

[rock on sooner]

I have advocated for years (1964) that it should be a popular vote. The
electoral college has really minimized the individual vote. Many on this board
have said" it dont matter how i vote because OK is so red anyway". Same with
KS, TX, etc but if you count each individual vote a lot would change and, just
maybe, the individual voter might be heard. The argument this year is that
the popular vote could go either way but the electoral will only go with the
battleground states. Imo, that sucks, either way, Romney or Obama, the people
should have the final say.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I just don't feel that its right that one state has a bigger say in national elections just because they have more people living there.

as if

[hawaii 5-0]

There's been times in Hawaii (before I started voting by mail) that the winner would be declared before I even got to go to the polling place.

It felt like a worthless effort.

5-0

[Skysooner]

So RLIMC describes conservative Pubs as constitutionality. This is far from being constitutionalists.

[diverdog]

I just don't feel that its right that one state has a bigger say in national elections just because they have more people living there.



Are you ****ing kidding me? I will tell you what the most populuce states would say. Places like Oklahoma should get a tenth of a senator. They are tired of small population states that have a lot of poor telling them what to do and getting away with it because they have two senators. In the grand scheme of things what Oklahomans or Delawarians think does not matter.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I have advocated for years (1964) that it should be a popular vote. The
electoral college has really minimized the individual vote. Many on this board
have said" it dont matter how i vote because OK is so red anyway". Same with
KS, TX, etc but if you count each individual vote a lot would change and, just
maybe, the individual voter might be heard. The argument this year is that
the popular vote could go either way but the electoral will only go with the
battleground states. Imo, that sucks, either way, Romney or Obama, the people
should have the final say.So, you're in favor of mob rules. Go tit.

[hawaii 5-0]

Maybe a Hunger Games scenario would be the ticket.

Every State sends two contestants........


5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Turd, you should get into VBetting via vBookie.

The rest of you, too.


5-0

[diverdog]

Maybe a Hunger Games scenario would be the ticket.

Every State sends two contestants........


5-0

It's called the Senate.

[rock on sooner]

So, you're in favor of mob rules. Go tit.

:congratulatory: You are nothing but predictable.

[OU_Sooners75]

Are you ****ing kidding me? I will tell you what the most populuce states would say. Places like Oklahoma should get a tenth of a senator. They are tired of small population states that have a lot of poor telling them what to do and getting away with it because they have two senators. In the grand scheme of things what Oklahomans or Delawarians think does not matter.

You can take you elitist attitude and shove it up your liberal ***.

point is, the vote should matter, not a state that has 40 million people.

Sorry your dumbass doesn't see it that way. My vote here in Oklahoma matters just as much as Jose's in California or as much as jafar in New York.

Or at least it should.

So again, take your elitist liberal bull**** and shove it down your pie hole dickwad!

[rock on sooner]

You can take you elitist attitude and shove it up your liberal ***.

point is, the vote should matter, not a state that has 40 million people.

Sorry your dumbass doesn't see it that way. My vote here in Oklahoma matters just as much as Jose's in California or as much as jafar in New York.

Or at least it should.

So again, take your elitist liberal bull**** and shove it down your pie hole dickwad!

75, the few folks in OK that vote for Obama would argue with you that
their votes don't count, since OK is so red, or those in CA or NY that vote for
Romney feel the same way. That's the argument, if it was the poplular
vote that mattered versus the electoral college it'd be a lot different and
a lot more voters would hear about the candidates in person because the
candidates would be more inclined to campaign or advertise. How many
ads have you seen/heard from Obama? Not many is my guess because in
'08 every county in OK went for McCain. My contention is that a lot of
voters on both sides are ill informed because their state has been designated
red or blue so the campaigns don't push as hard.

[Turd_Ferguson]

:congratulatory: You are nothing but predictable.

Democracy = Mob Rules

Yes or no?

[hawaii 5-0]

One of my votes has already cancelled 75's vote.


5-0

[rock on sooner]

Democracy = Mob Rules

Yes or no?

At the risk of cramping your brain, mob rule is generally regarded as
anarchy and democracy is the agreed upon will of the people, usually
arrived at by peaceful means.

[Turd_Ferguson]

At the risk of cramping your brain, mob rule is generally regarded as
anarchy and democracy is the agreed upon will of the people, usually
arrived at by peaceful means.Agreed upon by whom?

[rock on sooner]

Agreed upon by whom?

By the majority of the people, pay tention!

[Turd_Ferguson]

By the majority of the people, pay tention!

So, you're saying that 51% should be able to tell 49% what they can or cannot do?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

F.k you for even suggesting it.hey, no shiite!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So, you're in favor of mob rules. Go tit.Yeah, we have inherited such a pi*s-poor country from all those racist knucklehead founders who could never have imagined how advanced we have become as a culture, the constitution oughta be scrapped, too...oh, wait, then what's next?

[diverdog]

You can take you elitist attitude and shove it up your liberal ***.

point is, the vote should matter, not a state that has 40 million people.

Sorry your dumbass doesn't see it that way. My vote here in Oklahoma matters just as much as Jose's in California or as much as jafar in New York.

Or at least it should.

So again, take your elitist liberal bull**** and shove it down your pie hole dickwad!


Look you are the one suggesting every state gets one electorial vote. Here is a an idea read the Constitution. Oklahoma is made whole by having two senators. California is made whole by getting a ton of people in the House of Representatives. I do not like the electorial college and I would prefer a popular vote. However, your suggestion that each state gets one electorial vote is about as stupid a political idea as I have heard in a long time.

[OU_Sooners75]

Look you are the one suggesting every state gets one electorial vote. Here is a an idea read the Constitution. Oklahoma is made whole by having two senators. California is made whole by getting a ton of people in the House of Representatives. I do not like the electorial college and I would prefer a popular vote. However, your suggestion that each state gets one electorial vote is about as stupid a political idea as I have heard in a long time.

And that is in the form of legislation.

I'm not talking about my represntation in washington dc

I'm talking about national elections.

I understand why it was implemented but at the same time, its way outdated.

Back when it was implemented, information took forever to get somewhere. Now its almost instaneous.

If we don't like the one state one point ideal. Do away with it and go to a simple majority by popular vote.

[OU_Sooners75]

Yeah, we have inherited such a pi*s-poor country from all those racist knucklehead founders who could never have imagined how advanced we have become as a culture, the constitution oughta be scrapped, too...oh, wait, then what's next?

I love it. People act as if our constitution is incapable of being changed, or amended.

Oh wait...thank you bill of rights... the are amendments...lol

The founding fathers were also smart enough to realize that eras change with time, and in eras, peoples views change. So they allowed the constitution to be a living one. One that can change and adapt if needed to make this nation a better and fairer place.

[SCOUT]

Where is the majority of the population?

[diverdog]

I love it. People act as if our constitution is incapable of being changed, or amended.

Oh wait...thank you bill of rights... the are amendments...lol

The founding fathers were also smart enough to realize that eras change with time, and in eras, peoples views change. So they allowed the constitution to be a living one. One that can change and adapt if needed to make this nation a better and fairer place.

Here is a better idea. Change the electorial college where each candidate is awarded a percentage of the electorial vote by the percentage of vote they win. So if a state has a 100 electorial votes and Romney gets 51% of the vote in that state he would get 51 electorial votes. Obama would get 49 electorial votes. That would make the candidates campaign nationally. No more winner take all.

[rock on sooner]

Here is a better idea. Change the electorial college where each candidate is awarded a percentage of the electorial vote by the percentage of vote they win. So if a state has a 100 electorial votes and Romney gets 51% of the vote in that state he would get 51 electorial votes. Obama would get 49 electorial votes. That would make the candidates campaign nationally. No more winner take all.

There are two states that do that, only two. Nebraska and Maine. That's why
Romney supporters have beefed up attacks in Maine. Either idea, yours or just
counting the popular vote is more desireable and, imo, more representative
than just the Electoral College. There is a wrinkle that doesn't get talked about
a lot. When the Electoral College convenes to vote in December, 24 state's
electors do NOT have to vote as the state's majority went. They can, as an
example, vote as follows, if a state has ten votes and the state went 60-40
for a candidate, 6 for the majority choice and 4 for the other. However, it
takes a huge amount of political courage and doesn't happen. Your idea is
the same but, making it mandatory, is the rub.

[diverdog]

There are two states that do that, only two. Nebraska and Maine. That's why
Romney supporters have beefed up attacks in Maine. Either idea, yours or just
counting the popular vote is more desireable and, imo, more representative
than just the Electoral College. There is a wrinkle that doesn't get talked about
a lot. When the Electoral College convenes to vote in December, 24 state's
electors do NOT have to vote as the state's majority went. They can, as an
example, vote as follows, if a state has ten votes and the state went 60-40
for a candidate, 6 for the majority choice and 4 for the other. However, it
takes a huge amount of political courage and doesn't happen. Your idea is
the same but, making it mandatory, is the rub.

Yep. They could vote completely against the states choice. It is really scary how much power they actually have.

[sappstuf]

Yep. They could vote completely against the states choice. It is really scary how much power they actually have.

DD,

are you prepared for Sandy?

[Curly Bill]

You guys can debate this all you want, but it ain't gonna change! As it is small states are over-represented and they're not going to agree to change it.

[StoopTroup]

hey, no shiite!

It's really hard to decide why he feels that way. Of course he's now posting like this as posting why he feels this way is an insult to having to share his intellect with the scum who post here. :D