View Full Version : Electoral College
Ardmore_Sooner
9/20/2006, 03:45 PM
Ok, just had a big argument about the electoral college and modern voting. So my question is, why should we still currently be using this system for deciding our nations president or why should we get rid of it? :confused: :confused: :confused:
Viking Kitten
9/20/2006, 03:49 PM
I believe the strongest argument against getting rid of the Electoral College is that the states with the largest populations (generally the blue states) will effectively be the ones who decide the country's leadership for everyone else. Naturally, the red states may take exception to this.
KABOOKIE
9/20/2006, 03:51 PM
Um.....Remember the voting fiasco in Florida a while back? Remember how long it took to certify that election just because of one state's inability to count votes? Can you imagine how long and disputed it would take if the nation had to recount each and every stinking vote?
KABOOKIE
9/20/2006, 03:52 PM
I believe the strongest argument against getting rid of the Electoral College is that the states with the largest populations (generally the blue states) will effectively be the ones who decide the country's leadership for everyone else. Naturally, the red states may take exception to this.
Well, since the largest populated states have the most electoral votes, that's kind of the case already. :confused:
mdklatt
9/20/2006, 03:55 PM
I believe the strongest argument against getting rid of the Electoral College is that the states with the largest populations (generally the blue states) will effectively be the ones who decide the country's leadership for everyone else. Naturally, the red states may take exception to this.
On the flip side, in non-competetive states the votes of the minority are completely wasted. If you're planning on voting Democrat for president in Oklahoma you might as well not even bother. Maybe we should get rid of the all-or-nothing allocation of electoral votes most states have. But then you might as well get rid of the electoral college altogether.
crawfish
9/20/2006, 03:55 PM
Well, since the largest populated states have the most electoral votes, that's kind of the case already. :confused:
Montana and Alaska would no longer matter at all. I doubt they could swing a full percentage point even if they all voted one way.
I vote for allowing states to split their electoral votes. That way the less populous states get their say while it becomes far more likely that the leader in overall percentage wins the election.
Vaevictis
9/20/2006, 03:57 PM
I vote for allowing states to split their electoral votes. That way the less populous states get their say while it becomes far more likely that the leader in overall percentage wins the election.
States are allowed to split their electoral votes; most just choose not to.
Viking Kitten
9/20/2006, 03:58 PM
Well, since the largest populated states have the most electoral votes, that's kind of the case already. :confused:
My understanding is that the framers deliberately gave more weight to the the less populated states so that the interests of smaller states wouldn't be overwhelmed.
crawfish
9/20/2006, 03:59 PM
States are allowed to split their electoral votes; most just choose not to.
Yeah, and most states won't since if they're the only ones they're effectively diluting their ability to affect the winning side. :mad:
With the electoral college, statistically, each person does actually have more voting power. That power varies from state to state, but it's still true.
By voting power, I am referring to the chance that a single vote can swing the state from one candidate to another. It turns out that you, a lone individual, are much more likely to "decide" who the president will be in an electoral college system than you would be if only the popular vote mattered.
Think of it this way. In the popular vote, the chances that your vote will be the swing vote is equal to the chance that the vote will be split 50-50 without your vote. its pretty small.
However, in the electoral college system the chances that your vote will be the swing vote is equal to the chance that your state will be split 50-50 without your vote (still small, but much bigger than the first case) times the chance that the electoral college will be split without your state. this is also, still small, but the product of these two are far greater than the chance that your vote will swing the popular vote.
mdklatt
9/20/2006, 04:20 PM
Think of it this way. In the popular vote, the chances that your vote will be the swing vote is equal to the chance that the vote will be split 50-50 without your vote. its pretty small.
However, in the electoral college system the chances that your vote will be the swing vote is equal to the chance that your state will be split 50-50 without your vote (still small, but much bigger than the first case) times the chance that the electoral college will be split without your state. this is also, still small, but the product of these two are far greater than the chance that your vote will swing the popular vote.
http://www.80s.com/saveferris/images/class/teacher1.jpg
http://www.80s.com/saveferris/images/class/teacher1.jpg
:mad:
mdklatt
9/20/2006, 04:25 PM
:mad:
:D
Viking Kitten
9/20/2006, 04:26 PM
I always thought Ben Stein was kind of cute.
mdklatt
9/20/2006, 04:27 PM
I always thought Ben Stein was kind of cute.
This explains a lot.
Octavian
9/20/2006, 04:29 PM
I always thought Ben Stein was kind of cute.
gold digger. :mad:
Viking Kitten
9/20/2006, 04:32 PM
"I ain't messin' with no broke ****az."
BeetDigger
9/20/2006, 04:42 PM
I have always wondered what majors are offered at the Electoral College.
mdklatt
9/20/2006, 04:48 PM
I have always wondered what majors are offered at the Electoral College.
You've never heard of Electoral Engineering?? Duh! :rolleyes:
I have always wondered what majors are offered at the Electoral College.
Social Engineering
PseudoStatistics
Doublespeakology
Baby Kissing
Okla-homey
9/20/2006, 04:55 PM
Don't forget, the electors are not required to vote the way their state does. Another Constitutional guard against the eviles inherent in populism/mob rule.;)
OklahomaTuba
9/20/2006, 04:55 PM
Their football program must suck. I've never seen the University of Electoral College ranked. Evar.
mdklatt
9/20/2006, 04:59 PM
Their football program must suck. I've never seen the University of Electoral College ranked. Evar.
[Kansas State AD]Anybody got a phone number for them?[/Kansas State AD]
Harry Beanbag
9/20/2006, 05:14 PM
Their football program must suck. I've never seen the University of Electoral College ranked. Evar.
They got spanked by East Popcorn State last week.
Vaevictis
9/20/2006, 05:16 PM
Don't forget, the electors are not required to vote the way their state does. Another Constitutional guard against the eviles inherent in populism/mob rule.;)
Pfft, not like it works that way in practice. Anyone who gets enough votes in the popular election to win in the electoral college is going to have people in the EC that will vote for him, no matter how looney he is.
Don't forget, the electors are not required to vote the way their state does. Another Constitutional guard against the eviles inherent in populism/mob rule.;)
However, 24 states have laws on the books legally requiring their electors to vote the way they have pledged to vote.
Jimminy Crimson
9/20/2006, 05:30 PM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Pssst, it ain't broke
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Pssst, it ain't broke
Thats what I told my mechanic when he said I was due for an oil change...
With the electoral college, statistically, each person does actually have more voting power. That power varies from state to state, but it's still true.
By voting power, I am referring to the chance that a single vote can swing the state from one candidate to another. It turns out that you, a lone individual, are much more likely to "decide" who the president will be in an electoral college system than you would be if only the popular vote mattered.
This is one theory although it ignores some pertinent facts. The fact that the EC can do whatever they want regardless of how I, the majority/minority, or my state votes means that my vote is less meaningful. Also assuming that it requires a 50/50 split and me being the deciding vote in order for my vote to matter is wierd.
Another Constitutional guard against the eviles inherent in populism/mob rule. Homey, are you equating populism with simple majority rule, with the notion of the oppressed majority acting against the elite minority, or some other definition? With the education level of Americans and the technology available, is this "guard" still necessary?
Vaevictis
9/20/2006, 05:43 PM
Homey, are you equating populism with simple majority rule, with the notion of the oppressed majority acting against the elite minority, or some other definition? With the education level of Americans and the technology available, is this "guard" still necessary?
Athenian citizens were well educated (especially for the time), and an exercise of direct democracy ended up being their downfall... and the fact that the founding fathers were well aware of that fact had some influence in their design of the Constitution, if I recall my history correctly.
Even educated people can have their passions inflamed.
This is one theory although it ignores some pertinent facts. The fact that the EC can do whatever they want regardless of how I, the majority/minority, or my state votes means that my vote is less meaningful. Also assuming that it requires a 50/50 split and me being the deciding vote in order for my vote to matter is wierd.
yes, it does ignore faithless electors, but that rarely happens, and as I mentioned, nearly half the states in our union have laws to protect against this.
Also, the example I gave does not mean your vote does not matter if it is not the deciding vote. Rather, the probability for you to cast the deciding vote is used as a measure of 'voting power.' In other words, your vote has more power if you are more likely to be the deciding vote than if you are less likely to be the deciding vote. Put a simpler way, if you are one of 3 people voting your vote is far more powerful than if you are one of 300 people voting.
oklaclarinet
9/20/2006, 06:07 PM
Athenian citizens were well educated (especially for the time), and an exercise of direct democracy ended up being their downfall... and the fact that the founding fathers were well aware of that fact had some influence in their design of the Constitution, if I recall my history correctly.
Even educated people can have their passions inflamed.
Yeah, put simply, the framers of the Constitution did not trust the American people as whole to make a decision, so they decided that it would be better for a small group representing the general population to choose the President.
rebmus
9/20/2006, 06:36 PM
I have always wondered what majors are offered at the Electoral College.
they offer a BS in anything you wish.
Rather, the probability for you to cast the deciding vote is used as a measure of 'voting power.' In other words, your vote has more power if you are more likely to be the deciding vote than if you are less likely to be the deciding vote. Put a simpler way, if you are one of 3 people voting your vote is far more powerful than if you are one of 300 people voting.
Right, however if I'm a red voter in a blue state my vote means nothing with the EC process. Zilch. Nada. In a direct election, my vote is the same as one vote in Wyoming or one vote in New York. It can be argued that my voting power is minimized by the EC.
Vaevictis
9/20/2006, 06:49 PM
Okay, so basically, what we're saying is:
1. If you actually vote for the winner in your state, then your voting power is disproportionately large compared to a nationwide vote.
2. If you vote for the loser in your state, then your voting power is disproportionately small compared to a nationwide vote.
Both seem correct to me. Pick your poison.
Right, however if I'm a red voter in a blue state my vote means nothing with the EC process. Zilch. Nada. In a direct election, my vote is the same as one vote in Wyoming or one vote in New York. It can be argued that my voting power is minimized by the EC.
sure....if you take into account regional leanings on national issues, the probability that your state will be split 50-50 changes than if your state were a middle of the road state that could go either way. Still, though, you can make the same argument that in such a state, your vote has little power either way. A red voter in Oklahoma could stay home and be confident that Oklahoma would go red in a presidential election....This means that the voters with real power are concentrated in the "swing" states. the states that could go either way. It's not so much a big state/small state question as it is a question of how willing your state is to not consistently lean toward one party or the other.
Has anyone made a joke about not liking the electoral college because they're from the Pac-10 yet? If not, consider this post my joke about not liking the electoral college because they're from the Pac-10.
TYIA.
SteelPanz
9/20/2006, 09:52 PM
http://naproom.mu.nu/pics/GLA7035.jpg
Ardmore_Sooner
9/21/2006, 12:50 AM
I just don't understand how a person can win a popular vote, more Americans have picked that person as president, and him not earn that role. Don't get me wrong, I am glad that Gore was never in office, but it just doesn't add up to me....
Vaevictis
9/21/2006, 01:06 AM
I just don't understand how a person can win a popular vote, more Americans have picked that person as president, and him not earn that role. Don't get me wrong, I am glad that Gore was never in office, but it just doesn't add up to me....
The same way that Senators representing a much smaller amount of people can stop a bill in its tracks. That's the way it's designed.
My understanding is that the presidential election was never designed to be a popular vote. Originally there was no Constitutional requirement that a popular vote to be taken. It was every bit as kosher for a state legislature to just assign EC reps however they please. And IIRC, that's how it is to this day.
PhilTLL
9/21/2006, 01:15 AM
The same way that Senators representing a much smaller amount of people can stop a bill in its tracks. That's the way it's designed.
My understanding is that the presidential election was never designed to be a popular vote. Originally there was no Constitutional requirement that a popular vote to be taken. It was every bit as kosher for a state legislature to just assign EC reps however they please. And IIRC, that's how it is to this day.
Quite so, and the designers didn't even think much about it - probably because they didn't envision the office becoming nearly so important or powerful as it has.
OKC Sooner
9/21/2006, 01:24 AM
I think elections need an instant replay.
Ummm, wait....
Frozen Sooner
9/21/2006, 01:28 AM
Montana and Alaska would no longer matter at all.
We don't now. A winner is usually projected before our polls even close.
Okla-homey
9/21/2006, 05:28 AM
Yeah, put simply, the framers of the Constitution did not trust the American people as whole to make a decision, so they decided that it would be better for a small group representing the general population to choose the President.
Direct election of the president and VP was a scary thought to the framers and it is to me too. Given typical voter turn-out in this country, fewer than 20% of the people eligible to vote would be able to choose those officers and nothing could be done to intervene if they voted for a whack-job.
Also worth remembering, the framers didn't even allow for popularly elected senators -- prior to that, the state legislatures more or less appointed them. That didn't change until the XVII Amendment ratified in 1913. I prefer the original method.
Frozen Sooner
9/21/2006, 10:00 AM
Homey, I thought that they were appointed by the governors in a lot of states as well.
That could just be the bong water talking, though.
OklahomaTuba
9/21/2006, 10:06 AM
Obviously, the founders didn't read Animal Farm in middle school.
Okla-homey
9/21/2006, 08:33 PM
Homey, I thought that they were appointed by the governors in a lot of states as well.
That could just be the bong water talking, though.
Well, if they were doing that, they were in violation of Art. 1, Section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution:
"...[t]wo Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof..."
You're prolly thinking of what happens when a sitting senator died and the state legislature was not in session. In that case, the Gov could appoint a d00d to fill-in until the legislature next convened when a permanent senator was elected by the legislature. (clause 2) That's basically the "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" scenario.
Direct election of the president and VP was a scary thought to the framers and it is to me too. Given typical voter turn-out in this country, fewer than 20% of the people eligible to vote would be able to choose those officers and nothing could be done to intervene if they voted for a whack-job.
Also worth remembering, the framers didn't even allow for popularly elected senators -- prior to that, the state legislatures more or less appointed them. That didn't change until the XVII Amendment ratified in 1913. I prefer the original method.
The fallacy of this logic is that it assumes a teensy weensy number of people, the EC, are less likely to choose a whack-job than a mob of [fewer than] 20% of the people are likely to do. I'm visiting Charlottesville today, guess I'll visit the ghosts of Madison and Jefferson and get some clarification.
Tear Down This Wall
9/22/2006, 09:36 AM
Ok, just had a big argument about the electoral college and modern voting. So my question is, why should we still currently be using this system for deciding our nations president or why should we get rid of it? :confused: :confused: :confused:
If you want this country to be renamed The United States of Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, support elimination of the electoral college. If the electoral college were eliminated, you'd really have people voting whose votes wouldn't count in the small states - Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas, Montana, pretty much the entire South, etc.
My theory for the future is a simple two-step plan:
(1) Let California be it's own country. You want to pay more taxes and bankroll millions of illegal immigrants and junkies with your tax dollars, move to California.
(2) Give every state north and east of Pennsylvania the option of joining Canada. They already vote and think like the Canadians. Why not just become Canadian and get it over with? In fact, I'd trade everything north and east of New York straight up for the Canadian province of Alberta.
Yes, the map would look funnier. But, the socialists could live happily with their fellow socialists. And, we'd forever be able to watch the news without having to endure the likes of Kennedy, Biden, and Feinstein.
Bring it on!
Frozen Sooner
9/22/2006, 10:07 AM
Well, if they were doing that, they were in violation of Art. 1, Section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution:
"...[t]wo Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof..."
You're prolly thinking of what happens when a sitting senator died and the state legislature was not in session. In that case, the Gov could appoint a d00d to fill-in until the legislature next convened when a permanent senator was elected by the legislature. (clause 2) That's basically the "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" scenario.
Yep. It was the bong-water.
(No, seriously, I thought that many state legislatures had delegated the power to select senators. But again-bong-water.)
soonerscuba
9/22/2006, 10:54 AM
At it's heart you are deciding whether you want open elections, or not. I know which side has a moral high ground.
Okla-homey
9/22/2006, 11:02 AM
At it's heart you are deciding whether you want open elections, or not. I know which side has a moral high ground.
Non-felons (and in some states, rehabilitated felons) who are 18 and citizens have a Constitutionally protected right to vote. The Constitution also says their vote elects "electors," not candidates for the offices of the president and vice-president.
Good luck trying to change it b/c a constitutional amendment would be required and you would never get 3/4 of the states to ratify said amendment for reasons pointed about by other posters above.
soonerscuba
9/22/2006, 12:10 PM
I understand the reasoning behind the EC, I simply think that it is antiquated and quite frankly broken. State control of popular votes isn't hard to do, hell, we do it now. Simply removing the electoral college and going to popular vote, still allows for states to be contested, while pushing for broader messaging to the nation as every vote then goes up for grabs.
I will say that there are several problems with this idea. First, if you think that campaign finance is out of control now, wait until Hillary has to go after votes in Oklahoma. With every vote becoming a free-for-all, it could get ugly. Second, the states that currently control the presidential elections would go ape****. Ohio and Florida love the press and money, they gain nothing by such a change.
The irony in all of this is that I hate primaries. The smokey back rooms of convention centers gave us some of the greatest to ever hold the office, such as FDR, Ike, and TR. I seriously would prefer the DNC and RNC put their best policy wonks in a room and choose the candidates on ability to govern.
mdklatt
9/22/2006, 12:20 PM
The smokey back rooms of convention centers gave us some of the greatest to ever hold the office, such as FDR, Ike, and TR. I seriously would prefer the DNC and RNC put their best policy wonks in a room and choose the candidates on ability to govern.
It won't do them any good if they don't pick somebody who is "electable". Americans have proven time and time again that we value sound bites over substance.
Vaevictis
9/22/2006, 03:32 PM
My theory for the future is a simple two-step plan:
I always find it amusing when people suggest this.
So, assuming all of those states leave, how are you planning on addressing the 450ish billion dollar net federal tax shortfall that occurs when they do?
... interesting factoid: That's just slightly larger than the 2006 US military budget ;) (not including "emergency" Iraq appropriations)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.