TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Electoral College vs. Popular Vote
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Electoral College vs. Popular Vote - Page 2

post #31 of 41
I agree that the electoral college has outlived its purpose. 1 vote should be 1 vote. Majority rules...isn't that what the real concept was supposed to be?

Line item veto...ugh. They should make each bill one issue. No adding anything. Either it passes on its merits or not. The way things end up now, the important part of the bills get ignored even if they do pass, but all that pork gets shoved through ASAP.

I have a friend that truly believes states should start succeeding. So we would end up more like Europe or more accurately the former USSR.

I don't know what the answer is, but our government is out of control and no longer listening to the populace. Politicians are campaigning on the extremes in both parties.

One would think with large number of people campaigning in both parties there would be one person I would feel confident voting for. Honestly, right now I would like all of them to be scrapped and lets pick a new lot!
post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
It would weaken both the Democratic and Republican parties holds on the voters, which I think would be great. A lot of Americans are already Independent.
It's hard to get a very accurate read on that- the only people who are officially declared members of either party are those who vote in primaries. When I was doing campaign calls, you get a list of the registered voters in whatever district that are a member of whatever party they're running in as well as the people who haven't ever voted in a primary and are so classified as 'independent'. A great many of them really were of one or the other party, it just wasn't official. Looking at the list, I'd say maybe 75%-80% were listed as 'I'.

Then there's people like me who would identify as not being a member of a party, or liking either, but that's because I'm too far left to consider myself a Democrat (). It's a safe bet, though, that I'll vote for almost all Democrats (except for Senator Voinovich, usually my sole republican).

Though it would be an interesting split if the neocons and the traditional conservatives broke up, or the populist Democrats from the liberals.
post #33 of 41
Somehow y'all missed a big reason that still holds true for the electoral college - because the needs of the rural areas (i.e. farming and ranching) are so much different than the more industrialized areas. By divvying up the votes so that all areas actually do count, it ensures that the politicians don't just ignore the less populated areas in order to court the places that will count for more of the popular vote.

The part of the process that I think really does need revamping is the primaries. The candidates cater to the more extreme portion of their parties to get the nomination, because it's generally the more passionate of the parties that actually do vote in the primaries, and then try to forget everything they said in the primaries in order to attract the more moderate general population for the general election. And, like someone said earlier, it's basically 2-6 states that choose the candidate anyway. Why even bother voting in the primary if you aren't in one of those states?
post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Somehow y'all missed a big reason that still holds true for the electoral college - because the needs of the rural areas (i.e. farming and ranching) are so much different than the more industrialized areas. By divvying up the votes so that all areas actually do count, it ensures that the politicians don't just ignore the less populated areas in order to court the places that will count for more of the popular vote.
I agree, although in many ways we are catering far too much to the special interests of thoe areas. I'm from farming families myself, but subsidizing is out of control and if we didn't allow the massive factory farms it would be unnecessary. The meat pacs have a ton of influence, and maybe it would be a good thing for that to get toned down.

Someone is going to feel ignored either way, and while I have the luxury of living in Ohio, its also true that the big-population states that will obviously go one way or another get ignored, while they're busy here (seriously, Bush came down the street I live off of several times in one year, and once we almost got trapped in Dunkin Donuts... I've seen any number of presidential candidates both on purpose and on accident, they come to OSU, they come numerous times, and they tell us what they think we want to hear). That isn't any better than people from smaller states having an equal vote to everyone else, and IMO its worse-- it makes the most people matter less.

And the Senate in many ways takes care of this. If 4 people live in a state, half of them get to be in the Senate, while if 4 million people live in one state, still only 2 of them get to be in the Senate. Any detriment by getting rid of the Electoral College is more than offset by this.
post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittymonsters View Post
I have a friend that truly believes states should start succeeding. So we would end up more like Europe or more accurately the former USSR.
whether states should be allowed to secede was one of the issues of the Civil War... you trying to start one up again?
post #36 of 41
Quote:
By divvying up the votes so that all areas actually do count, it ensures that the politicians don't just ignore the less populated areas in order to court the places that will count for more of the popular vote.
But that is exactly what is happening now. Since it is all or nothing a state at a time, the bigger states get all the attention. No one cares what Oklahoma votes for. But if it was popular vote, atleast my vote would count as one vote.
post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227 View Post
whether states should be allowed to secede was one of the issues of the Civil War... you trying to start one up again?
Noooooooo not me! You know the men in black are going to come for me now

In all seriousness, it frightens me at how divided this country has become. I honestly find myself averaging out in the middle. Somethings a little to the right others a little to the left.

If we don't start finding middle ground I think more and more people are going to start talking like my friend. That is dangerous talk.
post #38 of 41
In my opinion, this thread should have been a poll.
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittymonsters View Post
Noooooooo not me! You know the men in black are going to come for me now

In all seriousness, it frightens me at how divided this country has become. I honestly find myself averaging out in the middle. Somethings a little to the right others a little to the left.

If we don't start finding middle ground I think more and more people are going to start talking like my friend. That is dangerous talk.
Not THIS, I think everyone can agree with.
post #40 of 41
I'm in favor of a minor reform of the Electoral College, but I had to vote for option number one in the poll, because the reform I'd like to see wasn't listed. I'm in favor of splitting a state's electoral votes based on the proportions of the popular vote in that state. For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes, and candidate AAA gets 47% of the popular vote, candidate BBB gets 33% and candidate CCC gets 17% then AAA gets 5 electoral votes, BBB gets 3 electoral votes, and CCC gets 2. (Yes, I know the percentages don't add to 100% -- there's always a couple percent that goes to hopelessly impossible candidates.)

I think the option of giving all the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular votes makes the same mistake as the current method but all the way in the opposite direction. There are good arguments against doing away with it altogether; I don't have to repeat those here.
post #41 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
I'm in favor of a minor reform of the Electoral College, but I had to vote for option number one in the poll, because the reform I'd like to see wasn't listed. I'm in favor of splitting a state's electoral votes based on the proportions of the popular vote in that state. For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes, and candidate AAA gets 47% of the popular vote, candidate BBB gets 33% and candidate CCC gets 17% then AAA gets 5 electoral votes, BBB gets 3 electoral votes, and CCC gets 2. (Yes, I know the percentages don't add to 100% -- there's always a couple percent that goes to hopelessly impossible candidates.)

I think the option of giving all the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular votes makes the same mistake as the current method but all the way in the opposite direction. There are good arguments against doing away with it altogether; I don't have to repeat those here.

I agree. That is as close as you can get to going with the popular vote and still having the electoral collage. Either your way or get rid of it. I want my vote to count for something. In a way it already does but my state always go the way I vote. I could not vote and not change anything. With this way, or the popular vote I would feel much more like I was contributing to a whole.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Electoral College vs. Popular Vote