who else is stressing over tonight?

[E30godz]

immaturity abounds.

:roll: go ask for allowances kiddies.

k?

[Ryan Stewart]

now we could most likely get rid of the colleges. They were designed in a day when nobody could read and transporting this stuff took weeks.

[Kruzen]

Kruzen you are wrong. The college does the exact opposite and it does pay to win over only the states that have the highest populations because they have proportionally larger # of votes.

The colleges screw the minority because a state automatically gives ALL its votes to the winner in that state. So if one candidate wins by 50.000000001% then he gets 100% of the states votes. That is how someone can win a popular vote but lose an election.

And Bush would win in a fight to the death, that topic was covered on "The Daily Show" two months ago.

The Electoral College is a block, or weighed, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election, as happened in 1876. Under this system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state. The goal of any candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will give him or her 270 electoral votes.

The electoral college gives states with smaller populations a more equal weight and an ability to swing the election. Period. Parts of it are out dated today, but it is still more effective on the whole than a popular vote system is.

[Digitalwave]

The colleges screw the minority because a state automatically gives ALL its votes to the winner in that state. So if one candidate wins by 50.000000001% then he gets 100% of the states votes. That is how someone can win a popular vote but lose an election.

It doesn't take 50% + 1 vote to win though, we are in a plurality system, not majority. Since we have third parties, whoever gets the most votes wins the state. Ex. Bush gets 48%, Kerry gets 47%, and Nader gets 5%, nobody has a majority, but Bush wins the state.

ex. NY votes 40% Bush, 60% Kerry. 40% of electoral votes go to bush, 60% Kerry

Proportional representation, used in most European nations. Some of them have 10-15 different political parties!

[M-technik-3]

So your saying that the ND which has 3 votes has the same say as Ohio with 20? Yes it can help but it's not critical normally. The popular vote in modern times is far more efficent. Why would you who say cast a vote for a Democrat allow your state Electoral members to cast a vote for Republican?

If I wanted to vote that way I might as well just sell my vote to pollsters. This system worked in the time before computers and reliable communication devices. There needs to be a change in the process.

[Ryan Stewart]

Kruzen if you believe that works then explain how California just negated the votes of 5 states.

the # of electoral votes is based on representation, that means members in the house and number of senators (2). Your representation in the house is based solely on population.

I know its a plurality system, ti was using the most crude of examples. My point was that even a slight margin can have profound effects.

[Matto]

thats why you're a moron. :)


edit: the electoral college represents the minority as well as the majority. if we went by popular vote, the candidates would only have to win over the states with the largest population, because the margin of difference between a place like california and rhode island would be meaningless to them.

good, call someone who is in active duty protecting your f'in country a moron.


GO post whore on stupid simple DIY questions some more. :roll:

Yes Greg, sometimes I feel the EC system should go. I'd think Popular vote would be best... but the value of weighted states is also good in my book. Its a toss up.

UNHCLL seems to be in a bad mood recently. Not trying to be offensive but whats up?

[Kruzen]

Kruzen if you believe that works then explain how California just negated the votes of 5 states.

the # of electoral votes is based on representation, that means members in the house and number of senators (2). Your representation in the house is based solely on population.

I know its a plurality system, ti was using the most crude of examples. My point was that even a slight margin can have profound effects.

Yes the larger states negate alot of the smaller states, the point is that with how many smaller states there are, they have the potential of swinging the election if one of the candidates takes some of the larger states. Yes, the states with more electoral votes are the most valuable, but this system allows for there to still be high importance in the states with fewer votes to count, moreso than i believe a popular vote would.

[M-technik-3]

Matto, I think his point was that we don't need to call each other names over a topic matter. It just shows your level of maturity.

The popular shows who you voted for as a nation as a whole not some clown who was appointed by Who to really decide who you wanted to vote for. Think about it you don't have a say in it after all.

[Matto]

Matto, I think his point was that we don't need to call each other names over a topic matter. It just shows your level of maturity.

Yeah, I get what he is saying, he just seems to have been cranky with everything he has said in the past few days.

[hamann318is]

The most interesting situation would be a tie. Then the Presidental election gets thrown into the House. Which will most likely choose Bush. The V.P. election gets thrown into the Senate, where a tie would cause the most interesting thing of all to happen. Dick Cheney is the tie breaker, electing him self as VP. Or you could have many states split their votes in the House, and preventing the electing of a President (if he cannot carry 26 states in the House, he cannot get elected). Then that would cause Edwards or Cheney to be voted as a temporary President.

That is some funny stuff to think about, on the EC... Everyone is looking at the states as who has the votes, when I've been of the opinion that the people should choose their leader. The EC, with no question, creates a situation of the inequality of the vote. Living in an instantly Republican state, many people believe that a vote for anyone other than Bush is wasted. Which can be true, as if the state goes to Bush, then whatever other percentage voted for the other canidates, doesn't count. Direct election for the President would be ideal. In Congress, I feel a proportion system is best... meaning the amount of votes for each party is equally represented in Congress, thus getting rid of the districting system.

That's my rant. Yay!

[M-technik-3]

And a good one at that. Cheers.

[Kruzen]

Matto, I think his point was that we don't need to call each other names over a topic matter. It just shows your level of maturity.

The popular shows who you voted for as a nation as a whole not some clown who was appointed by Who to really decide who you wanted to vote for. Think about it you don't have a say in it after all.

the name calling was meant to be taken with a sense of tact, which is why i followed it with a smiley face. pardon my behavior.



on another note: i hear ya hamman. living in WA, one of the most liberal states in the union, i feel that my national elect vote is nearly thrown away, but it does still have the potential to go the other way.

[Digitalwave]

Bush took Florida, and Kerry is projected to take Penn. No speculation on Ohio so far.

[M-technik-3]

the name calling was meant to be taken with a sense of tact, which is why i followed it with a smiley face. pardon my behavior.

No problem. That's why I didn't turn this into a Bush verus Kerry situation. It was strictly about electoral college.