8 replies to this topic

[icehater]

I'm for abolishing the electoral vote and using the popular vote as the real deciding factor. The electoral vote fit America at a different time in its history, mainly the 1800's and earlier. In doing campaigning candidates simply go to battleground states and end up appealing to only a fraction of the country. Personally I have not even voted in many elections because I knew my vote was meaningless and I was tired from a hard day of work and a long commute home. So the issue really becomes a simple one. Should a national position be decided by local counts that are weighted or by a true national count. I don't buy any arguments about the two being usually in lock step with each other because I think a lot more folks would have voted in states that were foregone conclusions in past elections. To me national is national and not a sum of a bunch of weighted locals. It makes every vote meaningful, brings out the masses and forces candidates to have positions that appeal to the masses rather than to the populations of borderline states. Someone can make a vote of this but I'm actually more interested in folks views. In the real world this should be a ballot item for American voters to decide on some future election day. Congress will never change it.

[GameOfLove]

Take away Manhattan and Obama and McCain never came here. Where are the rally? Obama and McCain were in Ohio and Pa about 493929292919 times. The highest forecloses are on Long Island. Upstate NY economy is really stuffing.

I was thinking about having an electoral college based on house districts maybe? Could that be too confusing though?

[vascudave]

icehater, on Nov 4 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

I'm for abolishing the electoral vote and using the popular vote as the real deciding factor. The electoral vote fit America at a different time in its history, mainly the 1800's and earlier. In doing campaigning candidates simply go to battleground states and end up appealing to only a fraction of the country. Personally I have not even voted in many elections because I knew my vote was meaningless and I was tired from a hard day of work and a long commute home. So the issue really becomes a simple one. Should a national position be decided by local counts that are weighted or by a true national count. I don't buy any arguments about the two being usually in lock step with each other because I think a lot more folks would have voted in states that were foregone conclusions in past elections. To me national is national and not a sum of a bunch of weighted locals. It makes every vote meaningful, brings out the masses and forces candidates to have positions that appeal to the masses rather than to the populations of borderline states. Someone can make a vote of this but I'm actually more interested in folks views. In the real world this should be a ballot item for American voters to decide on some future election day. Congress will never change it.

agree, but when money is involved it will never happen. the richest man one this time.

[devilsfan0405]

GameOfLove, on Nov 5 2008, 12:38 AM, said:

Take away Manhattan and Obama and McCain never came here. Where are the rally? Obama and McCain were in Ohio and Pa about 493929292919 times. The highest forecloses are on Long Island. Upstate NY economy is really stuffing.

I was thinking about having an electoral college based on house districts maybe? Could that be too confusing though?

That's what I don't like about the Electoral College. The candidates never go to states that they know are usually in the bag. New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts, for example, hardly ever vote Republican unless it's a national landslide (Reagan in '84 for instance). Plus, the winner of California is already more than 20 percent of the way to the 270 Electoral votes needed to win the Presidency. Does California represent 20 percent of the country's population? I think it gives those big states too much influence on the outcome. It should be more representative of the entire nation. Going by the popular vote, Obama still won by a pretty comfortable margin; I think the last count I heard was 53-46.

[NittanyLion]

devilsfan0405, on Nov 5 2008, 10:22 AM, said:

That's what I don't like about the Electoral College. The candidates never go to states that they know are usually in the bag. New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts, for example, hardly ever vote Republican unless it's a national landslide (Reagan in '84 for instance). Plus, the winner of California is already more than 20 percent of the way to the 270 Electoral votes needed to win the Presidency. Does California represent 20 percent of the country's population? I think it gives those big states too much influence on the outcome. It should be more representative of the entire nation. Going by the popular vote, Obama still won by a pretty comfortable margin; I think the last count I heard was 53-46.

Well it represents about 12% of the population, and those 55 eletoral votes represent about 10% of the total amount of electoral college (538).

But I am more in favor of the popular vote.

[Mike_The_Golfer]

There are a few states where it's not "all or nothing" with the electoral votes. That's the way all states should be if you keep the electoral college. Whatever percentage of the popular vote you get in any state, you get the same percentage of that states electoral votes (obvioulsly there would be some rounding). That much more clearly reflects the popular vote.

[devilsfan0405]

Mike_The_Golfer, on Nov 5 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

There are a few states where it's not "all or nothing" with the electoral votes. That's the way all states should be if you keep the electoral college. Whatever percentage of the popular vote you get in any state, you get the same percentage of that states electoral votes (obvioulsly there would be some rounding). That much more clearly reflects the popular vote.

That's sort of how they do it in the Democratic primaries. The Republican ones are all-or-nothing. I remember people being unhappy with that back in the spring.

[NittanyLion]

Mike_The_Golfer, on Nov 5 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

There are a few states where it's not "all or nothing" with the electoral votes. That's the way all states should be if you keep the electoral college. Whatever percentage of the popular vote you get in any state, you get the same percentage of that states electoral votes (obvioulsly there would be some rounding). That much more clearly reflects the popular vote.

Yeah that's probably the better way to do it.

[Mike_The_Golfer]

Plus, you figure the Dems always have NY & Cal in their pockets before any campaigning even begins. That means the Democrat will have a head start of about 30% of the electoral votes needed.