Electoral College Stupidit

“with the current populations and electoral vote distribution, here is a sampling

texas: one person, .8079 vote
indiana: one person, .9855 vote
massachusetts: one person, 1.0569 vote”

“haha im so stupidit i cant spell stupidity”

“electricity is a very dangerous thing...i think it is very important for all electricians to go to college”

“I don't know thrifty, my father is an electrician and he never went to college. Well he did get to study abroad in SE Asia in 1969 for some of his training.”

“dork”

“you betcha *wink*”

“california: one person, .8552 vote

new york: one person, .9128 vote

florida: one person, .8409 vote”

“due to every state getting a bonus 2 electoral votes on top of the already skewed electoral distribution, the district of columbia gets: one person, 2.95 VOTES!”

“why do you hate amerika crash?”

“i hate the electoral college. sign me up for the taliban, i guess”

“So, Crash, how would you rather the system be designed?”

“by popular vote”

“Well he did get to study abroad in SE Asia in 1969 for some of his training.”
lumbering ax murderer
3:49:21 PM

what, he couldn't find a broad in this country to study?”

“~groan~”

“I be with Crash on this one. All votes are supposed to be equal. They aren't with the electoral process. It's an antiquated systems that needs to be done away with. We wouldn't have had the last eight years of misery with a majority voting process.”

“It would certainly screw with the politicians' travel plans in October.

Wouldn't that be a shame.


And I still don't give a flying crap about who Iowa votes for in the primary.   Put them at the back of the line for 100 years until things even out.

”

“ok...

democracy is a form of government where power is ultimately held by the people. there are many democracies in the world and they all have different ways in which they have been implemented. processes like the "electoral college" and "popular vote" are processes used to implement a democracy.

nowhere does it say that the entire process for selecting people for roles in a democracy is solely the popular vote.

the people of this country DO choose the government. power IS held by the people that are governed.

some of our officials are elected by popular vote (the legislative branch for example). others are appointed (the justices on the supreme court) others are elected by electors that represent the interests of the states and the people that reside in them.

this system has worked for well over 200 years. it has struck a balance between the needs of the people, the needs of the states, and the needs of the government to perform it's function. it has kept individuals, states, and political parties from hijacking the electoral system and re-writing the rules so they win every election or take the ultimate power away from the people. it's an important "balance" in the checks-and-balances that has made this country successful.
last edited: 10/30/08 3:37:55 PM”

“this system has worked for well over 200 years.

except in 1876, 1888, and 2000, when the guy with the most votes went home a loser

it has struck a balance between the needs of the people, the needs of the states

"the state" is the people

it has kept individuals, states, and political parties from hijacking the electoral system and re-writing the rules so they win every election or take the ultimate power away from the people

giving the people what they want is hijacking the system? how could someone take advantage of a popular vote any more than what they take advantage of it now? as things are now, only the battleground states matter, and a person living in d.c. has 3 times as much voting power as you or I”

“one person, one vote, yogi. is all that really worth corrupting one person, one vote?

i gotta tell ya. i have a real problem with 1 person .8 vote (texas) one person, 3 votes (d.c.)

all men are created 80 percent equal?
last edited: 10/30/08 3:53:56 PM”

“crash... popular vote DOES select the government. i am not sure why you are hung up about this.”

“popular vote would REALLY give power to the cheaters! Good idea!”

“These numbers are different. supak.com/election_2000/”

“popular vote DOES select the government

semantics. i want a direct vote, not an indirect vote


popular vote would REALLY give power to the cheaters

how so?”

“ok crash

how many time do you cast a vote in a year? primaries, local elections, state, federal... and of these votes how many of the choices you are voting for decided based on something other than popular vote.

if you only vote once per year on election day and then ONLY vote for the president you are sort of missing the whole point of voting.”

“true. and beside the point”

“I trust crash bang's math skills as much as his spelling skills.”

“popular vote would REALLY give power to the cheaters

how so?

electoral coloege provides a buffer from the cheaters. Take Philadelphia for example. The cheating is RAMPANT there for Obama "votes". That area needs contained. Counting each vote would lead to hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes.

The real election make-over we need is a tiered voting system.”

“so are you saying cheating would increase if we went to a direct vote, or that cheating would have a greater affect on the outcome (or both)?”

“The cheating is RAMPANT there for Obama "votes

really? can you see into the future?”

“california, texas, illinois, new york, and florida contain something like 36% of the US population. these 5 states have 168 combined electoral votes. a candidate needs 270 to win the presidency. that means a candidate has to campaign in the remaining 45 states to get the remaining 102 electoral votes.

if they didn't have to do this then they would only campaign in the most populace states. while 60% of the population live in 13 of the states, 40% of the population live in the remaining 37.

indiana is ranked #15 in population. yet obama and biden made indiana their last stop on the campaign trail as they tried to tip the states 11 electoral votes into their pocket... not california, texas, illinois, new york, or florida... indiana.”

“It isn't the campaigning that would bother me. It would be the unbalanced federal spending in those states financed on the backs of the rest of the country.”

“100% agreed”

“if they didn't have to do this then they would only campaign in the most populace states

they dont do that now?

with all the angling for votes that goes on now, i doubt they would slow their campaigning down any. besides, that isnt more important than the simple fairness of everyone having an equal vote

the federal spending that hyway brings up is a valid point, even if i think it is over-emphasized. electoral votes are still important, and can lead to unbalanced spending

the voter fraud point is a valid one too, but again, its not like that doesnt go on now, on both sides of the political aisle”

“Look into the history behind it's creation. It was a well devised plan and it still works today---unless your candidate loses.”

“i'm not saying it doesnt work. i'm saying it could be better

look at the first automobile. look at the history behind it's creation. it was a well-devised machine. if it was still in production, it would work today”

“The electoral college system creates a balance between the most populated states (who are the losers in your 1 person, 1 vote calculations) and the less populated states (who would be the losers in a straight up popular vote). Its a good system and it works.”

“so because something works, we dont try to make it better if we can?”

“and the less populated states (who would be the losers in a straight up popular vote

well, they have less people. they should have less of a say. i have no problem with the state of texas having 5 times more weight in the election than the state of indiana. they have 5 times as many people”

“i believe that the electoral system is just a symptom of the human condition to just make everything more complicated than it needs to be”

“Are you intentionally missing the point or do you not really understand why the electoral college exists? A popular vote would allow the 10 most populated states to assume control over the presidency.

And yes, if something works, there is no reason to make it better using a method that would take away the part of it that makes it work.”

“Are you intentionally missing the point or do you not really understand why the electoral college exists?

~pats hyway on the head~ yes, you guys make valid points, and i acknowledge them, as i acknowledge you. you are a unique and special snowflake with something important to say

A popular vote would allow the 10 most populated states to assume control over the presidency

no more so than the battleground states control the presidency now, or more than the 10 states with the most electoral votes control the presidency now. exactly how much campaigning goes on in alaska, wyoming, and north dakota nowadays? i'm sure not a lot

and anyways, it's not like all 10 states are going to vote the same direction. the candidates would still try to reach as many people as they can. isnt that what they should do? i dont see how focusing on the heaviest population centers is a problem. thats how you get to the most people

it's like a sports season. you need x amount of games to clinch the title, but you just dont say "well, we'll play hard in x amount of games, cuz thats all we need to win the division" no. you play hard in all the games, cuz you never know what could happen. same in the campaign. you try to reach as many people as possible and get them on your side, cuz you dont know what could happen, and how badly you need those votes”

“Crash, you really are missing my point. I am talking about what the government would do after the election if the electoral college didn't exist not how politicians campaign. The electoral college forces government not to abandon small population states in favor of the few big ones. Its the same reason we have senators and representatives and not just representatives.”

“well, they have less people. they should have less of a say. i have no problem with the state of texas having 5 times more weight in the election than the state of indiana. they have 5 times as many people”
crash bang
8:01:43 AM

i think you just posted in favor of the electoral college?

exactly how much campaigning goes on in alaska, wyoming, and north dakota nowadays? i'm sure not a lot

a lot of that has less to do with the number of votes those states have and more to do with the voting history of the state...yogi's example of indiana is a good one...historically we've almost always been republican in the presidential race but this year it is very close and both candidates are spending a lot of time and money here”

“Crash, you really are missing my point. I am talking about what the government would do after the election if the electoral college didn't exist not how politicians campaign.

i'm trying to answer everyone. youre not the only person debating me on this. someone mentioned campaigning, im sorry if i mixed you up with them.

and, yes, i understand its not about actual campaigning, but post-election and what you do while in office

but really, what you do while in office will be brought up in the next campaign”

“i think you just posted in favor of the electoral college?

you missed the point. texas has roughly 5 times as many people as we do, so they have 5 times as many electoral votes (thus the whole state has 5 times as much power)

but on a person to person basis, we should all have 1 to 1 power. but we dont. a texans vote is only about 80% as powerful as a hoosiers, while someone from d.c. has 3x as much power as everyone else”

“a lot of that has less to do with the number of votes those states have and more to do with the voting history of the state

obviously. im not arguing that thats not the case.

politicians would have to modify their strategies, obviously. it wont be so clear-cut what they have to do to manipulate us. and to me, thats a good thing
last edited: 10/31/08 6:36:19 AM”

“Thats the way its designed. Without that added power they would get eclipsed by the population power of Texas. Your example. And they would not be held accountable in the next election if they sent all the federal pork, military bases, highway funds, to Texas and none to the hoosier state if all they were worried about was the popular vote.”

“It would be the unbalanced federal spending in those states financed on the backs of the rest of the country. - Hyway

This. Simple, too the point, and spares us from annoying lecturing over the bleeding obvious.”

“texas is not the only major population center. even as the second most populous state, it still makes up less than 8% of the nation' population

but yea, i see your point (so quit saying im missing your point) that a popular election gives weight to the populous state

but an electoral vote gives weight to the swing states, especially fla, oh, and pa

neither system is perfect or completely fair. i just believe a direct vote is a little more fair than an indirect vote
last edited: 10/31/08 6:51:25 AM”

“It wouldn't be so important if the Federal government did only what it was originally intended to do. It is far more fun to pick a prez for his views on abortion, gay marriage and how much more money we'll throw at our nation remodeling ventures.”