+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Eliminate the Electoral College

    This sounds great.
    ************************

    Drop Out of the College

    The Electoral College is an antidemocratic relic. Everyone who remembers 2000 knows that it can lead to the election of the candidate who loses the popular vote as president. But the Electoral College's other serious flaws are perhaps even more debilitating for a democracy. It focuses presidential elections on just a handful of battleground states, and pushes the rest of the nation's voters to the sidelines.

    There is an innovative new proposal for states to take the lead in undoing the Electoral College. Legislatures across the country should get behind it.

    Both parties should have reason to fear the college's perverse effects. In 2000, the Democrats lost out. But in 2004, a shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have elected John Kerry, even though he lost the national popular vote decisively.

    Just as serious is the way the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. Candidates have no incentive to campaign in, or address the concerns of, states that reliably vote for a particular party. In recent years, the battleground in presidential elections has shrunk drastically. In 1960, 24 states, with 327 electoral votes, were battleground states, according to estimates by National Popular Vote, the bipartisan coalition making the new proposal. In 2004, only 13 states, with 159 electoral votes, were. As a result, campaigns and national priorities are stacked in favor of a few strategic states. Ethanol fuel, a pet issue of Iowa farmers, is discussed a lot. But issues of equal concern to states like Alabama, California, New York and Indiana are not.

    The Electoral College discourages turnout because voters in two-thirds of the nation know well before Election Day who will win their states. It also discriminates among voters by weighing presidential votes unequally. A Wyoming voter has about four times as much impact on selecting that state's electors as a California voter does on selecting that state's.

    The answer to all of these problems is direct election of the president. Past attempts to abolish the Electoral College by amending the Constitution have run into difficulty. But National Popular Vote, which includes several former members of Congress, is offering an ingenious solution that would not require a constitutional amendment. It proposes that states commit to casting their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. These promises would become binding only when states representing a majority of the Electoral College signed on. Then any candidate who won the popular vote would be sure to win the White House.

    The coalition is starting out by trying to have laws passed in Illinois and a few other states. Americans are rightly cautious about tinkering with mechanisms established by the Constitution. But throughout the nation's history, there have been a series of reforms affecting how elections are conducted, like the ones that gave blacks and women the vote and provided for the direct election of United States senators. Sidestepping the Electoral College would be in this worthy tradition of making American democracy more democratic.


    .

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1

    Re: Eliminate the Electoral College

    electoral college should be disband, with all the comercials and ppl preaching get the vote out, YOUR VOTE DOESNT REALLY MATTER. its the electoral college who decides the next president. its the people who should decide, not some society for which no names of its members are published and remain a mystery who decide.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    359

    Re: Eliminate the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    This sounds great.
    ************************

    Drop Out of the College

    The Electoral College is an antidemocratic relic. Everyone who remembers 2000 knows that it can lead to the election of the candidate who loses the popular vote as president. But the Electoral College's other serious flaws are perhaps even more debilitating for a democracy. It focuses presidential elections on just a handful of battleground states, and pushes the rest of the nation's voters to the sidelines.

    There is an innovative new proposal for states to take the lead in undoing the Electoral College. Legislatures across the country should get behind it.

    Both parties should have reason to fear the college's perverse effects. In 2000, the Democrats lost out. But in 2004, a shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have elected John Kerry, even though he lost the national popular vote decisively.

    Just as serious is the way the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. Candidates have no incentive to campaign in, or address the concerns of, states that reliably vote for a particular party. In recent years, the battleground in presidential elections has shrunk drastically. In 1960, 24 states, with 327 electoral votes, were battleground states, according to estimates by National Popular Vote, the bipartisan coalition making the new proposal. In 2004, only 13 states, with 159 electoral votes, were. As a result, campaigns and national priorities are stacked in favor of a few strategic states. Ethanol fuel, a pet issue of Iowa farmers, is discussed a lot. But issues of equal concern to states like Alabama, California, New York and Indiana are not.

    The Electoral College discourages turnout because voters in two-thirds of the nation know well before Election Day who will win their states. It also discriminates among voters by weighing presidential votes unequally. A Wyoming voter has about four times as much impact on selecting that state's electors as a California voter does on selecting that state's.

    The answer to all of these problems is direct election of the president. Past attempts to abolish the Electoral College by amending the Constitution have run into difficulty. But National Popular Vote, which includes several former members of Congress, is offering an ingenious solution that would not require a constitutional amendment. It proposes that states commit to casting their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. These promises would become binding only when states representing a majority of the Electoral College signed on. Then any candidate who won the popular vote would be sure to win the White House.

    The coalition is starting out by trying to have laws passed in Illinois and a few other states. Americans are rightly cautious about tinkering with mechanisms established by the Constitution. But throughout the nation's history, there have been a series of reforms affecting how elections are conducted, like the ones that gave blacks and women the vote and provided for the direct election of United States senators. Sidestepping the Electoral College would be in this worthy tradition of making American democracy more democratic.
    I agree 1000%! The electoral college is a misrepresentation for both democrat and republican parties. The only reason why it is not being looked at is because most people have no idea what it is or how it operates. You do not vote for the president! There is a small group of comprised of 538 people who actually vote for the president. See Time's explanation of the Electoral College. http://www.time.com/time/election200...749496,00.html

    "... Presently, the Electoral College has 538 electors — 535 for the total number of senators and representatives plus three for Washington, D.C. Today, a candidate must receive 270 electoral votes to win. ...

    The electors will meet in their respective state capitals to cast their votes for president and vice president on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December; it’s as if the founders foresaw the need for recount time. The votes are sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who opens and reads them before Congress on January 6th.

    The reason we arrived at this system: Our founding fathers were all about compromise when they were choosing a mechanism for picking the president. One early idea was to have the Congress or the Senate decide, but that plan was nixed because it was felt that arrangement would have upset the government’s balance of power and fostered corruption. ..."

    Basically, your state has two parties, democrats & republicans. Both parties choose representatives who are supposed to vote for their party's representative when it comes time to vote. Oregon has 7 electors, Washington has 10. The number is based on the number of senators and representatives with a minimum of three. Let's say that both Washington and Oregon win the popular vote for the democratic party. That means the democratic party of Oregon sends 7 blue wingers to the voting booth with a "promise us you'll all vote for our guy" mentality... which they are under no penalty if they don't honor the promise. [... but you promised!] Washington's democratic party sends 10 dudes to the booth.

    Which means that the entire population of Oregon is trickled down to 7 people. Wahington... 10. But get this. Generally, 50% of the voting population ends up voting. Of that 50% lets say that, just over 50% (51%) is won by the democrats. The actual percentage of the voting population ... 25.5%, is deciding how the state will vote. They decide that Oregon is going to be an all or nothing vote, a vote for democrats ONLY. Now... my personal feelings aside, since I believe all cheatin & leying red wingers aught to be shot, tied, tar'd & feathered, this is not a decent representation for the republicans of the state. Not only is it disgusting that the entire state of Oregon's vote is decided as a whole based on 25.5% of the voting population. So, if just slightly over 1/4 of the population wants a democratic president... our state goes blue.

    What's even worse is that 25.5% is then distilled to a meager 7 votes. No longer does our opinion count. Our entire state is in the hands of 7 guys who are under no legal obligation to vote for the democratic representative. Which means that... a lyin deceitful republican could infiltrate the dems and some how manage to win their trust and be a "faithless elector", one who votes for the other side.

    This is currently in the process within the republican party. And there is nothing that can be done about it in the state of Oregon or Washington since there is no penalty for being a faithless elector.

    God only knows what it would take to get rid of the electoral college.

    It's all Cindy Shehan's fault.

Similar Threads

  1. Eliminate Washington
    By Cnance in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-18-2014, 06:38 AM
  2. eliminate the word f u c k in conversation
    By alisdi5 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-07-2011, 01:25 AM
  3. Electoral college
    By Old Timer in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-04-2008, 09:09 PM
  4. United States College Alliance - National College Survey
    By eugenero in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2007, 02:59 AM
  5. Bush to eliminate poverty in Latin America...
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 05:04 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •