Thread: Is the Electoral College fair ???

jerryphilbob - 10/24/2012 at 11:37 AM

Interestingly there is already much talk about the winner of the popular vote not winning the election. I thought the Electoral College actually made it more fair for all people? I don't even know why they show the tally on the popular vote when it has no bearing on the election what so ever. The swing states are what matters at this point, not population centers.

Let me guess, there will be a BIG push to get rid of the Electoral College if this happens and to have our Elelctions decided by the popular vote. The machine is already making alot of noise in this direction.




cubchubby - 10/24/2012 at 01:11 PM

No ...some votes are worth more than others. In theory, you could win the election with only 22% of the popular vote ... http://www.upworthy.com/i-didnt-realize-the-failure-rate-for-us-elections-w as-this-high?c=o98


sixty8 - 10/24/2012 at 04:05 PM

I don't know???? Ask Al Gore if it is fair or not because without it we would havenever been forced to endure 8 years of W Bush/Cheney and the aftermath they left in their wake.


jim - 10/24/2012 at 05:14 PM

Its absolutely fair, and we need more checks and balances. If we did not have it, the candidates would spend all of their time in NYC or populated metropolitan areas.

The wants and needs of those voters in Wyoming, Alaska, and basically the whole mid-section of the country are no less important than those of people who live in cities. If we did away with the electoral college a large swath of the country would be voiceless.

quote:
Ask Al Gore if it is fair or not


Count me out when it comes to popular vote. Al Gore wanted to change the rules because he lost. It was like complaining about losing a basketball game even though you hit more foul shots.


dougrhon - 10/24/2012 at 05:16 PM

I agree. No problem with the electoral college. And it wasn't that long ago that states like New York and California were very much in play. Things change.


alloak41 - 10/24/2012 at 05:26 PM

quote:
Ask Al Gore if it is fair or not


How about let's not.


LeglizHemp - 10/24/2012 at 05:51 PM

i think i read that a long time ago the electoral college did help even things out between large and small states. now there is a large gap between the large and small states and what a vote is worth. i believe the electoral college can be easily fixed if anyone really wanted it fixed.


BIGV - 10/24/2012 at 06:06 PM

Is the Electoral College fair ???

Fair?...I don't know, but it certainly is "Outdated".


er1016 - 10/24/2012 at 06:17 PM

The concept is fine, but I do agree with others in that it could probably use a face lift.


ScottyVII - 10/24/2012 at 10:37 PM

It beats mob rule which is what pure democracy brings followed by an unending cycle of autocracy.


RobJohnson - 10/25/2012 at 02:11 AM

I have a feeling that come November 7th, a lot of Romeny supporters will feel like the Electoral College isn't fair, just like a lot of Gore supporters felt that way in 2000.

Personally, I think it's a valid way to make sure that small states don't get totally left out of the political process in this country. The county I live in has more people in it than Alaska, but I don't think that means Gwinnett County should have more political clout in US politics than an entire state.

I think Romney will win the popular vote in this election, with around 51-52% of the vote.

I think Obama will squeak out a victory in the electoral college, as long as he can win Ohio, and the polls seem to indicate he still has a pretty solid lead in that state. I say he gets between 275-281 electoral votes.

I could be wrong about either or both of those things, but you heard it here first......


er1016 - 10/25/2012 at 05:39 AM

I don't think you're going that far out on a limb with your prediction.My gut say's Obama's got it.I am still voting for Romney, as I stated before, it's more of a anti Obama vote than a pro Romney vote and to vote green (which I have done in the last two elections) is to vote Obama.


Peachypetewi - 10/25/2012 at 10:42 AM

I have never understood why all states have 2 senators. Seems to me the small population states like Rhode Island and Alaska should only get one while the large population states like California and New York should get 3 or 4.


BIGV - 10/25/2012 at 10:59 AM

quote:
I have never understood why all states have 2 senators. Seems to me the small population states like Rhode Island and Alaska should only get one while the large population states like California and New York should get 3 or 4.


Its my understanding that this is exactly why the Electoral college exists......


dougrhon - 10/25/2012 at 04:29 PM

quote:
I have a feeling that come November 7th, a lot of Romeny supporters will feel like the Electoral College isn't fair, just like a lot of Gore supporters felt that way in 2000.

Personally, I think it's a valid way to make sure that small states don't get totally left out of the political process in this country. The county I live in has more people in it than Alaska, but I don't think that means Gwinnett County should have more political clout in US politics than an entire state.

I think Romney will win the popular vote in this election, with around 51-52% of the vote.

I think Obama will squeak out a victory in the electoral college, as long as he can win Ohio, and the polls seem to indicate he still has a pretty solid lead in that state. I say he gets between 275-281 electoral votes.

I could be wrong about either or both of those things, but you heard it here first......




There is virtually no way that can happen. If Romney wins 52 percent of the popular vote he is almost certain to win 270 or more electoral votes. Regardless of what state polls say right now. Recall that Bush and Gore were separated by 500,000 popular votes, less than one half of one percent. What happened in 2000 had not happened for onver 100 years prior and it is unlikely to happen again. If somehow it does, I still support the electoral college. Why? Because we are 50 sovereign states and the states elect the president. Eliminating the electoral college would undermine the federalism which makes our nation unique and has served us well for hundreds of years.


dougrhon - 10/25/2012 at 04:31 PM

quote:
I have never understood why all states have 2 senators. Seems to me the small population states like Rhode Island and Alaska should only get one while the large population states like California and New York should get 3 or 4.


Because that is what was agreed to when the Constitution was created. The large states have more power in the house (And also more power to elect the president) while smaller states have disproportionate power in the Senate. That is the bargain that was agreed to and the only way the Constitution would have been approved. It is just another one of the many checks and balances placed into this brilliant system that the framers came up with.


bob1954 - 10/25/2012 at 10:28 PM

quote:
quote:
I have never understood why all states have 2 senators. Seems to me the small population states like Rhode Island and Alaska should only get one while the large population states like California and New York should get 3 or 4.


Because that is what was agreed to when the Constitution was created. The large states have more power in the house (And also more power to elect the president) while smaller states have disproportionate power in the Senate. That is the bargain that was agreed to and the only way the Constitution would have been approved. It is just another one of the many checks and balances placed into this brilliant system that the framers came up with.

I believe it was intended that the primary purpose of the "representatives" in the Lower House was to represent and advocate on behalf of their constituents, and thus each representative came from a roughly equal district in terms of population. The Upper House, the Senate, had the primary function of representing their state in in the larger national issues (i.e. defense, trade, foreign affairs, etc.) and thus each state was given equal representation. Of course the original intent has long been obscured in the more than 200 years of evolution of our political system.


dougrhon - 10/26/2012 at 01:08 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I have never understood why all states have 2 senators. Seems to me the small population states like Rhode Island and Alaska should only get one while the large population states like California and New York should get 3 or 4.


Because that is what was agreed to when the Constitution was created. The large states have more power in the house (And also more power to elect the president) while smaller states have disproportionate power in the Senate. That is the bargain that was agreed to and the only way the Constitution would have been approved. It is just another one of the many checks and balances placed into this brilliant system that the framers came up with.

I believe it was intended that the primary purpose of the "representatives" in the Lower House was to represent and advocate on behalf of their constituents, and thus each representative came from a roughly equal district in terms of population. The Upper House, the Senate, had the primary function of representing their state in in the larger national issues (i.e. defense, trade, foreign affairs, etc.) and thus each state was given equal representation. Of course the original intent has long been obscured in the more than 200 years of evolution of our political system. [/quote

At first only a single house legislature was intended as in Great Britain. The smaller states naturally wanted an equal number of reps so that each state was totally equal regardless of size. The larger states insisted it be by population. Ultimately a compromise was reached with a two house legislature. As a further compromise towards those who distrusted direct democracy, the House would be elected by direct vote and the Senate by the state legislatures. This was of course later changed by Constitutional Amendment. That was the single biggest change to the nature of our political system, the direct election of Senators. And of course we have many more states.


RobJohnson - 10/26/2012 at 01:40 AM

I'm not sure why you consider that such an unlikely outcome dougrhon. Consider the 2004 election...

National Results

Bush: 62,040,610
Kerry: 59,028,439

Ohio Results

Bush: 2,859,768
Kerry: 2,741,167

A little math shows you that if Kerry won another 120,000 votes in Ohio, he would have won the election despite the fact that he would still have lost the national popular vote by almost 3 million votes.

Obama won Ohio in 2008, is an incumbent President, and is a better candidate with a much better organization than Kerry. I don't think it's unreasonable to think he would outperform Kerry's 2004 performance in Ohio. Obama can do worse there than he did in 2008 and still carry the state.

I fully expect Romney to carry a lot of "red states" with large margins of victory, which is one reason why I think he can win the popular vote and still lose the election. You don't get bonus electoral votes for winning big in a state.

I realize this kind of "split election" has been rare in American history, but it happened twice within 12 years in 1876 and 1888, with both Rutherford B. Hayes and Grover Cleveland winning the Presidency while losing the popular vote.

I think we're due


2112 - 10/26/2012 at 09:03 AM

No, it's not fair. I suspect that the electoral college won't matter in a few years. The National Popular Vote Bill now has half what is needed to be enacted. Basically, if enough states sign on to account for enough electoral votes to win the presidency, then all the electoral votes for the states that have agreed to participate will go to the candidate that wins the national popular vote regardless of how voters in the state voted. So far 8 states (including California) and Washington DC have signed on. If enacted, then no longer will candidates get to spend all their time pandering to a dozen or so swing states and finally all votes will be treated equally. If Romney wins the popular vote and Obama wins the presidency due to the electoral college (a strong possibility), then I figure there should be enough uproar to get enough additional states to sign on.

Oh, and for those who do think it's fair. Would you still feel that way if one of the members of the electoral college votes his own conscience rather than the way he/she is suppose to vote based on the voters of that state? That is possible. Some states have laws to put an electoral college voter in jail for not voting the way that he or she is pledged, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php


RobJohnson - 10/26/2012 at 12:11 PM

I appreciate your passion, 2112, but the states are semi-sovereign entities, and how they vote AS A STATE should matter. I realize this means states like Alaska get slightly disproportionate clout compared to their overall population, but I'm okay with that.

You do have a good point about the individual electors "going rogue." That is a pretty sloppy loophole, and I would be in favor of some kind of reform to tidy up that part of the equation and prevent that from happening.


dougrhon - 10/26/2012 at 04:10 PM

quote:
I appreciate your passion, 2112, but the states are semi-sovereign entities, and how they vote AS A STATE should matter. I realize this means states like Alaska get slightly disproportionate clout compared to their overall population, but I'm okay with that.

You do have a good point about the individual electors "going rogue." That is a pretty sloppy loophole, and I would be in favor of some kind of reform to tidy up that part of the equation and prevent that from happening.


The rogue elector thing I agree should be reformed. A vote for the candidate within a state must go to the candidate. The states are not semi-sovereign. They are fully sovereign except to the extent specifically limited by the Constitution by powers given specifically to the Federal government.

I understand your point Rob that it COULD happen. And it could have happened several other times as well when it didn't. There is a reason. Votes in swing states tend to ultimately follow the popular vote. Sure Ohio if it goes to Romney will likely be closer than his overall popular victory. But if Romney actually gets 52 percent or more of the popular vote, I fully expect him to win Ohio and most of the other swing states as well, even if they are closer. I could be wrong and will be here the next day to admit if I am.


RobJohnson - 10/26/2012 at 10:25 PM

I tell you what, Doug, maybe 52% is a little high. If Romney hits that mark, he probably will win.

Both now and in 2004, you had a fairly unpopular incumbent President (Bush/Obama) running against a challenger (Kerry/Romney) who is an experienced politician and not totally hopeless, but at the same time not tremendously inspiring, even to many members of his own party. I really think that is the closest analogy to this election, at least in modern times.

If Obama wins the popular vote, I think he's got it made. It's hard for me to see him winning over 50% of the nationwide vote and not carry Ohio, which is really what this comes down to, in my opinion. I think Romney will take Florida and Virginia, just as Bush did in 2004, and none of the other swing states have as many electoral votes as Ohio, so that is the big prize.

I see Obama winning every state Kerry did except New Hampshire (Obama doesn't have the Mass connection both Kerry and Romney have) and winning Ohio and Nevada, which Kerry lost. If he can pull that off, 4 more years.

If not, like you said, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. We'll all find out in two weeks...


spacemonkey - 10/27/2012 at 07:17 PM

It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business


dougrhon - 10/28/2012 at 03:35 AM

quote:
I tell you what, Doug, maybe 52% is a little high. If Romney hits that mark, he probably will win.

Both now and in 2004, you had a fairly unpopular incumbent President (Bush/Obama) running against a challenger (Kerry/Romney) who is an experienced politician and not totally hopeless, but at the same time not tremendously inspiring, even to many members of his own party. I really think that is the closest analogy to this election, at least in modern times.

If Obama wins the popular vote, I think he's got it made. It's hard for me to see him winning over 50% of the nationwide vote and not carry Ohio, which is really what this comes down to, in my opinion. I think Romney will take Florida and Virginia, just as Bush did in 2004, and none of the other swing states have as many electoral votes as Ohio, so that is the big prize.

I see Obama winning every state Kerry did except New Hampshire (Obama doesn't have the Mass connection both Kerry and Romney have) and winning Ohio and Nevada, which Kerry lost. If he can pull that off, 4 more years.

If not, like you said, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. We'll all find out in two weeks...


We will. I think you are making a lot of assumptions in comparing it to 2004. I don't think it especially resembles that year at all. I think in its nature it more resembles 1992 except for the absence of the third party candidate. I certainly agree that whoever wins the popular vote is extremely likely to end up winning the electoral college and the presidency as well. The thing that should worry Obama and his supporters is that virtually no poll, even those putting Obama at a tie or ahead, has him with 50 percent of the vote. It is a well known truism that where an incumbent is running for re-election, a majority of the undecided virtually always break for the challenger. This was true in 2004 as well when Bush was ahead the final week by more than he actually won by. Just as there was no reason to believe (As I said and was ridiculed for) that the polls in early September were immutable. There is simply no reason to believe that the final vote in these swings state will not fall into line with what political science, historical trends and common sense says will happen. That is the basis of my prediction.


dougrhon - 10/28/2012 at 03:36 AM

quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


spacemonkey - 10/29/2012 at 04:17 PM

quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.


dougrhon - 10/29/2012 at 04:28 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.




The Civil War decided the question of whether the Union is voluntary. It is not. The 14th Amendment ensured that the bill of rights was applicable to the states. The States are still fully sovereign except for the powers specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution. The primary thing distinguishing many conservatives from liberals is that conservatives tend to still believe strongly in the federal structure set up by the Constitution.


spacemonkey - 10/29/2012 at 07:50 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.




The Civil War decided the question of whether the Union is voluntary. It is not. The 14th Amendment ensured that the bill of rights was applicable to the states. The States are still fully sovereign except for the powers specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution. The primary thing distinguishing many conservatives from liberals is that conservatives tend to still believe strongly in the federal structure set up by the Constitution.


From a historical standpoint, more power (money) is controlled by the Federal Gov't after the civil war.

I don't think the Medical Marijuana growers in California are feeling very sovereign.




dougrhon - 10/29/2012 at 09:03 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.




The Civil War decided the question of whether the Union is voluntary. It is not. The 14th Amendment ensured that the bill of rights was applicable to the states. The States are still fully sovereign except for the powers specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution. The primary thing distinguishing many conservatives from liberals is that conservatives tend to still believe strongly in the federal structure set up by the Constitution.


From a historical standpoint, more power (money) is controlled by the Federal Gov't after the civil war.

I don't think the Medical Marijuana growers in California are feeling very sovereign.






Of course you are right. And there are many who do not believe in any limitation on Federal power at all. But the Constitution says the Federal government has limited powers. Anything not specifically allocated to the Federal government is reserved for the States. Most conservatives do not hate government. They just want it limited to its core function, particularly the federal government.


spacemonkey - 10/30/2012 at 05:36 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.




The Civil War decided the question of whether the Union is voluntary. It is not. The 14th Amendment ensured that the bill of rights was applicable to the states. The States are still fully sovereign except for the powers specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution. The primary thing distinguishing many conservatives from liberals is that conservatives tend to still believe strongly in the federal structure set up by the Constitution.


From a historical standpoint, more power (money) is controlled by the Federal Gov't after the civil war.

I don't think the Medical Marijuana growers in California are feeling very sovereign.






Of course you are right. And there are many who do not believe in any limitation on Federal power at all. But the Constitution says the Federal government has limited powers. Anything not specifically allocated to the Federal government is reserved for the States. Most conservatives do not hate government. They just want it limited to its core function, particularly the federal government.


You need to regulate business function because the greed heads will act against their own best interests and crash the economy requiring a socialist bailout. Greenspan was wrong and even he admits it.

Small businesses will mix meningitis virus
into steroid injections even after they have been warned about bad practices because of no regulatory function. Has the Tea Party noticed??

We need less regulation of our own bodies and the choices we make with them. but busting folks for drugs and locking them up is big business for cops and jailers, even if we have more young black men in jail than under South African apartheid! And contract out jailing functions with population guaranties. How's that for freedom?

The Eisenhower conservative ethic has morphed into this modern conservatism that is more about making a buck, than conserving our constitution and american standards of living.
Damn the cost to our environment and our citizen's standard of living. Not my problem.

IMO


dougrhon - 10/30/2012 at 09:23 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.




The Civil War decided the question of whether the Union is voluntary. It is not. The 14th Amendment ensured that the bill of rights was applicable to the states. The States are still fully sovereign except for the powers specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution. The primary thing distinguishing many conservatives from liberals is that conservatives tend to still believe strongly in the federal structure set up by the Constitution.


From a historical standpoint, more power (money) is controlled by the Federal Gov't after the civil war.

I don't think the Medical Marijuana growers in California are feeling very sovereign.






Of course you are right. And there are many who do not believe in any limitation on Federal power at all. But the Constitution says the Federal government has limited powers. Anything not specifically allocated to the Federal government is reserved for the States. Most conservatives do not hate government. They just want it limited to its core function, particularly the federal government.


You need to regulate business function because the greed heads will act against their own best interests and crash the economy requiring a socialist bailout. Greenspan was wrong and even he admits it.

Small businesses will mix meningitis virus
into steroid injections even after they have been warned about bad practices because of no regulatory function. Has the Tea Party noticed??

We need less regulation of our own bodies and the choices we make with them. but busting folks for drugs and locking them up is big business for cops and jailers, even if we have more young black men in jail than under South African apartheid! And contract out jailing functions with population guaranties. How's that for freedom?

The Eisenhower conservative ethic has morphed into this modern conservatism that is more about making a buck, than conserving our constitution and american standards of living.
Damn the cost to our environment and our citizen's standard of living. Not my problem.

IMO


Most conservatives believe in reasonable regulation. Most modern conservatives are not libertarians. They just believe that today's government has gone too far and is ineffective. To say the choice is between left too much regulation or none at all is another straw horse being beaten.


spacemonkey - 10/31/2012 at 09:03 PM

I worry when deregulation allows poison in our drugs. No steroid shots for my neck thank you. I will pass on the meningitis virus.

I wonder if the Tea Party notices. I hear the cries of regulation killing small businesses. And see what lack of regulation causes to our health and the environment.




RobJohnson - 11/2/2012 at 12:15 PM

I just read a piece by Nate Silver of the New York Times that reinforces my earlier point about Obama being able to win the electoral college without winning the popular vote. A quick snippet for your reading pleasure, keeping in mind that "tying in the popular vote" and "losing the popular vote by a small margin" are virtually identical outcomes...

"Suppose, however, that Mr. Obama were to tie Mr. Romney in the popular vote on Tuesday...Even under these conditions, Mr. Obama would still be a favorite in the forecast. In fact, he’d be about a 70 percent favorite to win the Electoral College conditional upon the national popular vote being tied, according to our simulations.

A tie in the national popular vote is a tolerable condition for Mr. Obama, in other words. His position is robust enough in states like Ohio that he has some slack. With a lead of about 2.5 percentage points in the tipping-point states, Mr. Obama could underperform his state polls by a point or two and still win.

Conversely, Mr. Romney has few chances to win unless the state polls are systematically wrong."


275-281 electoral votes for Obama is looking pretty good to me right now.


dougrhon - 11/3/2012 at 02:32 AM

quote:
I just read a piece by Nate Silver of the New York Times that reinforces my earlier point about Obama being able to win the electoral college without winning the popular vote. A quick snippet for your reading pleasure, keeping in mind that "tying in the popular vote" and "losing the popular vote by a small margin" are virtually identical outcomes...

"Suppose, however, that Mr. Obama were to tie Mr. Romney in the popular vote on Tuesday...Even under these conditions, Mr. Obama would still be a favorite in the forecast. In fact, he’d be about a 70 percent favorite to win the Electoral College conditional upon the national popular vote being tied, according to our simulations.

A tie in the national popular vote is a tolerable condition for Mr. Obama, in other words. His position is robust enough in states like Ohio that he has some slack. With a lead of about 2.5 percentage points in the tipping-point states, Mr. Obama could underperform his state polls by a point or two and still win.

Conversely, Mr. Romney has few chances to win unless the state polls are systematically wrong."


275-281 electoral votes for Obama is looking pretty good to me right now.


There is no way that is happening. There is a disparity between the state polls and the national polls. Silver is basing his prediction on the state polls and he is assuming they are correct. The state polls and the national polls that have shown Romney ahead are assuming totally different levels of Democratic vs. Republican turnout. The polls showing Obama ahead are assuming a turnout similar to 2008. They obviously believe that was not a one off or a unique "wave" election but the norm for what Democrats can expect now and they weight the polls accordingly. Rasmussen and Gallup have assumed a more traditional norm somewhere between 2004 and 2008. Many Republicans believe it will be an even higher GOP turnout. Someone is right and someone is wrong. It is much more likely that the poll methodology is wrong (wouldn't be the first time) than that all historical norms are out the window. As for Nate Silver, he is a brilliant prognosticator of baseball statistics. He has a lot of data to work with, all of which is valid. He called one single election correctly and he was far from alone. Many pundits, including the vast majority of Conservative pundits also called the 2008 election almost exactly. It wasn't that hard because it wasn't close and there was no real question that the polls were basically correct.

I'm sure everyone knows the old expression "garbage in garbage out." Silver's predictions are only as good as the data he is using and he is not a political scientist or historian. He may be right because the Democrats really may have become a large majority party again. Or he may be wrong because the turnout may revert to the pre-2008 norm given that Obama is not very popular. Only the election will tell the tale.

I have predicted a Romney win and I am standing by that. But I will make an even stronger prediction. I will eat my hat if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college.


alloak41 - 11/3/2012 at 02:54 AM

quote:
I worry when deregulation allows poison in our drugs. No steroid shots for my neck thank you. I will pass on the meningitis virus.

I wonder if the Tea Party notices. I hear the cries of regulation killing small businesses. And see what lack of regulation causes to our health and the environment.



All the street corner mom and pop pharma manufacturers are listening.

[Edited on 11/3/2012 by alloak41]


Rydethwind - 11/6/2012 at 01:19 AM

If you win the popular vote then you win period the electorial college is way out of line and needs to be abolished...


BIGV - 11/6/2012 at 11:29 AM

quote:
I realize this kind of "split election" has been rare in American history, but it happened twice within 12 years in 1876 and 1888, with both Rutherford B. Hayes and Grover Cleveland winning the Presidency while losing the popular vote.


Add Bush/Gore in 200 and that makes three.

44 Presidents and 13 "Two term" Presidents, including Roosevelt's 3 terms

44
13
01

58 Presidential elections with 3 being "split elections"......not the best of odds.


jim - 11/6/2012 at 01:21 PM

quote:
I will pass on the meningitis virus.




Oh, you should try it. I had it when I was 16. Its really quite fun...if you like feeling like your head has been smashed with a sledge hammer and you like puking your guts out, then its the illness for you!!


alloak41 - 11/6/2012 at 02:49 PM

quote:
If you win the popular vote then you win period the electorial college is way out of line and needs to be abolished...


I agree. Whoever gets the most votes should win.


jerryphilbob - 11/6/2012 at 04:28 PM

Actaully, the electoral college is the fairest way to elect a president. It gives every state a voice. They would love to get rid of the electoral college, that way they would never lose another election.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we have a split decision and then the battle cry for repealing the electoral college will be on.


bob1954 - 11/6/2012 at 04:30 PM

quote:
They would love to get rid of the electoral college, that way they would never lose another election.

Who?


Bhawk - 11/6/2012 at 04:31 PM

quote:
quote:
If you win the popular vote then you win period the electorial college is way out of line and needs to be abolished...


I agree. Whoever gets the most votes should win.


That would certainly save on campaign travel...


Bhawk - 11/6/2012 at 04:31 PM

quote:
quote:
They would love to get rid of the electoral college, that way they would never lose another election.

Who?


Them. But, since both sides are a part of the same sinister cabal, they win every time anyway.


Rydethwind - 11/6/2012 at 06:32 PM

Ok i will explain my answer I may be wrong but i think i read it right .. the electoral college was instituted because it took weeks or forever to get the info from a vote to find out a winner people lived way out in the boondocks (like I do now) BUT in this day of instant information it is no longer needed it is possible today that a candidate could win by popular vote and loose the election that is wrong, this is one country everyone votes and the winner is decided by votes not population areas... if i am wrong here ok but it is just like term limits they need to be gone!


spacemonkey - 11/6/2012 at 07:07 PM

quote:
Ok i will explain my answer I may be wrong but i think i read it right .. the electoral college was instituted because it took weeks or forever to get the info from a vote to find out a winner people lived way out in the boondocks (like I do now) BUT in this day of instant information it is no longer needed it is possible today that a candidate could win by popular vote and loose the election that is wrong, this is one country everyone votes and the winner is decided by votes not population areas... if i am wrong here ok but it is just like term limits they need to be gone!


no , the electoral college was never about communication issues.

the electoral college was set up to mirror the population of the country. As population changes the college changes as does the house of representatives. The census determines any changes to congress and the electoral college.

This is the nature of a republic of independent states. The United States of America.

WE ARE NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY , it is not one vote per person, each vote is weighted by population differences through the electoral college.

Each state then decides how to divide up their share of congress with state districting.

The Presidential election is not about who get the most votes, but who gets the most electoral college votes. This is fair as The Elected President must represent all the states
in Federal Matters.










spacemonkey - 11/6/2012 at 07:10 PM

quote:
quote:
I will pass on the meningitis virus.




Oh, you should try it. I had it when I was 16. Its really quite fun...if you like feeling like your head has been smashed with a sledge hammer and you like puking your guts out, then its the illness for you!!


if it doesn't kill you.

sounds lovely but no thanks!




dougrhon - 11/6/2012 at 10:35 PM

quote:
Ok i will explain my answer I may be wrong but i think i read it right .. the electoral college was instituted because it took weeks or forever to get the info from a vote to find out a winner people lived way out in the boondocks (like I do now) BUT in this day of instant information it is no longer needed it is possible today that a candidate could win by popular vote and loose the election that is wrong, this is one country everyone votes and the winner is decided by votes not population areas... if i am wrong here ok but it is just like term limits they need to be gone!


That had nothing to do with it. What you describe is the reason inaugural day was originally in March. As we know it was changed to January 20. The electoral college was a compromise between those who wanted direct Democracy and those who mistrusted it. It was also a compromise between those who lived in larger states and those who lived in smaller states. Like the makeup of Congress itself (which it totally mirrors) It gives smaller states a dispoportionate share of the vote. But that is by design because otherwise the smaller states would have no power at all. Every state has to have a minimum amount of power and that is three votes.


RobJohnson - 11/7/2012 at 05:39 AM

It's looking like Obama will narrowly win the popular vote, but I just want to point out that he could have easily won the electoral vote tonight without doing so. He could have won without Ohio, Florida or Virginia, and it looks like he might win all 3.

My man Obama did a little better than I thought he would, sue me


Rydethwind - 11/7/2012 at 03:47 PM

quote:
quote:
Ok i will explain my answer I may be wrong but i think i read it right .. the electoral college was instituted because it took weeks or forever to get the info from a vote to find out a winner people lived way out in the boondocks (like I do now) BUT in this day of instant information it is no longer needed it is possible today that a candidate could win by popular vote and loose the election that is wrong, this is one country everyone votes and the winner is decided by votes not population areas... if i am wrong here ok but it is just like term limits they need to be gone!


no , the electoral college was never about communication issues.

the electoral college was set up to mirror the population of the country. As population changes the college changes as does the house of representatives. The census determines any changes to congress and the electoral college.

This is the nature of a republic of independent states. The United States of America.

WE ARE NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY , it is not one vote per person, each vote is weighted by population differences through the electoral college.

Each state then decides how to divide up their share of congress with state districting.

The Presidential election is not about who get the most votes, but who gets the most electoral college votes. This is fair as The Elected President must represent all the states
in Federal Matters.

Sorry Charlie it was all about communication or lack there of it was instituted in 1788 horse travel was the only means of communication! I know you are a smart guy so you can figure out the rest ...











Rydethwind - 11/7/2012 at 03:50 PM

quote:
It's looking like Obama will narrowly win the popular vote, but I just want to point out that he could have easily won the electoral vote tonight without doing so. He could have won without Ohio, Florida or Virginia, and it looks like he might win all 3.

My man Obama did a little better than I thought he would, sue me


Congrats man but i am not going to sue ya..... cause you will not have anything left after the next 4 years so i will save ya a can of salmon..... peace


dougrhon - 11/7/2012 at 05:14 PM

quote:
It's looking like Obama will narrowly win the popular vote, but I just want to point out that he could have easily won the electoral vote tonight without doing so. He could have won without Ohio, Florida or Virginia, and it looks like he might win all 3.

My man Obama did a little better than I thought he would, sue me


It "could have" happened many times but as I pointed out it almost never does. The one thing I continue to be right about.


er1016 - 11/7/2012 at 10:34 PM

The electoral college is what determines our president while it may not always be reflective of what "Americans want" it is what it is and its been consistent ....... The popular vote is more reflective of the actual pulse of the nation IMO. And with it sitting at 50/48, I think any side interpreting this election as a mandate of any kind, has missed the mark all together. To me it shows the divide that has been and continues to grow in this country. .


2112 - 11/8/2012 at 01:10 AM

quote:
The electoral college is what determines our president while it may not always be reflective of what "Americans want" it is what it is and its been consistent ....... The popular vote is more reflective of the actual pulse of the nation IMO. And with it sitting at 50/48, I think any side interpreting this election as a mandate of any kind, has missed the mark all together. To me it shows the divide that has been and continues to grow in this country. .


The word mandate is funny. Bush said he had a mandate in 2000 when he lost the popular vote but won the presidency. Bush said he had a mandate when he won reelection in 2004 with a very similar percentage of the popular vote as we saw in this election. What does mandate really mean anyway? If Bush did in fact have a mandate, then Obama has one too. I'm not sure if either of them really had a "mandate," but if you thought that Bush's reelection gave him the right to push his agenda forward, then you really can't say that Obama doesn't have that same right.


Dannyspell - 11/8/2012 at 01:13 AM

I do not think so!!


er1016 - 11/8/2012 at 01:14 AM

quote:
quote:
The electoral college is what determines our president while it may not always be reflective of what "Americans want" it is what it is and its been consistent ....... The popular vote is more reflective of the actual pulse of the nation IMO. And with it sitting at 50/48, I think any side interpreting this election as a mandate of any kind, has missed the mark all together. To me it shows the divide that has been and continues to grow in this country. .


The word mandate is funny. Bush said he had a mandate in 2000 when he lost the popular vote but won the presidency. Bush said he had a mandate when he won reelection in 2004 with a very similar percentage of the popular vote as we saw in this election. What does mandate really mean anyway? If Bush did in fact have a mandate, then Obama has one too. I'm not sure if either of them really had a "mandate," but if you thought that Bush's reelection gave him the right to push his agenda forward, then you really can't say that Obama doesn't have that same right.


All due respect, my comment has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or what he or his supporters thinks or thought at anytime. My comments are my opinions as pertaining to this election........ HTH


2112 - 11/8/2012 at 02:17 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
The electoral college is what determines our president while it may not always be reflective of what "Americans want" it is what it is and its been consistent ....... The popular vote is more reflective of the actual pulse of the nation IMO. And with it sitting at 50/48, I think any side interpreting this election as a mandate of any kind, has missed the mark all together. To me it shows the divide that has been and continues to grow in this country. .


The word mandate is funny. Bush said he had a mandate in 2000 when he lost the popular vote but won the presidency. Bush said he had a mandate when he won reelection in 2004 with a very similar percentage of the popular vote as we saw in this election. What does mandate really mean anyway? If Bush did in fact have a mandate, then Obama has one too. I'm not sure if either of them really had a "mandate," but if you thought that Bush's reelection gave him the right to push his agenda forward, then you really can't say that Obama doesn't have that same right.


All due respect, my comment has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or what he or his supporters thinks or thought at anytime. My comments are my opinions as pertaining to this election........ HTH



Fair enough. I have no idea if you thought Bush had a mandate or not, and to be honest I don't really care. I never thought Bush had a real mandate, so I guess that means that I don't think Obama has one either. That said, I think there needs to be compromise on both sides if we are ever going to get back to a functioning government and as such all of those compromises can't be coming from just one side. I think Obama's victory should mean that both sides should negotiate without any "sacred cows" being left off the table.


RobJohnson - 11/8/2012 at 02:28 AM

Rydethwind, I don't have any money NOW, so the prospect of being broke in 4 years doesn't terrify me

There are more important reasons to vote for President than whether Candidate A vs. Candidate B will make me richer. Even if you could guarantee that the economy would be better under Romney, I still wouldn't have voted for him. There is a lot more to being President than just managing the economy.

I voted for Obama mainly because I trust him more to make executive decisions. I want him in charge of nominating the next Supreme Court justice, not Mitt Romney. I want Obama negotiating with other countries, not Mitt Romney.

I think Obama has passed the Commander In Chief test and I trust his judgment in a crisis.


er1016 - 11/8/2012 at 02:48 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The electoral college is what determines our president while it may not always be reflective of what "Americans want" it is what it is and its been consistent ....... The popular vote is more reflective of the actual pulse of the nation IMO. And with it sitting at 50/48, I think any side interpreting this election as a mandate of any kind, has missed the mark all together. To me it shows the divide that has been and continues to grow in this country. .


The word mandate is funny. Bush said he had a mandate in 2000 when he lost the popular vote but won the presidency. Bush said he had a mandate when he won reelection in 2004 with a very similar percentage of the popular vote as we saw in this election. What does mandate really mean anyway? If Bush did in fact have a mandate, then Obama has one too. I'm not sure if either of them really had a "mandate," but if you thought that Bush's reelection gave him the right to push his agenda forward, then you really can't say that Obama doesn't have that same right.


All due respect, my comment has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or what he or his supporters thinks or thought at anytime. My comments are my opinions as pertaining to this election........ HTH



Fair enough. I have no idea if you thought Bush had a mandate or not, and to be honest I don't really care. I never thought Bush had a real mandate, so I guess that means that I don't think Obama has one either. That said, I think there needs to be compromise on both sides if we are ever going to get back to a functioning government and as such all of those compromises can't be coming from just one side. I think Obama's victory should mean that both sides should negotiate without any "sacred cows" being left off the table.


I think we are saying the same things, just taking two different paths.....Which is usually the case with my dyslexic self.


BrerRabbit - 1/6/2019 at 09:24 PM

quote:
quote:
If you win the popular vote then you win period the electorial college is way out of line and needs to be abolished...


quote:
I agree. Whoever gets the most votes should win.



Both of the above were posted by right wingers when Obama was elected.


Muleman1994 - 1/6/2019 at 09:31 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
If you win the popular vote then you win period the electorial college is way out of line and needs to be abolished...


quote:
I agree. Whoever gets the most votes should win.



Both of the above were posted by right wingers when Obama was elected.



Isn't that cute.
There is no way 2/3 of the States will amend the Constitution.


BrerRabbit - 1/6/2019 at 09:37 PM

I agree, actually. I have always thought tbe Electoral College was a pretty fair system, given the difficulty of representing the Union.

Unlike some folks who only think the Electoral College is fair when it works for their candidate, then turn around and bitch about it when it doesn't.


Muleman1994 - 1/6/2019 at 09:40 PM

quote:
I agree, actually. I have always thought tbe Electoral College was a pretty fair system, given the difficulty of representing the Union.

Unlike some folks who only think the Electoral College is fair when it works for their candidate, then turn around and bitch about it when it doesn't.



The Electoral College does keep the presidential election fair and equally balanced for all States.
Political party matters not.


BrerRabbit - 1/6/2019 at 09:49 PM

I agree. Make sure you remind Trump and your maga pals of that when the Electoral College works against him and he about-faces and declares the Electoral College a "disaster for democracy."

That settles that - you actually disagreed with Trump's attacks on the Electoral College in 2012. A Whipping Post first, a Trump borg admits to a difference of opinion with their command and control unit.


Muleman1994 - 1/6/2019 at 10:11 PM

quote:
I agree. Make sure you remind Trump and your maga pals of that when the Electoral College works against him and he about-faces and declares the Electoral College a "disaster for democracy."

That settles that - you actually disagreed with Trump's attacks on the Electoral College in 2012. A Whipping Post first, a Trump borg admits to a difference of opinion with their command and control unit.



Donald Trump's 2012 words were taken out of context, a common political tactic of the far-left.
Not that it matters.
The Electoral College is and will remain exactly as it is now.

The left really needs to go outside of their Caracas Caucus to find a viable candidate.
Even Bernie can no longer run as a Democrat.
Maybe he will start his own Hammer and Sickle Party.



[Edited on 1/6/2019 by Muleman1994]


BrerRabbit - 1/6/2019 at 10:38 PM

quote:
Donald Trump's 2012 words were taken out of context


Nevermind. First sign of indepedent thought in a Trumpbot, flash in the pan.


BoytonBrother - 1/7/2019 at 04:13 PM

quote:
That settles that - you actually disagreed with Trump's attacks on the Electoral College in 2012. A Whipping Post first, a Trump borg admits to a difference of opinion with their command and control unit.


He also just boasted about Obama’s border security position, as well as Hillary’s, and how it’s similar to Trump’s. He said they both supported border security and then quoted them to prove it! What is happening?


BIGV - 1/7/2019 at 04:58 PM

quote:
Whoever gets the most votes should win.


On the local and State level, Yes. Not Federally.


Bhawk - 1/7/2019 at 09:07 PM

quote:
quote:
I agree, actually. I have always thought tbe Electoral College was a pretty fair system, given the difficulty of representing the Union.

Unlike some folks who only think the Electoral College is fair when it works for their candidate, then turn around and bitch about it when it doesn't.



The Electoral College does keep the presidential election fair and equally balanced for all States.




Please explain.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
https://allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
https://allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=126697