Thread: It is time to do away with the Electorial College

Rydethwind - 11/4/2008 at 01:16 AM

Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!


bigann - 11/4/2008 at 01:21 AM

This is the same discussion democrats had after the last two elections. Those of us who didn't vote for Bush felt the same way then.


phillybob - 11/4/2008 at 01:21 AM

only if Obama wins


Brock - 11/4/2008 at 01:21 AM

I agree, but where were you in 2000? I hate that my vote means nothing if the majority of my state goes the other way. It would also mean the candidates would actually campaign in all the states, and not just a few battleground states.


Rydethwind - 11/4/2008 at 01:24 AM

I have been preaching this for years before 2000 and if it meant the the dem,s won the last two elections so be it whatever it means the PEOPLE need to be counted and not just the big city states, this system sucks no matter who wins it is wrong!


Capn - 11/4/2008 at 01:26 AM

without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


PhotoRon286 - 11/4/2008 at 01:27 AM

quote:
Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!


On this we agree 100%.


PhotoRon286 - 11/4/2008 at 01:28 AM

quote:
without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


As opposed to spending DAYS in one toss-up state?


Fujirich - 11/4/2008 at 01:31 AM

quote:
quote:
without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


As opposed to spending DAYS in one toss-up state?


It just proves there is no solution that will satisfy us all


gina - 11/4/2008 at 01:32 AM

quote:
Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!


If you want real change, starting tomorrow or the day after, begin working for the Constitutional Party so that next time their candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states. Educate America that there is an alternative and show them what they are all about, what they stand for, what they will do if they are elected. The Constitutional Party will let the people have a voice in their government, the others can't ruffle too many feathers because they are part of the other parties. You want real change? It starts with all of us, organizing on the grassroots level to really make the change.


Fujirich - 11/4/2008 at 01:33 AM

quote:
quote:
Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!


If you want real change, starting tomorrow or the day after, begin working for the Constitutional Party so that next time their candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states. Educate America that there is an alternative and show them what they are all about, what they stand for, what they will do if they are elected. The Constitutional Party will let the people have a voice in their government, the others can't ruffle too many feathers because they are part of the other parties. You want real change? It starts with all of us, organizing on the grassroots level to really make the change.
Gina; of all the things I've ever seen you post, this is - by far - the best advice for our future. Great comments!


Brock - 11/4/2008 at 01:35 AM

Ryde, while I agree with you on this, getting rid of the Electoral College will diminish your Idaho vote further. The number of electors are determined by adding the number of state congressional districts, which is population based, and then adding the number of senators, 2. Since a sparsely populated state gets an elector for each senator, it favors the small states.


Rydethwind - 11/4/2008 at 01:37 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!


If you want real change, starting tomorrow or the day after, begin working for the Constitutional Party so that next time their candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states. Educate America that there is an alternative and show them what they are all about, what they stand for, what they will do if they are elected. The Constitutional Party will let the people have a voice in their government, the others can't ruffle too many feathers because they are part of the other parties. You want real change? It starts with all of us, organizing on the grassroots level to really make the change.
Gina; of all the things I've ever seen you post, this is - by far - the best advice for our future. Great comments!


Indeed!


sixty8 - 11/4/2008 at 03:06 AM

quote:
Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!



I totally agree with you on this!


SantaCruzBluz - 11/4/2008 at 04:36 AM

quote:
quote:
Ryde, while I agree with you on this, getting rid of the Electoral College will diminish your Idaho vote further. The number of electors are determined by adding the number of state congressional districts, which is population based, and then adding the number of senators, 2. Since a sparsely populated state gets an elector for each senator, it favors the small states.


I was about to say the same thing. Ryde's vote in Idaho is actually more powerful than someones vote in California. [/quote

This is true. My vote tomorrow is largely symbolic.


Rydethwind - 11/4/2008 at 04:38 AM

i am not concerned with how powerfull my own vote is i am interested in a fair vote by the people of the country who 's blood sweat and tears have built it.

California has what 30 something electorial votes what is only half their people vote? that is not fair... the system needs a overhaul and in todays instant communication , we can have a vote and if you do not vote then it really does matter.


michaelsio - 11/4/2008 at 11:47 AM

Get your state legislators to sign up with this:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

The states have the right to assign their electoral votes however they see fit. If they all go with the popular vote then this swing state crap ends.

[Edited on 11/4/2008 by michaelsio]


jerryphilbob - 11/4/2008 at 01:03 PM

Why not throw out the constitution too! Oh, sorry, Bush already did that.


fast43 - 11/4/2008 at 01:56 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!


If you want real change, starting tomorrow or the day after, begin working for the Constitutional Party so that next time their candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states. Educate America that there is an alternative and show them what they are all about, what they stand for, what they will do if they are elected. The Constitutional Party will let the people have a voice in their government, the others can't ruffle too many feathers because they are part of the other parties. You want real change? It starts with all of us, organizing on the grassroots level to really make the change.
Gina; of all the things I've ever seen you post, this is - by far - the best advice for our future. Great comments!


Indeed!


I did my part, I voted for Bob Barr today. I don't care for the man but I was voting for the party. A third party is the only way we will have any change.


Gregallmanfan - 11/4/2008 at 03:01 PM

I live it CT, very blue state. My vote means nothing and our state gets no attention. It's time for a popular vote so everyone's vote matters as much as everyone else's.


tigerman73 - 11/4/2008 at 03:21 PM

It's time to go back to electing the electoral college and letting them get together and hash, fight, work it out to elect the president, the way it was intended. You do that and every vote in every state counts.


Rydethwind - 11/4/2008 at 03:30 PM

quote:
Why not throw out the constitution too! Oh, sorry, Bush already did that.


Instead of a quip ,and unintelligent statement like that why not actualy post something that is relavent to the topic. If you feel Bush threw out the constitution then please explain why! and How!


jerryphilbob - 11/4/2008 at 03:59 PM

The Patriot Act I & II
The FISA Bill
The Homeland Security Act
The Bail Out bill

You have no rights. The constitution is a hollow piece of paper. They gutted it.

They can listen to your phone conversations, read your email, arrest you for no reason, etc. and there is nothing you can do about it. Our rights have been destroyed in the guise of protecting the homeland.

As for the electoral college, why would they do away with it. The elite won't give up that power, ever. Why would they leave it up to us? They can't keep the power if we decide we don't like either party. The electoral college will never go away.

Funny how you call me un-intelligent (why people have to slam others is beyond me) and yet you don't even know what they have done to the Constitution?

[Edited on 11/4/2008 by jerryphilbob]


jerryphilbob - 11/5/2008 at 12:58 AM


Rydethwind - 11/5/2008 at 03:28 AM

quote:
The Patriot Act I & II
The FISA Bill
The Homeland Security Act
The Bail Out bill

You have no rights. The constitution is a hollow piece of paper. They gutted it.

They can listen to your phone conversations, read your email, arrest you for no reason, etc. and there is nothing you can do about it. Our rights have been destroyed in the guise of protecting the homeland.

As for the electoral college, why would they do away with it. The elite won't give up that power, ever. Why would they leave it up to us? They can't keep the power if we decide we don't like either party. The electoral college will never go away.

Funny how you call me un-intelligent (why people have to slam others is beyond me) and yet you don't even know what they have done to the Constitution?

[Edited on 11/4/2008 by jerryphilbob]


One at a time my young padawan learner...
1 do you know of any one who has been arrested for no reason or because of a phone call or e-mail????

2. so you are saying we have never had a say in the election process the elite have controled it from the beginning? if so then what constitution are you talking about being gutted??

And who are they??? ohhhhhhhhh i have my tinfoil hat on...

3. you can not even read!! i called your statement uninteligent NOT YOU!

4. I have nothing to hide in my e-mails,phone calls, or whatever and if them listening to my boring stuff saves just one American on American soil then more power to them,they have taken nothing from me ,because i am not the enemy...

5. Bush never did anything on his own congress and the house are just as guilty but prey tell how would you old wise one secure our country against terror?

6. back to the original question<><> If you feel Bush threw out the constitution then please explain why! and How!

7. Bye


jerryphilbob - 11/5/2008 at 03:45 AM

Please go and read all of the above legislation, I don't have time to do your homework for you. They have stripped you of ALL of your rights and you don't even know it, how sad.

Just listen to the Judge and this is just the Patriot Act I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRSs6LsGeI



[Edited on 11/5/2008 by jerryphilbob]


Rydethwind - 11/5/2008 at 05:05 AM

The force is very weak in this one Next!


ruthelane - 11/5/2008 at 05:58 AM

quote:
Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!


Ryde, I agree with you on this. The Electoral College is antiquated to say the least. Every American's vote should count equally, regardless of what state you live in.


jerryphilbob - 11/5/2008 at 12:29 PM

TROLL ALERT !!!!

Please kids, don't feed the trolls.


Jerry - 11/6/2008 at 04:01 PM

quote:
without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


It's still pretty much that way now. The electoral votes are based on population. If there were only two electoral votes per state, I believe it would be more equitable, or, if the votes were divided according to percentage of popular vote.


Bhawk - 11/6/2008 at 04:09 PM

quote:
quote:
without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


It's still pretty much that way now. The electoral votes are based on population. If there were only two electoral votes per state, I believe it would be more equitable, or, if the votes were divided according to percentage of popular vote.


Well, (playing devil's advocate here to further the conversation) doesn't the "battleground state" theory still lend validity to the electoral college? McCain (and most candidates, really) had no shot without Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida?

Should Gore have won then in 2000?


Brock - 11/6/2008 at 05:07 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


It's still pretty much that way now. The electoral votes are based on population. If there were only two electoral votes per state, I believe it would be more equitable, or, if the votes were divided according to percentage of popular vote.


Well, (playing devil's advocate here to further the conversation) doesn't the "battleground state" theory still lend validity to the electoral college? McCain (and most candidates, really) had no shot without Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida?

Should Gore have won then in 2000?


Yes.

But Jerry, how can a flat two votes/state be equitable? That is as undemocratic thing as I've ever heard. Democracy is always about getting the majority of citizens' votes.


Jerry - 11/6/2008 at 05:20 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


It's still pretty much that way now. The electoral votes are based on population. If there were only two electoral votes per state, I believe it would be more equitable, or, if the votes were divided according to percentage of popular vote.


Well, (playing devil's advocate here to further the conversation) doesn't the "battleground state" theory still lend validity to the electoral college? McCain (and most candidates, really) had no shot without Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida?

Should Gore have won then in 2000?


If it went to a purely popular vote, the candidates would still hit the more populated areas, not just those in the "battleground states".
It would still mean that those with smaller populations would not be as intensely campaigned since there would be less votes in that area. If you had to decide to campaign hard in NYC or the state of New Hampshire, I'm sure the candidates would go for NYC.

It's been a while since I've seen presidential candidates go door to door in rural areas to garner votes, or even hold political rallies in places like Forsyth or Barnesville (small towns in mid Ga), except when the primary season has just started.

As for Gore, he got the electoral college bugger.


hotlantatim - 11/6/2008 at 10:51 PM

The Electoral College is the absolute correct way to elect the President in a Federal System of government among States. It wouldn't be in a true National form of government, but that's not what we have (or at least not what the charter of our government calls for).

With all the national one-size-fits-all government solutions we keep getting (many that don't seem to work over time), I sometimes wonder if our elected officials have ever read The Constitution or the Tenth Amendment. Surely, the phrases "general Welfare" and "regulate commerce among the many States" were never intended to essentially void great portions of the rest of the Constitution.

So, anyhow. They would have to amend the Consitution to change the Electoral College.


Brock - 11/7/2008 at 01:43 AM

Tim, of course you're right that the Constitution would have to be amended to change the Electoral College. But that is no reason not to consider it. If the founders did not expect circumstances to change, they would not have provided for a way to amend the Constitution.

At the very least, perhaps the electors could be apportioned to reflect the percentage of votes within the states(like the Democratic nomination system), rather than winner take all. I recognize small states might not fit perfectly in this and so any rounding probably should favor the winner. It is frustrating to have my vote count for nothing time and time again.


Rydethwind - 11/7/2008 at 03:02 AM

quote:
Tim, of course you're right that the Constitution would have to be amended to change the Electoral College. But that is no reason not to consider it. If the founders did not expect circumstances to change, they would not have provided for a way to amend the Constitution.

At the very least, perhaps the electors could be apportioned to reflect the percentage of votes within the states(like the Democratic nomination system), rather than winner take all. I recognize small states might not fit perfectly in this and so any rounding probably should favor the winner. It is frustrating to have my vote count for nothing time and time again.


I agree great post and a great take on the problem...


Chain - 1/6/2019 at 09:13 PM

quote:
Tim, of course you're right that the Constitution would have to be amended to change the Electoral College. But that is no reason not to consider it. If the founders did not expect circumstances to change, they would not have provided for a way to amend the Constitution.

At the very least, perhaps the electors could be apportioned to reflect the percentage of votes within the states(like the Democratic nomination system), rather than winner take all. I recognize small states might not fit perfectly in this and so any rounding probably should favor the winner. It is frustrating to have my vote count for nothing time and time again.


Very good idea....


Muleman1994 - 1/6/2019 at 09:28 PM

quote:
quote:
Tim, of course you're right that the Constitution would have to be amended to change the Electoral College. But that is no reason not to consider it. If the founders did not expect circumstances to change, they would not have provided for a way to amend the Constitution.

At the very least, perhaps the electors could be apportioned to reflect the percentage of votes within the states(like the Democratic nomination system), rather than winner take all. I recognize small states might not fit perfectly in this and so any rounding probably should favor the winner. It is frustrating to have my vote count for nothing time and time again.


Very good idea....



Consider all you want.
It ain't going to happen.

The petty talking points the corrupt liberal media espouses are exactly that.
It is nothing more than fodder for the losers.


BrerRabbit - 1/6/2019 at 09:41 PM

This thread was started by a conservative against the Electoral College. How did you feel about the Electoral College when Hussein got elected, Mule?

[Edited on 1/6/2019 by BrerRabbit]


gina - 1/12/2019 at 12:44 AM

quote:
Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!



I think this is very true. The nation now has more people than government can adequately provide for. Many states are facing bankruptcy and expect the government to just bail them out and keep the money coming. Some have said that in the future we will have regional governments which will handle a handful of states in their region. That may be the best way. Keep taxes mostly local to a specific region and let the federal govt. do what it was designed to do, provide national security and defense from other countries who may be a threat, enact national trade deals, anything requiring interaction with other nations is a federal responsibility.

Let regional governments take taxes for their region, dole it out to the states, and let the states balance their budgets or come up with ways to solve their problems. Look at all the crises, banking, health care. People basically go to doctors in their region, let the regions and states within that region come up with solutions for the people in their region.

We have 320 million people in the United States, how can one government take care of all of the needs of this many people? It can't. Regional representatives can tell the federal govt. if people in the local states want us to support other countries by sending foreign aid, while our own people starve, suffer. We have no idea what our federal government does, what they vote on, and how they spend our tax dollars. Ross Perot wanted to have Town Hall meetings so that people could know what is going on, nobody else wanted that, all the other politicians just want their nice big paychecks and for things to go on with business as usual. But there is not enough tax money coming in to do that.

The states should report to Regional Councils who present statistics, demographics, and desires of the people in their regions to the federal government, who must be accountable and responsible. It hasn't happened yet, but we could. For America to be made great again, things must change.


cyclone88 - 1/12/2019 at 01:41 AM

quote:
Tim, of course you're right that the Constitution would have to be amended to change the Electoral College. But that is no reason not to consider it.


Any idea how long the process takes? To propose an amendment for approval by 2/3 of both houses of Congress to then be ratified by 3/4 of the states? Unless there is a built in expiration date, even amendments that pass Congress linger awaiting ratification. The most recent amendment - the 27th - was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992. That's 203 years.

Amendments from 1810, 1861 & 1926 are still awaiting ratification. Amendments proposed in 1971 & 1978 expired.

Sure, most amendments were ratified in a reasonable timeframe, but the current state of bi-partisanship in Congress as well as the states suggests the likelihood of getting 2/3 of Congress & 38 states to concur is low.


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=83450