One person.

[Beestie]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

Excellent point, sir. The Electoral College is a bit of an antiquated idea... it makes the election power unevenly spread amongst the people. Should a voter in Arkansas have more influence than a voter in California? The Electoral College does just that, by proxy. The presidential election in America isn't really democratic.

CA has more electoral voters than does AR which mirrors the makeup of their respective congressional delegations. If the electoral representation is unfair, that sort of implies that the congressional representation is also unfair. Since no one is making that argument, I'm suspicious (in an "I smell partisanship" kind of way) of the calls to re-examine the electoral college. I don't understand how one can be fair and the other not. CA gets 10 congressmen and AR gets 3. CA gets 10 electoral votes and AR gets 3. I don't see a problem (I made up the numbers made up to illustrate the point - I assume the ratio to be a Constant).

The only issue not really addressed is that congress people from a given state do not have to vote as a block as do their electoral counterparts. But in matters which pit the interests of AR directly against the interests of CA (i.e., the distribution of Federal funds), one may assume that each state's respective congressional delegation would, in fact, vote as a block.

I honestly don't recall anyone bringing up any issues with the electoral system prior to the 2000 election and wonder how much of the debate is really sour grapes (not directed at anyone participating in this thread, but in general).

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Beestie
What's wrong with the electoral college? It was designed by the founding fathers to keep big states from eating little states and it seems to be filling the charter.

No, that was the Senate. The electoral college was to keep the riff raff from eating the gentry. They couldn't be assured of controlling the popular vote but controlling the EC was relatively easy. They only had to make sure their own kind, were the electors sent, no matter who won the vote.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Beestie
snip---The only issue not really addressed is that congress people from a given state do not have to vote as a block as do their electoral counterparts.----snip----
I honestly don't recall anyone bringing up any issues with the electoral system prior to the 2000 election and wonder how much of the debate is really sour grapes (not directed at anyone participating in this thread, but in general).

I know not all state laws require their electoral college delegates to vote the way the general election turned out. They are only bound by honor and duty which is quite variable when it comes to politics.
The EC is brought up after every election. The bitching is louder after close ones.

[elSicomoro]

No one brought up the EC before 2000 because the situation that occurred with Gore and Bush hadn't happened since 1888.

I personally think it's a dumb system--why do we need the electoral college? It should be based on the vote of the people, minus any bureaucratic b.s. Gore got screwed.

Having said that, based on the current rules, Bush won, fair and square--and would have still won even if Gore had gotten the recount of votes the way he wanted them.

What if the media would have remembered that part of Florida is on Central Time, and not called Florida for Gore so quickly? Enough people could have still voted to give Gore the victory...or give the victory more solidly to Bush.

And that's why every vote counts.

We can speculate on what would have happened if the same thing had happened to Bush, or what Gore would have done on 9/11...but all that is water under the bridge now.

I wonder whatever happened to S.3269 in 2001...

[xoxoxoBruce]

It was discussed at length when Kennedy beat Nixon by something like 300k.

[elSicomoro]

Specter was behind 3269...remember how he talked about the Electoral College being unfair right after the 2000 election?

I hope he gets voted out in November too...

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
It was discussed at length when Kennedy beat Nixon by something like 300k.

I stand corrected...thank you, very very old man.

[OnyxCougar]

Bringing this post back up to top because I really was hoping Radar would respond.

hint hint, Radar.

By the way, Alan's post was more along the lines of what I was looking for....

[Clodfobble]

I know I'm not Radar, but I'm reminded of a lecture I heard once in college that explained one need for the electoral college...

Simply put, the EC cuts down on the feasibility of corruption. Let's say you know a guy at a polling location in Louisiana, and you have the ability to stuff the ballot box. So you put in 500,000 fake votes for Your Guy. What you get for your efforts is... the state of Louisiana, and no more. You could stuff the ballot box with 30 million votes, and it wouldn't matter.

Without the electoral college, Your Guy would win for sure, because votes are just votes. But with it, you would have to "know a guy" in a whole lot of states before you could truly rig the election to a significant degree.

I know elections are usually very close and can, in fact, hinge on one state, but one doesn't always know which state that's going to be. There are many that historically vote pretty evenly between the two parties.

Anyway, that was the lecture in a nutshell.

[Slartibartfast]

The electoral college prevents localized mind control efforts to greatly impact the whole process. You would need to set up many mind control stations throughout the states in order to vote your candidate in.

Believe me, I've tried.

Damn you electoral college! One day I will have the resources to topple you!

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
The electoral college prevents localized mind control efforts to greatly impact the whole process. You would need to set up many mind control stations throughout the states in order to vote your candidate in.

Believe me, I've tried.

Damn you electoral college! One day I will have the resources to topple you!

What many people don't realize is that one tin foil hat can actually protect a small area around it as well. It sets up a reflectory/refractory disturbance around it that makes the area impenetrable.

[Elspode]

OC, although I understand your frustration, *you* of all people should know the power that you wield as an individual. Only you can do what you can do, and no one else can do it. Nor can anyone else take away your ability to work your will.

Until you take action, any action, it is impossible to know what effects those actions will have as they ripple outward from your solitary initiative efforts.

Pull your chin up, get your tools out and get to work, lady! And don't spare the incense!

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by sycamore

I personally think it's a dumb system--why do we need the electoral college? It should be based on the vote of the people, minus any bureaucratic b.s.

One person, one vote would destroy state's rights.

[elSicomoro]

How so?

[Radar]

[Radar]It's not my document, you fucking idiot. Where do you get off saying that? It's your document, it's his document, it's all of ours. And I will spill my blood on it fighting for it. A Libertarian will be elected in my lifetime. Windows 2K is the greatest OS ever. Did I mention I'm an MCSE?[/Radar]

Blow me retard. You seem to make fun of, get jealous of, and habor a hatred of everything you lack the mental capacity to comprehend, which is pretty much everything. Don't be bitter because I have a better understanding of politics and computer networking than you'll ever have. And don't hate me because I'm your intellectual superior. Hate me because I'm an asshole.

I would do a an impression of you in return, but no matter how hard I try, I just can't act that stupidly and frankly, you're just not worth the effort.

What's wrong with the electoral college? It was designed by the founding fathers to keep big states from eating little states and it seems to be filling the charter.

What's wrong is many people feel that since government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, it should be the governed who choose the president. Many think the people, not the states, should choose who they are delegating power to without a middle-man and without the possibility of more Americans voting for one candidate, but the other candidate winning the election.

The original purpose of the electoral college was to prevent those who weren't educated about a candidate from voting for one. Back then the candidates didn't have the benefit of radio, television, internet, or even major roads so they didn't get to all the states. They thought it would be best to have middle-men between the general populace and the election of the president. They also wanted to keep the vast majority of governmental power at the state rather than the federal level.

All citizens are entitled to the same rights. When you have a state with a lower population and a state with a higher population voting in an election with an electoral college, the value of 1 vote in a smaller state has a higher value than the vote of a person in a larger state. This doesn't seem equitable for the aggregate number of citizens. Even with the number of electorates given to each state, the potential for having a non-democratically elected president (as we currently have) is present. On the other hand, the people of a small state, don't want the greater population of another state to change their policies. This is just an argument to keep the federal government out of issues they don't have authority to be involved in and to let the states choose for themselves what laws they will have.

As much as I hate to agree with sycamore, he's right in this comment...

No one brought up the EC before 2000 because the situation that occurred with Gore and Bush hadn't happened since 1888.

Any system in which more citizens choose one candidate, but the other becomes president has major flaws. We currently have the technology to enable the "one person one vote"

Bringing this post back up to top because I really was hoping Radar would respond.

I'm doing this just for you.

Personally I'd support an Constitutional Amendment repealing the electoral college.

Also as horrible as Gore would have been, he'd still be better than Bush. Clinton was a scumbag but even on his worst day, he was a better president than Bush on his best day (9/11). If Gore had been president during the 9/11 attacks, he would have done everything EXACTLY the same way Bush did because the country goes on autopilot when things like that happen. He'd have made the obligatory speeches condemning the terrorists, and he'd have attacked the Taliban for protecting Al Queda. But he would have stopped short of violating the Constitution and International law by launching an unprovoked attack against a non-threatening nation that never caused us harm or helped anyone else cause us harm.

Bush is the single worst president in American history bar none. He's personally responsible for the deaths of more than 800 Americans and other allies and thousands of innocent Iraqi people defending their own country from imperialistic invaders. He has no honor, dignity, courage, intelligence, or honesty. He's a liar, a theif, a murderer, a coward, a traitor, a draft dodger, a military deserter, a simpleton, and an asshole who wants to mix church and state.

Simply put, George W. Bush is more dangerous to America than the combined force of every terrorist in the middle-east combined. He should be executed for treason. All the soap in the world couldn't clean me if I voted for him.

Back to the topic at hand...

I do believe one person can make a difference and I've seen it. Ghandi, Martin Luthor King, Jr., Thomas Jefferson, Nelson Mandela, Adolph Hitler, Mother Teresa, etc. were all people who made a difference whether good or bad.

Sometimes a person can make a difference just by showing up. I've seen city council meetings where one person showed up to complain about something and got them go along with it.