electoral college

chadwick

(just to be clear i did the search and found zero thread(s) on the electoral college. in case there is a thread out there on this topic it is titled under something other than the electoral college)

http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... about.html

so can anyone please help us understand why the popular vote does not mean anything? why did this take place? why doesn't the popular vote override the 538 electors with the 270 majority vote winning the presidency?

i am lost & confusioned... yet again and by my own country. i think they do shit like this to fuck with us and to keep us in the dark by making things almost impossible to comprehend

LikeAnOcean

Something to do with keeping heavily populated states from choosing a president for the rest of the nation.



Pretend California has half the US population. They have a big earthquake. Everyone freaks out and votes for a candidate who promises to put all the nations taxes and resources into earthquake help , leaving no money left for the rest of the nation and the problems they need addressed.


Basically to keep a panic from deciding the next president from what I understand. The electoral college regulates it. It keeps one state with a high population from overwhelmingly overriding the concerns of other states.


I see it's positives and negatives.

Johnny Abruzzo

It's a constitutional compromise that gives some extra weight to smaller states. A state gets an electoral vote for each Senator (2 each) plus each Representative. So each state has at least 3 EV's, and DC has 3 per a constitutional amendment (I think).

48 of 50 states and DC award all electoral votes to the winner of that state. Maine and Nebraska award the 2 "Senator" EV's to the statewide winner, and the individual "Rep" EV's based on the winner of each Congressional district. So in 2008 Obama took one EV from Nebraska for winning the district with Omaha in it.

There's an initiative called National Popular Vote that I put on AMT. States pass legislation that says that once enough states pass it (enough to make 270 EV's) then all those states will award their EV's to the winner of the National Popular Vote. This gets rid of the current method with swing states and non-competitive states within the current bounds of the Constitution.

chadwick

but couldn't they just lock out other states from having a say in another state? like iowa and california for example. california has many more people than iowa yet, we can have a majority vote. iowans vote in iowa & californians vote in california and those voters' votes don't cross borders.

it'd be iowas majority votes donald duck
californians majority votes donald duck
other states votes too
some vote donald duck. some vote mr. rogers, some vote long john silvers

and the majority vote wins with donald duck as the newly elected president by a major majority landslide

chadwick

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

It's a constitutional compromise that gives some extra weight to smaller states. A state gets an electoral vote for each Senator (2 each) plus each Representative. So each state has at least 3 EV's, and DC has 3 per a constitutional amendment (I think).

48 of 50 states and DC award all electoral votes to the winner of that state. Maine and Nebraska award the 2 "Senator" EV's to the statewide winner, and the individual "Rep" EV's based on the winner of each Congressional district. So in 2008 Obama took one EV from Nebraska for winning the district with Omaha in it.

There's an initiative called National Popular Vote that I put on AMT. States pass legislation that says that once enough states pass it (enough to make 270 EV's) then all those states will award their EV's to the winner of the National Popular Vote. This gets rid of the current method with swing states and non-competitive states within the current bounds of the Constitution.

:fp: & :? & holy shit, man! i suppose you have a degree in political science or something, yes/no?

brianlux

On the very first day of my very first college course in the Education Department at Sonoma State University the instructor for that course said, "Many of you are here because you are idealistic and want to create beneficial changes in education but I'm here to tell you that as much as that is an honorable ideal, you are entering an institution- the institution of education- that is static. Institutions are very slow to change. It is very unlikely that any of you will cause significant changes in the institution that is education." Wow- talk about having the wind taken out on one's sails.

I think the same can be said about our electoral processes.

Johnny Abruzzo

chadwick wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

It's a constitutional compromise that gives some extra weight to smaller states. A state gets an electoral vote for each Senator (2 each) plus each Representative. So each state has at least 3 EV's, and DC has 3 per a constitutional amendment (I think).

48 of 50 states and DC award all electoral votes to the winner of that state. Maine and Nebraska award the 2 "Senator" EV's to the statewide winner, and the individual "Rep" EV's based on the winner of each Congressional district. So in 2008 Obama took one EV from Nebraska for winning the district with Omaha in it.

There's an initiative called National Popular Vote that I put on AMT. States pass legislation that says that once enough states pass it (enough to make 270 EV's) then all those states will award their EV's to the winner of the National Popular Vote. This gets rid of the current method with swing states and non-competitive states within the current bounds of the Constitution.

:fp: & :? & holy shit, man! i suppose you have a degree in political science or something, yes/no?

No, never took a political course. It interests me. I have an obsessive personality, so when I become interested in something (like politics - I got into around 2003) I can't do it halfway. I think a lot of people understand the electoral college though.

rollings

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

chadwick wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

It's a constitutional compromise that gives some extra weight to smaller states. A state gets an electoral vote for each Senator (2 each) plus each Representative. So each state has at least 3 EV's, and DC has 3 per a constitutional amendment (I think).

48 of 50 states and DC award all electoral votes to the winner of that state. Maine and Nebraska award the 2 "Senator" EV's to the statewide winner, and the individual "Rep" EV's based on the winner of each Congressional district. So in 2008 Obama took one EV from Nebraska for winning the district with Omaha in it.

There's an initiative called National Popular Vote that I put on AMT. States pass legislation that says that once enough states pass it (enough to make 270 EV's) then all those states will award their EV's to the winner of the National Popular Vote. This gets rid of the current method with swing states and non-competitive states within the current bounds of the Constitution.

:fp: & :? & holy shit, man! i suppose you have a degree in political science or something, yes/no?

No, never took a political course. It interests me. I have an obsessive personality, so when I become interested in something (like politics - I got into around 2003) I can't do it halfway. I think a lot of people understand the electoral college though.

yeah, we do
that's in Indianapolis, right?

Johnny Abruzzo

rollings wrote:

yeah, we do
that's in Indianapolis, right?

Yeah, the main campus.

chadwick

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

No, never took a political course. It interests me. I have an obsessive personality, so when I become interested in something (like politics - I got into around 2003) I can't do it halfway. I think a lot of people understand the electoral college though.

i'm not one of them. but then again i find almost zero interest in politics. therefore, it is unlikely that i'd spend the amount of time it may require to comprehend such things as the electoral college in full detail. however, i do care enough to try and open up many of the political doors to educate myself on something i don't understand. and as difficult as it may be i do try and learn something as boring & as crooked as politics

Johnny Abruzzo

chadwick wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

No, never took a political course. It interests me. I have an obsessive personality, so when I become interested in something (like politics - I got into around 2003) I can't do it halfway. I think a lot of people understand the electoral college though.

i'm not one of them. but then again i find almost zero interest in politics. therefore, it is unlikely that i'd spend the amount of time it may require to comprehend such things as the electoral college in full detail. however, i do care enough to try and open up many of the political doors to educate myself on something i don't understand. and as difficult as it may be i do try and learn something as boring & as crooked as politics

It's pretty much a half-assed way to elect a president. But it's better than most systems, I would think.

Well, if you happen to live in California, New York, Texas or Alabama, now you know why presidents don't bothering advertising and campaigning in your state.

rollings

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

rollings wrote:

yeah, we do
that's in Indianapolis, right?

Yeah, the main campus.

So its THOSE students who voted for Bush while the rest of the country voted for the other guy.

I imagine tuition there must be pricey.

lukin2006

Quick question, does it matter what system is used? Do people honestly believe that any of these politicians, no matter what party they represent care for the average person? I personally have long ago given up.

chadwick

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

It's pretty much a half-assed way to elect a president. But it's better than most systems, I would think.Well, if you happen to live in California, New York, Texas or Alabama, now you know why presidents don't bothering advertising and campaigning in your state.

again from our founding fathers... something that needs work. something that needs improvement...a frickin update, man. this shit may have worked in the 17 & 1800's. it isn't cutting the fucking mustard today. electoral college is fucked and a scam and makes zero sense. popular vote is out the window. why then fucking vote at all?

they keep saying every vote counts. who the hell are they bullshitting? nowadays ya got rock-stars screamin, "rock the vote"

rock the vote? for who? if the electoral college has it in the bag why even put us citizens at the polls?

rollings

All those numbers add up to 538.

If Pennsylvania for instance had 1 million voters and 500,001 voted for Obama and 499,999 voted for McCain,
21 points would go in the Obama column at the end of the day (which is a Tuesday, by the way).

Whoever has the most points wins the presidency.

THIS is why Bush Jr. won the presidency even though more actual votes went to the other guy.

rollings

I agree. Popular vote should win the presidency. Makes sense. Otherwise, each vote is NOT equal.

kenny olav

The electoral college may have made a little bit of sense in the late 1700's/early 1800's, but today it makes no sense. Presidential elections end up being decided by a handful of 'swing states'. To change it to a nationwide popular vote, you'd need 3/4 of the states (38 states) to ratify an amendment to the constitution... I'm not sure how easy that would be to get, or which party that might favor... It seems obvious that it would've helped the Democrats in 2000... but then again, maybe more Republicans would've have voted in blue states... and maybe more Democrats would've voted in red states. Regardless of who it favors, all Americans should have their votes matter in an equal manner.

Johnny Abruzzo

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

You're not going to get a constitutional amendment to use the popular vote. The swing states would never pass it.

However, the National Popular Vote initiative that I linked to solves this by working within the bounds of the constitution. They say they are halfway to 270 EV's.

Basically all the states that have adopted the NPV are solid blue states. I don't understand why the red states aren't hopping along. They are just as ignored as the blue states in prez politics. Maybe because they're dumb shits. Ok ok, take it easy. They probably like the electoral college because it delivered the W victory in 2000 despite losing the NPV. But look again, it's quite possible Obama could win the EC this year while losing the NPV. That might change some minds, huh?

I'm from Pennsylvania, and presidential candidates are obsessed with our state. I understand why swing states aren't excited to adopt NPV, but the non-swing states have enough EV's to override the swing states if they want to.

mikepegg44

we are a republic. not a democracy.

Electoral college makes every state matter...even if it is just a little.

Ultimately they call them swing states and all that because of the way they poll. Minnesota always goes Blue, but in 08 it polled close and they actually thought we may go red so we saw all sorts of shit.

Large Metropolitan areas with their specific needs that vary from rural states shouldn't have an undue influence on who the president is. Without the electoral college that is exactly what they would have. Large Metropolitan areas would become the new swing states, essentially trading one for the other.

But in the end...we are a republic, we have states...we have a federal gov't not a national one.

in a country of 300,000,000 your vote will count as much as anyone else's in whatever system you want. It doesn't happen very often that the two are not the same ...

I go back and forth on this, but until they finally just get rid of state lines, the electoral college is the best way to do it. But I suppose it could always be updated.

FrankieG

If I recall correctly.. I once learned that the Electoral College was 'invented' because the Founding Fathers didn't think that the un-educated people living in America, directly after the American Revolution was won, were capable of electing the leader of the country. This electoral college created 'insurance' that a bad person wasn't elected. More of an escape route.

George Washington was elected unanimously, by the electoral college. They didn't even allow the general population to vote in the first election. As the constitution evolved, everyone realized that not allowing everyone to vote was against their core values, and thus just added the population voting to the already established electoral college procedure. It has then evolved into what we know it it today.

I'm not 100% certain that this is correct, but this is what I remember being taught...

I feel like if we got rid of the electoral college, alot more people would actually vote. I'm assuming that the thought of "my vote for candidate A in my state that always votes for the party of candidate B" doesn't matter and therefore I'm not going to vote and waste my time.

Johnny Abruzzo

FrankieG wrote:

If I recall correctly.. I once learned that the Electoral College was 'invented' because the Founding Fathers didn't think that the un-educated people living in America, directly after the American Revolution was won, were capable of electing the leader of the country. This electoral college created 'insurance' that a bad person wasn't elected. More of an escape route.

George Washington was elected unanimously, by the electoral college. They didn't even allow the general population to vote in the first election. As the constitution evolved, everyone realized that not allowing everyone to vote was against their core values, and thus just added the population voting to the already established electoral college procedure. It has then evolved into what we know it it today.

I'm not 100% certain that this is correct, but this is what I remember being taught...

I feel like if we got rid of the electoral college, alot more people would actually vote. I'm assuming that the thought of "my vote for candidate A in my state that always votes for the party of candidate B" doesn't matter and therefore I'm not going to vote and waste my time.

I think your historical understanding is accurate. Popular vote for presidents (and for Senators) did not exist in the early years of the Republic.

As for the latter, I don't think a NPV would have any effect on voter turnout. Most people in the "color" states (CA, NY, TX) don't understand the EC anyway and don't realize their vote is essentially worthless. And some people in the swing states would not be targeted by campaigns as much or would realize the diminished value of their vote since it was just one vote on the national election instead of the state election.

I'm not saying NPV isn't the right thing to do, just that it won't increase voter turnout.

josevolution

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... 72584.html

The only thing i can ask is why was it ok in 08 for everybody in Pennsylvania to vote with the id they had then and now in 12 everybody needs new id ......

Johnny Abruzzo

josevolution wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/pennsylvania-voter-id-decision_n_1772584.html

The only thing i can ask is why was it ok in 08 for everybody in Pennsylvania to vote with the id they had then and now in 12 everybody needs new id ......

This law is asinine and clear voter disenfranchisement. The governor and all the legislators who passed it are scumbags. (yeah, pretty much all pols are scumbags, but these guys are REAL scumbags)

However, a few points I believe:
-Most people without picture ID's are fairly disconnected from the system and aren't going to vote anyway.
-I don't think this will make a difference in the election. Some people without ID's are Republicans.
-The judge's opinion was very thorough and respectful of judicial precedent. I don't blame him; I blame the assholes who passed the law to begin with.
-How do people get by in life without a photo ID anyway?

josevolution

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

josevolution wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/pennsylvania-voter-id-decision_n_1772584.html

The only thing i can ask is why was it ok in 08 for everybody in Pennsylvania to vote with the id they had then and now in 12 everybody needs new id ......

This law is asinine and clear voter disenfranchisement. The governor and all the legislators who passed it are scumbags. (yeah, pretty much all pols are scumbags, but these guys are REAL scumbags)

However, a few points I believe:
-Most people without picture ID's are fairly disconnected from the system and aren't going to vote anyway.
-I don't think this will make a difference in the election. Some people without ID's are Republicans.
-The judge's opinion was very thorough and respectful of judicial precedent. I don't blame him; I blame the assholes who passed the law to begin with.
-How do people get by in life without a photo ID anyway?

Yeah i agree what a crock of shit ...

Johnny Abruzzo

josevolution wrote:

Yeah i agree what a crock of shit ...

That 93-year lady can't get an ID because her SS card was stolen by a purse snatcher and she's had trouble getting a new one. Just evil.

I guess we could chip in and help her get a new SS card...

RFTC

i posted about this topic about 1 year ago today, viewtopic.php?f=13&t=166282

i am frustrated more today knowing that my vote means 0 in Texas come November. We have an antiquated, flawed national election process pure n simple.

Johnny Abruzzo

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

josevolution wrote:

Yeah i agree what a crock of shit ...

That 93-year lady can't get an ID because her SS card was stolen by a purse snatcher and she's had trouble getting a new one. Just evil.

I guess we could chip in and help her get a new SS card...

PennDOT relented and gave her a new ID.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20120817_Lead_plaintiff_in_Pennsylvania_voter_ID_case_gets_her_photo_ID.html

They are able to "relax" the rules in certain situations, apparently. :? (you know, when the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit comes in to get an ID)

chadwick

RFTC wrote:

i posted about this topic about 1 year ago today, viewtopic.php?f=13&t=166282

i am frustrated more today knowing that my vote means 0 in Texas come November. We have an antiquated, flawed national election process pure n simple.

kat & sea. how about we use this man's thread instead of the one i fired up, yes/no? like i said at the start of this thread, i did a seach and found zero threads on this topic. so there ya have it.

rollings

cough

JimmyV

http://www.270towin.com/

The above website is very helpful towards understanding the process.

Aside from 2000 there aren't really any modern examples of the popular vote going one way and the electoral college another. And that had more to do with shadiness in Florida and at the Supreme Court than anything else.

This came up in 2012 because conservative pundits were convinced Romney was going to do better than he did in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Nevada. President Obama won all those states and despite the concerns won the national popular vote by more than 5 million.