The idea behind the electoral college simplified..
Pretend 51% of Americans move to California..
There is a major disaster there that cause people to vote irrationally..
they choose a moron president who promises them what they want, but completely fucks over the country. The other 49% are thinking rationally, but can't compete with the 51% freaked out Californians and in the end this moron president ends up fucking everyone because everyone in California freaked out..
The electoral college creates balance..
If that makes sense.
I used to be against it as well, but it makes sense to me now. It basically adds balance to address issues that effect different regions evenly.
Instead now we are just overrun by a minority of rednecks
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
Yes, you have to go back to 1888 to find time where the electoral college didn't pick the president. 120 years ago. 29 elections ago. 2000 was picked by the electoral college as it was decided that Bush had more Florida votes. Bitch about the Supreme Court, not the electoral college there.
There is probably a 1% chance this year that the electoral college would not vote by the popular vote of each state.
I guess I am clueless since I go by the reality of the last 120 years and the reality of today. When I posted I wasn't sure what happened in the 1800's, and figured there was probably was a time when the electoral college was jacked up. But you know what, it wasn't in my lifetime, and I'm going by today. You know, the here and now. But yeah, go back to 1888.
in other words you were wrong. as for 2000, if the electoral college didnt exist the supreme courts decision on who won florida would be irrelevant anyway, so i can still bitch about the electoral college there too.
why cant it happen again? IT JUST HAPPENED! as in less than a decade ago, not over a hundred!
1. So we've gone tabloid on this board? Prove that he was banging her.
2. The electoral college does not TEND to go by the popular vote. It goes by the popular vote.
#2 above means that the electoral college votes according to the popular vote of each state. If the majority of Ohio votes for Bush, then Ohio votes 100% of its electoral college votes for Bush. That is why I stressesd the word "tend". They don't "tend" to vote by the popular vote, they do vote by the popular vote of each state.
in other words you were wrong. as for 2000, if the electoral college didnt exist the supreme courts decision on who won florida would be irrelevant anyway, so i can still bitch about the electoral college there too.
why cant it happen again? IT JUST HAPPENED!
See my post above. I think we misunderstood each other. I understand that Gore won the national popular vote. I thought the original poster was talking at the state level, but must have been talking about the national vote. It didn't make sense to me the first time because the electoral college would be meaningless if it always went by the national popular vote, so I assumed it was state level.
See my post above. I think we misunderstood each other. I understand that Gore won the national popular vote. I thought the original poster was talking at the state level, but must have been talking about the national vote.
oh well as for whether or not it makes people stay home i'm not sure, but i can say i'm not super concerned with voting for prez since i live in Texas its going red. i'll probably get around to it.
I’ve been reading.
The electoral vote number is determined on how many reps you have in congress.
The number of reps is determined by population.
So…
Where is the problem? I know there is one, I just don’t quite understand it.
The electoral vote number coincides with the population, so that means the electoral vote matches with the majority of the population’s choice, than what’s the problem?
*~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*
So…
Where is the problem?
The electoral vote number coincides with the population, so that means the electoral vote matches with the majority of the population’s choice, than what’s the problem?
people who think "true democracy" is the answer don't like it.
they want general mob rule.
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I’ve been reading.
The electoral vote number is determined on how many reps you have in congress.
The number of reps is determined by population.
So…
Where is the problem? I know there is one, I just don’t quite understand it.
The electoral vote number coincides with the population, so that means the electoral vote matches with the majority of the population’s choice, than what’s the problem?
well mostly because the number of reps doesnt match up exactly with the population they represent. like in that example earlier Wisconsin has more reps per person than California (because every state no matter how small gets 2 senators), so they get more say. most of the time it doesnt matter, but every once in awhile it does.
Gore got half a million more votes nationally than Bush! and I voted for Bush (just the first time!) and i still think its crazy!
I’ve been reading.
The electoral vote number is determined on how many reps you have in congress.
The number of reps is determined by population.
So…
Where is the problem? I know there is one, I just don’t quite understand it.
The electoral vote number coincides with the population, so that means the electoral vote matches with the majority of the population’s choice, than what’s the problem?
Say you have two states with 1,000,000 people in each. Each state has 5 electoral votes. State 1 votes for Bush with 550,000 votes, while voting for Gore with 450,000. State 2 has 1,000,000 votes for Gore, and zero for Bush. Under the electoral system, the candidates tie, even though Gore had almots three times as many votes as Bush.
The problem people have is that it is not a popular vote at the national level, only at the state level. Like MrSmith said above, the electoral college ensures that each state can affect the outcome of the election.
I think the electoral college probably made sense back when they came up with it, when people more or less stayed put. But these days we have such great mobility and migration from state to state that it seems outdated. And I can see why it would seem like there's no point in voting since your vote might not "count" (as in Texas). I'm lucky to live in a swing state where I can feel like I have a chance of making a difference. (Although I'd be even luckier to live in a blue state. )
'Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. However, no submission has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress.'
what do you think it would take for congress to get rid of the electoral college?
The idea behind the electoral college simplified..
Pretend 51% of Americans move to California..
There is a major disaster there that cause people to vote irrationally..
they choose a moron president who promises them what they want, but completely fucks over the country. The other 49% are thinking rationally, but can't compete with the 51% freaked out Californians and in the end this moron president ends up fucking everyone because everyone in California freaked out..
The electoral college creates balance..
If that makes sense.
I used to be against it as well, but it makes sense to me now. It basically adds balance to address issues that effect different regions evenly.
On paper it's supposed to work kind of the way you're describing.
Unfotunately, in the real world it doesn't work that way. In fact the Electoral College creates a biased/partisan unbalance and dirties the water.
#2 above means that the electoral college votes according to the popular vote of each state. If the majority of Ohio votes for Bush, then Ohio votes 100% of its electoral college votes for Bush. That is why I stressesd the word "tend". They don't "tend" to vote by the popular vote, they do vote by the popular vote of each state.
YES...But they are not legally bound to. It is in NO WAY cut and dry.
And...I know.. it certainly seems silly when talking about the history of this country... and it's electoral process... to go back... say 150 years. CRAZY!!! If we're going to talk history... let's try to keep it to this century...OK?
YES...But they are not legally bound to. It is in NO WAY cut and dry.
And...I know.. it certainly seems silly when talking about the history of this country... and it's electoral process... to go back... say 150 years. CRAZY!!! If we're going to talk history... let's try to keep it to this century...OK?
Comments
Ok there was a lot of controversy with the vote count in Florida in that election so I dunno that he would have won the popular vote...I doubt it.
Instead now we are just overrun by a minority of rednecks
why cant it happen again? IT JUST HAPPENED! as in less than a decade ago, not over a hundred!
#2 above means that the electoral college votes according to the popular vote of each state. If the majority of Ohio votes for Bush, then Ohio votes 100% of its electoral college votes for Bush. That is why I stressesd the word "tend". They don't "tend" to vote by the popular vote, they do vote by the popular vote of each state.
See my post above. I think we misunderstood each other. I understand that Gore won the national popular vote. I thought the original poster was talking at the state level, but must have been talking about the national vote. It didn't make sense to me the first time because the electoral college would be meaningless if it always went by the national popular vote, so I assumed it was state level.
I’ve been reading.
The electoral vote number is determined on how many reps you have in congress.
The number of reps is determined by population.
So…
Where is the problem? I know there is one, I just don’t quite understand it.
The electoral vote number coincides with the population, so that means the electoral vote matches with the majority of the population’s choice, than what’s the problem?
people who think "true democracy" is the answer don't like it.
they want general mob rule.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Gore got half a million more votes nationally than Bush! and I voted for Bush (just the first time!) and i still think its crazy!
Say you have two states with 1,000,000 people in each. Each state has 5 electoral votes. State 1 votes for Bush with 550,000 votes, while voting for Gore with 450,000. State 2 has 1,000,000 votes for Gore, and zero for Bush. Under the electoral system, the candidates tie, even though Gore had almots three times as many votes as Bush.
The problem people have is that it is not a popular vote at the national level, only at the state level. Like MrSmith said above, the electoral college ensures that each state can affect the outcome of the election.
There could be huge voting gaps state by state that aren’t accounted for.
be proud of your blondeness!
what do you think it would take for congress to get rid of the electoral college?
aw! thanks!
i was taught there's no such thing as an stupid question. and if i feel silly my blonde hair is a good scapegoat.
On paper it's supposed to work kind of the way you're describing.
Unfotunately, in the real world it doesn't work that way. In fact the Electoral College creates a biased/partisan unbalance and dirties the water.
YES...But they are not legally bound to. It is in NO WAY cut and dry.
And...I know.. it certainly seems silly when talking about the history of this country... and it's electoral process... to go back... say 150 years. CRAZY!!! If we're going to talk history... let's try to keep it to this century...OK?
You mean the last 8 years?