MAIN reason we cant do away with Electoral college..

Actually. Since the electoral college is set up so that a candidate cant just pull in the larger populated areas and still win the election, It could be said that minority votes count less.

Look at it this way. The college is set up so that one candidate cant just take the big states. Well that means that in this situation (Gore and Bush) that even though Gore won the Popular vote, that he may indeed lose the electoral college. Meaning that the drodes of people who voted for him in the big city states of California, NY, PA, Mich. ect, ect, ect. their votes count slightly less than the votes of people in the sparsely populated midwest.

Being that minorities, populate by a much greater percentage the larger cities, and not the rural areas this would mean that typically the "minority" vote counts slightly less-if they lived in a heavily populated area- than that of people in sparsly populated areas.


To me, who ever wins the Popular vote should be president. It doesnt matter if Gore pulls millions more in California and NY. People are people and their votes should count just as much/.

------------------
"I have amazing, powers of observation"...Pink

 

At first I doubted the 12% number posted by DUDE because I thought it was getting much higher, however, the census web site backs that number up:
http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt

I agree that the electoral college is a good thing. Without it, theoretically, a state the size of California could overwhelmingly vote for one candidate. The remaining 50 voting areas (49 states plus DC) could vote in favor of the other candidate but not supply enough votes to overcome California. Thus, you would have a president that only one state in these UNITED states prefers.

------------------

 

bobrek,

you went back to 'state' though. I vote, you vote we all vote. It's not as if I vote for a republican b/c I live in Utah. In fact, voting for Gore could be considered a waste for that reason.

If the election went to the person who won the popular vote it seems, IMO, that many more people would get out and vote, rather than relinquishing their state to candidate a or candidate b.

------------------
"Everyone I know has a big but...

come on Simone, let's talk about your but."

[This message has been edited by Achebe (edited November 12, 2000).]

 

What about all the black voters who voted for Gore in Texas? Their votes were wasted because the state was carried by Bush.

Now, considering the fact that, according to the stat I read, 92% of African Americans voted for Gore as opposed to Bush, wouldn't it make more sense if their votes mattered in the grand scheme.

Each vote is A VOTE without the electoral college. With it, my vote for Nader didn't mean diddly. I could've voted for anyone and it wouldn't have made a difference.

We are in a situation where, in some instances, your vote just doesn't matter because it is wiped out by your state's choice. That sucks.

------------------
Save Our Rockets and Comets
SaveOurRockets.com

 

Launch Pad: Very good points. I think my biggest concern is this:

Under the electoral college system, most states give their total votes to whomever wins their state. If Bush wins by 1 vote or if Gore wins by 1 vote despite there being 6, 7 or 10 million voters, all the electoral votes go to the one with 50.1% of the vote.

How exactly is that fair and inclusive? If they changed that to allow the states to split their votes, what is the point of the electoral college?

If the only reason the electoral college exists is to send candidates to small states, it has already failed. Candidates bypass less populated states already.

------------------
Save Our Rockets and Comets
SaveOurRockets.com

 

Here is my opinion on the electoral college. Each state is given a minimum of 3 electoral votes. States can "earn" more votes based on their population. That is why California,New York, Texas have so many vote. You knew that part.

This system of giving each state a voice, but giving bigger states a bigger voice is a replica of how legislation is made and passed in the federal government. Each state has 2 senators, giving each state some voice. Each state is alotted house representatives based on their population. This way the larger states have a larger voice. Laws must be passed through both houses before geting to the president.

The people elect these senators and representatives to vote for them on issues. We don't all go to the polls for each bill in Congress. Why would the laws be made using one system and the president be elected using another? If we use a system that gives consideration to each state as an individual entity in making national laws, why would we not do the same in electing national leaders?

------------------
- Beck

Dream...bring back the goggles

 

Beck: In answer to your question, elections are different because they only happen (in the case of the presidency) once every four years. At that time, we can easily take votes on the candidates and determine an outcome.

It would be impractical, maybe impossible, to vote on issue that came before us. It is like hiring someone to do certain work for you to take some of the burden off of yourself. You hire a CPA, for example, to do your taxes so you don't have to do them. You do, however, choose the CPA who represents you.

------------------
Time for a new cause.

 

Okay, I'm just curious if I'm the only one that doesn't consider a state to be an entity that has more rights than the people in it?

Let me clarify what I mean. I was born in Pennsylvania, but I was never handed a pamphlet with a set of state beliefs that I had to memorize. When I was very young, I moved to Texas. I still didn't get my official "state beliefs" pamphlet. Now, I'm attending graduate school in Florida. Where's my pamphlet?!

My point is this. People don't all have the same beliefs or priorities simply because they live in the same state. I disagree with my staunch Republican best friend on more than 2/3 of all the political discussions that we have, yet, we are assumed to have the same stance as the state of Florida via the Electoral College?

The odds of the people in a "state the size of California . . . overwhelmingly vot[ing] for one candidate" is pretty small, but if they did, should their votes count less just simply because of geography?

Who cares if the Presidential candidates campaign hard in small states? I live in a large state and never went to one political rally. Did you? The only benefit of their high dollar spending was more mudslinging commercials and junk mail propaganda. With the national media coverage, everybody in the nation has a pretty equal opportunity to learn where each candidate stands on the issues (if they actually ever clearly say so anyway ). This isn't the 18th century. Television, newspapers, and the internet can keep even the Hawaiins and Alaskans informed (though I'm sure Gore and Bush mad frequent trips to both of those states, because of the Electoral College ).

The balance of power for small states already exists in the Senate, where Alaska has as much influence as California, so why do we further need the Electoral College (an institution founded on distrust of the common people)?

Simple answer: we don't.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited November 12, 2000).]