fairvote.org — Many adults in the United States are questioning the way their head of state us elected, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 54 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should get rid of the Electoral College so that the winner of the popular vote becomes president.
Aug 27, 2007 View in Crawl 4
stribijevAug 28, 2007
Well, it depends on whether you want to keep the tradition or not. If you think tradition is a British thing, then EC should be abolished.
chickanAug 29, 2007
I can't believe what some of you are saying. Let me put this as simply as I can and we'll see who's hostel to liberty.The electoral college makes the vote of one citizen worth more then the vote of another. End of story. No reason you can muster too make one set of votes less then another set is any different then the arguments for making Black votes or Muslim votes less then the votes of any other citizen.
pfhreakAug 30, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population</a>Absolute minimum: 9 states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA): if EVERY voter in those nine states voted for the same candidate, you'd hit 50%. Assume setting the minimum at 55% to account for margin of error, and you'd have to add in NC and NJ, bringing it to 11. Again, that's assuming the voters in those states voted unanimously. CA, NY, IL, PA, MI, and NJ are all Democrat-leaning, but TX, FL, GA, and NC are all Republican-leaning, and OH is famously a swing state, so you're not going to get all of those states backing a single candidate, even in the HIGHLY unlikely event that voters were unanimous within the individual states.If you tally up EC votes until you pass 270 (the minimum needed), you'll have the same list of 11 states, and you don't even need it to be unanimous in those 11, just a majority in each. The EC approach also has the problem that states that reliably vote for one party or the other get ignored by both: The Democratic candidate knows it's pointless to even try in Texas, as they haven't voted Democrat since 1976, and the Republican candidate knows it's pointless to even try in New York, which hasn't voted Republican since 1984, so you end up with this numbers game where they ignore the majority of the states, and put most of their effort into the handful of swing states. So, we already have a case where a candidate is elected by two or three states, whereas the minimum in the popular vote system would be eleven.
dushAug 30, 2007
Here's what I'm saying - even forgetting Florida - 51% of California, Texas and New York could completely outvote, popular vote-wise, 100% of the bottom 20 states as ranked by voting population. In a popular vote at least fully 40% of the states are automatically irrelevant. The electoral college is a, yes flawed, but great way to allow meaning and representation to all of the states, AS A STATE.Ohio and Florida have only become of note lately because their voters have been almost exactly split on their voting thereby holding the electoral votes in sway.
dushAug 30, 2007
Actually the states were to be represented by the Senators, two per state, and the People by the House, one rep per unit of population. It is the powers of the united states and of the People convening in congress along with a executive not elected merely by popular vote that were to form a federal government of limited powers.
apokalypsenowSep 5, 2007
The difference here is that, if its one person, one vote, then state lines don't matter, as well they shouldn't in a presidential election. I'm currently in a red state, but typically vote blue, so it really doesn't matter if I vote or not as my state's electoral votes will always go to the red candidate.
ff1959Sep 8, 2007
Persons who value liberty would not even consider having a President elected by a majority of the people; that way lies democracy and mob rule. Democracy is the enemy of freedom. Representative republicanism is horrible, but better than democracy-mob-rule. Representation gives everyone a voice, from the trailer-park to the mansion. In fact, I would question anything being done or anyone being elected by majority.
libertyactivistAug 2, 2009
Cerebral said maybe the Supreme Court out to run for their offices.My answer: You want to create a whole nother election cycle zoo on top of what we currently have? You want to politicize them with special interest money elections, and have them worrying more about getting re-elected than interpreting laws to see if they are Constitutional or not? No Thanks!
libertyactivistAug 2, 2009
I want to repeal the 17th amendment too, so we can give our states back the power now given to the Federal Government by the direct Election of Senators. People think that voting directly for their senator gives them more voting power. Actually it gives them less. Directly voting gives me one vote in 10 million, so its harder to get the senator's attention. I must get 100s of thousands of people up in arms to for the senator to hear my beef. Drive to DC or the local office in the nearest big city a few times a year when he's there.If the state legislators still choose the senator, then I would be able to round up a few hundred and go to my local in-state representative (and call buddies in other districts to round up a few hundred in their district and go to their rep. It takes less people, travel and organization even over local district lines to scare the crap out of your local guy to vote out the senator or he gets the axe.Under direct vote for US Senator it dilutes our power numerically, organizationally and travel wise. That is why we need to have the deciding bodies with the most influence over our lives to be:1) us - self governing2) our local government3) our state government4) the federal governmentWe have this structure upside down. We give those the furthest from us geographically and politically the most power.