What is Digg?158 Comments
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -8/+31It's actually good that we live in a Representative Republic. If this was a pure Democracy, things would not be very good.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill - sarazen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23This is great information. If people understood this, and perhaps more importantly how the structure by which our votes are counted forces us into a two party system, we might could get somewhere other than gridlock with our politics.
- SeaMowse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Good information. Thought it'd be a good time to submit this, with the elections coming up next year.
- nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17The electoral college worked exactly how it was supposed to in 2000. The smaller states are given slightly more power to keep the larger states from running everything. It's the same reason we have a Senate.
But the way it *should* work is that a state would split it's electoral votes based on the voting percentages of its citizens. - ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19How the Electoral College Works:
Poorly? - nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13they count more than they would (since it's the number of reps + the number of senators)
- webcure, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15OK, now I know HOW the voting works.
Where do I push to REFRESH the list of candidates? - p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Amen to that! The founders of this country went out of their way to make sure we didn't live in a pure democracy, since that is basically
"mob rule" or "emotional rule" - trghpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Swing states mean that they have a history of voting for both democrat and republican where as a state like California is pretty much expected to vote democrat and Texas votes republican. They don't even bother to come out to California nearly as much as they visit the swing states.
- nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10States should all split their electoral votes based on how the state's voters decide. If candidate A wins 51% to 49%, why should he get all 20 electoral votes (of some made up state)? He should get 11, and candidate B should get 9.
- 03FightOn, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14Sadly....US citizens forget that we live in a republic, based on our elections of REPRESENTATIVEs and if we screw that up the rest goes to HELL!
- nestafett, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6dont answer ignorance with ignorance you'll just prove him right.
take the higher ground - dime, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5"Since when do we assign how much power you have based on the state you live in?"
Since the creation of the House of Representatives? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7So, use an instant runoff voting system instead. You vote once by ranking the candidates in order of preference. If no one gets a majority of the 1st choice votes, it has all the information necessary to simulate a runoff vote without actually having to get everyone to go out and vote again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting - HunterTV, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Don't feed the troll:
http://www.digg.com/users/o090o
http://www.digg.com/users/o080o
http://www.digg.com/users/o030o
http://www.digg.com/users/0llll0
http://www.digg.com/users/ooloo - sarazen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They are considered swing states because the population is about evenly divided between Republican and Democrat, and because they each have enough electoral votes to have a significant impact depending on which side they finally fall. As a contrast you can look at Alaska. The Alaskan vote is predictably Republican and it doesn't have very many electoral votes due to the low population. Heh, it is almost like it doesn't even matter how Alaska votes
- Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6The Electoral College is stupid. The only reason it's there was to have the small states back then (read: "not Virginia") ratify the Constitution. The small states do not get any more attention because of this. If our government is a republic, then how come a whole state that is split gets to give one candidate all of its votes? And yes, senators and representatives can give a candidate their vote. Popular votes are already close enough as it is, and if the candidates focused on the people and not the states, then it would be a republic.
- SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The electoral college isn't a positive example of how a representative democracy should work. The senate? That's great... but all the electoral college does (in its current form) is make it so one person's vote is worth more than another's... based purely upon their demographic. The presidential elections are something that, if you choose to vote, you most likely put at least some sort of education into it (or were brainwashed, whichever).
I have yet to hear a proper defense or reason for the electoral college here in this century. - blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4So what if he's a liberal. Do you even know what that word means or did you just decide it was bad since ya daddy told ya?
- Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Gore did win! It is only a problem because Gore won the popular vote, and Bush was awarded the presidency.
Had gore won both the EC and popular vote, no one would bitch about it. and rightly so.
likewise had Bush won the EC and popular vote, no one would care either. - obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This is good information about the electoral college, but the headline here is very trollish. Bush won in 2000 because the recounts in Florida were illegally ended, and he got a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, however, did not have jurisdiction in the case. When this happened the last time (in 1876) we set up a procedure so that we could come to a timely decision the next time it happened. When it happened in 2000, we promptly ignored this procedure. Please see the election of 1876 for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876 The dissenting opinions in Gore v. Bush are very enlightening because they make two very powerful points. One, that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over presidential elections. The law enacted after 1876 puts that power in the hands of Congress. Two, no one but Florida (for instance) has any power over how Florida counts its votes. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html Read the dissenting opinions after you read this article and see how our presidential elections really work!
- givemereplay, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Before you all bash the electoral college (too late), it serves a great purpose, but it has been molested over the years. Originally it was indented to represent state rights in opposition to individual will, putting a check on the federal government and the tendency of the masses to elect strongmen (hitler, anyone?). Unfortunately these days the state doesn't decide who the electoral representatives vote for, so it doesn't work for anybody, or at least not for anyone that it was intended to.
- kberry67, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4and do you think without it the presidential candidates would ever leave the major cities? the elections would only involve who can piss away more money trying to educate retarded city kids
- chiggah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The article itself explain how it works.
And alongside how it doesn't work.
Yes, you get to elect your senators and representatives popularly. But nothing prevent them from taking bribes that'll benefit themself personally in the long term/after they leave office. - blaze4metal, on 10/22/2007, -2/+5Agreed. Winner-take-all does not represent the people's vote.
- floorman56, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Mostly because city people are elitists who think the people in the "flyover" are just hicks? As per your post.
- kberry67, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It only horrible if your one of the far left lemmings, those of us who live in the mid-west or really anyone outside new york, san fransisco, LA, and Chicago only have a voice because of it.
- blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, the Conservative diggers would be upset instead. The losers are the ones whining. I remember my extreme right-wing college paper bitching about the supreme court and how it's outdated, etc. But as soon as Dubya stacked it, they stopped bitching and completely reversed their position (as did the left-wingers).
- tsotha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The states are allowed to split the electoral votes any way they want. The reason most of them are all or nothing is it gives them much, much more influence if the numbers are running about even.
- Gustav, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Hmm, reread the Constitution. It worked exactly as it was specified to...
- Simcom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Well, i guess we'll never be able to reform our system then... God forbid it resemble something french.
- dodus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, when I voted in Ohio in 2004 I did have far greater impact on the election. The only problem was my impact did the opposite of what I wanted it to do. I voted for Kerry and got to watch my electoral vote cast for Bush. So how does the electoral college help Middle Americans out again?
- jpell, on 10/22/2007, -2/+4Because, of course, Californians deserve less of a vote than someone from Wyoming. The electoral college is ridiculous. I think we should leave the senate and the house as it is, but we need a simple popular vote to decide who is president.
- nestafett, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It works poorly becuase it was designed for the world of 200 years ago, before mass communication.
it needs at least updating, IMO it needs to be abolished, an no not just cause Bush won - philforhumanity, on 10/22/2007, -4/+6I've written this before, but no on listens to my arguments that the Electoral College is not a good form of democracy. It is now time to obsolete the Electoral College.
http://www.philforhumanity.com/Obsoleting_the_Electoral_College.html - OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I want every liberal complaining about the Electoral College to commit suicide when Hillary Clinton wins a close election while losing the popular vote. ***** Hypocrites.
- dodus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, you really taught us a good lesson. Bet it feels good to be so damn right all the time, eh?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Bush didn't win the popular vote? Go look at past presidential elections and see who actually has won the MAJORITY, that means above 50%, of the popular vote before. You might be surprised to realize getting a majority of votes is extremely hard, even in a "two party" system. Mob rule is the most dangerous form of voting and divides the state's powers, most forget about the original electoral college, to just a few states, NY, CA, TX, FL, etc. We could go back to the original idea and the people you elect into the state's congress get together and vote their electoral votes for the president.
- Larsblog, on 10/10/2007, -14/+16There is a movement to elect the President by a national popular vote. It is a state based program being pursued in more than 40 states. Maryland has already adopted it. Take a look at their website www.nationalpopularvote.com
- KJSatz, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Except in West Wing ;).
- abdrahman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2None of their votes would matter in a purely popular vote either. As others have stated, the electoral college gives MORE power to states than they would have in a pure popular vote, and prevents us from having a president get elected whose values represent solely Urban-America.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And BTW there are several different schemes that the mathematicians fight over as being best, e.g. Condorcet.
- Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This has been brought up in Colorado in the last presidential election and the voters did not like it because Colorado would have been the only state to do it and made the state worthless to go after. All states would have to be forced to adopt this idea by the federal government.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Uhm... Your argument doesn't make any sense except as a vehicle for polemics.
Individual states can define how they translate their local vote results into electoral votes, and were they all to choose a purely proportional vote... - Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5The reason for implementing it was good. The end result was horrible!
- tomesnyder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Maybe that explains why we have a dictatorship.
- xienze, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What are you talking about? Yes, one single "flyover" state doesn't have much power when it comes to electoral votes, but MANY of them together hold plenty of electoral votes. Don't be silly, you know how most elections go -- the eight to ten most populous states generally vote Democrat and pretty much every other state votes Republican. In a pure popular vote, the 35+ states voting Republican would have absolutely no power. The electoral college makes it a little more fair. The fact that we haven't had all Democrat presidents for the past hundred years (and the next hundred to come) is proof enough that the electoral college gives a voice to smaller states.
- Scorpy2643, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hrmm, I wonder how that would have affected the last 3 or 4 elections. Interesting idea. Do you happen to have results as to how the last few elections would have been different if it was done this way?
- tomesnyder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2There is a way to improve the electoral college. The number of electoral votes a state gets equals the sum of its senators and representatives. Currently, the candidate with the most popular votes in a state gets all the electoral votes. A better way would be to give the statewide winner two votes (for the senators) and the winner in each congressional district one vote (for that district's representative). That way a state with 20 electoral votes might have 15 votes for one candidate and five for the other instead of 20 for one. That would also make it harder for the networks to call a state for a candidate one minute after the polls close.
- dime, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5If we went to a popular-vote system, entire campaigns would be centered around the areas with the highest density of people - namely metropolitan cities.
As stupid as the electoral college seems, it at least forces candidates to visit places they normally wouldn't give a ***** about. -
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is