jasonxctf Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...tinfavorofkerry Could 2004 be the same as in 2000.. where most of the people in the country vote for Kerry but Bush wins by the electoral vote? On a side note, I've be griping for years (prior to 2000) that we need to eliminate the electoral college. If anything, it dis-courages people to vote. Say you are a Democrat in Indiana or a Republican in New York... what's your incentive to vote in the Presidential election? Mathmatically the electoral college actually allows a vote in Kansas or Montana to count for a higher % of the outcome than a vote in California or New York. Is it right that certain people's votes are counted for more than others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 On a side note, I've be griping for years (prior to 2000) that we need to eliminate the electoral college. If anything, it dis-courages people to vote. Say you are a Democrat in Indiana or a Republican in New York... what's your incentive to vote in the Presidential election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Oh i agree. The Electoral College was a good idea at the time, but no longer. I really think its kinda comical how our country still hasnt realized this. It should be a simple % of the whole, screw the electoral vote crap. You're right, it values some people's votes higgher than others as a result. I agree though, we really should get rid of the electoral college Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Be Good Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I think Jasonxcf's right as he said I know many Republican's in NY and they basically have no say in the elections, same goes for Democrats in Texas. Soley for that reason I really think the electoral college needs to be eliminated. And if Kerry loses for the same reason Gore lost, I'm goin be pretty pissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I think Jasonxcf's right as he said I know many Republican's in NY and they basically have no say in the elections, same goes for Texas. Soley for that reason I really think the electoral college needs to be eliminated. And if Kerry loses for the same reason Gore lost, I'm goin be pretty pissed. Yep, the electoral college needs to go. We can't afford another mistake this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 And in a popular vote, small states have no say at all, so their votes are worthless as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 And in a popular vote, small states have no say at all, so their votes are worthless as well. Yeah, if 20,000,000 people in California vote to drain the Great Lakes and pump it into their water supply.. is it still a good idea? Just because you have the most people, doen't give you the right to make every decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Be Good Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 And in a popular vote, small states have no say at all, so their votes are worthless as well. With a popular vote, everyone has a say. In a popular vote, I feel that if I lived in Montana my vote counts the same as it would in New York. I dont understand how anyone's vote is different in a popular vote. Popular vote=Everyone vote's count Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 With a popular vote, everyone has a say. In a popular vote, I feel that if I lived in Montana my vote counts the same as it would in New York. I dont understand how anyone's vote is different in a popular vote. Popular vote=Everyone vote's count See Knights example. Or ponder this. The state of California has about 35.5 million people. Indiana has 6.2 million. Say that half of those people are registered voters. (for rounding sake say 17.8 mil in CA, and 3.1mil in IN) As long as 10.5 million or 58.9% of CA voters vote one way, the entire state of IN could vote the same way, and be it wouldn't matter a bit, because just under 60% of California feels the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Be Good Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 See Knights example. Or ponder this. The state of California has about 35.5 million people. Indiana has 6.2 million. Say that half of those people are registered voters. (for rounding sake say 17.8 mil in CA, and 3.1mil in IN) As long as 10.5 million or 58.9% of CA voters vote one way, the entire state of IN could vote the same way, and be it wouldn't matter a bit, because just under 60% of California feels the other way. I do see what your saying, Knight and ss2k but for Presidential elections whatever candiate has the most votes should win, In my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 See Knights example. Or ponder this. The state of California has about 35.5 million people. Indiana has 6.2 million. Say that half of those people are registered voters. (for rounding sake say 17.8 mil in CA, and 3.1mil in IN) As long as 10.5 million or 58.9% of CA voters vote one way, the entire state of IN could vote the same way, and be it wouldn't matter a bit, because just under 60% of California feels the other way. But as far as the presidential election goes, wouldn't it matter more that each persons vote counted the same. For example, In Illinois, if 51% OR 99% voted for Kerry, with the electoral college, 100% of Illinois' vote would be for Kerry. The way I see it, where you live shouldn't determine that your vote would count less than a state such as Florida. If more People voted Kerry, then Kerry should be president, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 But as far as the presidential election goes, wouldn't it matter more that each persons vote counted the same. For example, In Illinois, if 51% OR 99% voted for Kerry, with the electoral college, 100% of Illinois' vote would be for Kerry. The way I see it, where you live shouldn't determine that your vote would count less than a state such as Florida. If more People voted Kerry, then Kerry should be president, IMO. But you are forgetting the lessons of your history classes. This is the United STATES of America. The Great Compromise was to protect small states rights. That is why states like Wyoming have a disportionate say, because it is states rights that are being protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 it is funny seeing how much of our lives are determined by imaginary lines in the ground dividing states, counties, cities, etc. As for the California example with 13.3 mil votes cast dwarfing that of Indiana.. I askout this question. Each decision that a President makes, each law that is passed... does it affect more people in California or Indiana? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 But you are forgetting the lessons of your history classes. This is the United STATES of America. The Great Compromise was to protect small states rights. That is why states like Wyoming have a disportionate say, because it is states rights that are being protected. So explain, hypothetically, If wyoming had a population of 5 million, and California 35 million, the ratio of wyoming's electoral votes would be more than 1:7? I'm just wondering, I haven't taken US history yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 it is funny seeing how much of our lives are determined by imaginary lines in the ground dividing states, counties, cities, etc. As for the California example with 13.3 mil votes cast dwarfing that of Indiana.. I askout this question. Each decision that a President makes, each law that is passed... does it affect more people in California or Indiana? And that all depends on what the law is. Immigration policy would affect California more, farm subsidies would affect IN more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 say federal income tax.. who would that affect more? the people in Indiana or the people in California? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 So explain, hypothetically, If wyoming had a population of 5 million, and California 35 million, the ratio of wyoming's electoral votes would be more than 1:7? I'm just wondering, I haven't taken US history yet. Your electoral votes and number of state reps are one and the same. They are based on population, but the smallest of states are guarenteed a minimum number of both. Nationally both are capped at 535 and are divided amongst the country based on states total population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 say federal income tax.. who would that affect more? the people in Indiana or the people in California? When you say people do you mean each individual person, or do you mean all 35 million people vs all 6 million people of each respective state? If it is A, then it depends on which state has a higher or lower per capita income (depending on if you are talking about higher or lower marginal tax rates). If you are talking about B, the answer is pretty obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTUSChris Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Your electoral votes and number of state reps are one and the same. They are based on population, but the smallest of states are guarenteed a minimum number of both. Nationally both are capped at 535 and are divided amongst the country based on states total population. Just so you there are actually 538 electoral votes. The 23rd Amendment gave three votes to Washington, DC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Your electoral votes and number of state reps are one and the same. They are based on population, but the smallest of states are guarenteed a minimum number of both. Nationally both are capped at 535 and are divided amongst the country based on states total population. And just so you know, electoral votes are determined for each state according to: # of House Reps PLUS 2 more (# of senators for every state). So, Indiana has 9 representatives +2 or 11 electoral collage votes. Plus add three for Wash. DC. Which, coincidentally is the smallest # of electoral votes any one state can have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 And in a popular vote, small states have no say at all, so their votes are worthless as well. Good point. We are United States and the big picture is 50 states are picking a guy to run the country. Technically it shouldn't matter how each states pick their candidate. In theory, the biggest mistake would be if someone was 26 states to 24 and lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 The electoral college eliminates the chance of widespread voter fraud.. In Illinois, the old saying "vote early and often" was a commonly heard of practice in the early 1960s with Richard M Daley and John Kennedy's elections. It was said that votes were tallied from voters that were deceased. If there was a voter fraud situation in a state like New York, Illinois or California, (That IS a stretch, I know) then the electoral college keeps a balance in the other states. So, with the electoral college, there is more of a possibility that the person wanted by the majority of the USA gets into office. 2000 was a fluke, I really doubt that it will happen again. Clinton got an electoral college landslide in 1996 but only got 50% of the popular vote, Dole got 42%. Clinton got 2/3rds of the electoral college votes in 1992, yet received only 43% of the popular vote, as opposed to George Bush Sr's 38%. Honestly, there hasn't been a majority victory since Reagan steamrolled Mondale in 1984. Politics in the two party system will always be back and forth, bickering and complaining. There will always be close elections and there will always be debate. That's how the American political system works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.