knightni Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Just vote for Nadar If you spell it "Nadar" on the card, Ralph Nader won't get the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaSoxFan Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 If you spell it "Nadar" on the card, Ralph Nader won't get the vote. Nader is on the ballot up here, so I don't need to spell it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Drinking was mentioned earlier in this thread. I don't know if this is true for all states, but Indiana won't be selling alcohol tomorrow until 6 pm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaSoxFan Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 My grandpa's advice for me in voting... Well you better get it right or the whole country will go to Hell. Thanks for making this a little more nerve racking in my first vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 My grandpa's advice for me in voting... Thanks for making this a little more nerve racking in my first vote. So you want a little convincing. Vote Bush..., well how come...."Come on.....Come on". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaSoxFan Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 So you want a little convincing. Vote Bush..., well how come...."Come on.....Come on". Well since you put it that way, Go Bush! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Thanks to the election tomorrow, I won't have to go to school. I am working as a poll book holder. Should be a fun day and good experience. Sounds like Michael Jackson will be voting....Oh boy, here hold my poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Because Democrats dress like plushies and furries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTUSChris Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 The advantages of the electoral college sound like stretches. - Small states get greater representation, whether it's "fair" is debatable. - If anything, the popular vote will be far more clear-cut. - Like the "Hail to the thief" of 2000??? (Not my own opinion, I just mean the public support was not there.) I don't see this at all. - We got Coolidge, didn't we? I don't think electors are any smarter than the rest of us, just more partisan. IMO the only possible justification is your first one, that it's somehow more "fair". But I don't see how to justify that statement. It's more fair to the smaller states because it makes their votes matter. Without the electoral college, the larger states' popular votes would dominate. One of the reasons why Al Gore had more of the popular vote is because he had more of the larger states and in those larger states he won by a decent margin. Bush won a lot of the smaller states, and without the electoral college their votes would not matter as much. Which would also mean that without the electoral college, the candidates would spend all their time in larger states trying to get as many votes as possible and neglect a lot of the smaller states since they just don't have the votes. The point I'm trying to make is without the elector college when I did phonebanking I would have been calling California and not Nevada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 It's more fair to the smaller states because it makes their votes matter. Without the electoral college, the larger states' popular votes would dominate. One of the reasons why Al Gore had more of the popular vote is because he had more of the larger states and in those larger states he won by a decent margin. Bush won a lot of the smaller states, and without the electoral college their votes would not matter as much. Which would also mean that without the electoral college, the candidates would spend all their time in larger states trying to get as many votes as possible and neglect a lot of the smaller states since they just don't have the votes. The point I'm trying to make is without the elector college when I did phonebanking I would have been calling California and not Nevada. Right, but intuitively it seems like a "fair" system is one person, one vote -- since the President represents all the people, I think it would be right if everyone has equal weight in choosing him. The electoral college however makes the vote of someone living in a small state more influential than the vote of a person living in a large state. To me, that seems unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 It's more fair to the smaller states because it makes their votes matter. Without the electoral college, the larger states' popular votes would dominate. One of the reasons why Al Gore had more of the popular vote is because he had more of the larger states and in those larger states he won by a decent margin. Bush won a lot of the smaller states, and without the electoral college their votes would not matter as much. Which would also mean that without the electoral college, the candidates would spend all their time in larger states trying to get as many votes as possible and neglect a lot of the smaller states since they just don't have the votes. The point I'm trying to make is without the elector college when I did phonebanking I would have been calling California and not Nevada. I understand but a large state should have more influence than a small state. I really don't see much of an argument against this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTUSChris Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I understand but a large state should have more influence than a small state. I really don't see much of an argument against this. Larger states do have more influence. They have more votes. California has 55 votes. Nevada has 5. Many only have 3. The map could be almost entirely red tomorrow because Bush will most likely win a lot of the small states. It could only be blue in a few areas because Kerry took the larger states. Kerry could still win because the larger states have more votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Larger states do have more influence. They have more votes. California has 55 votes. Nevada has 5. Many only have 3. The map could be almost entirely red tomorrow because Bush will most likely win a lot of the small states. It could only be blue in a few areas because Kerry took the larger states. Kerry could still win because the larger states have more votes. Atta' boy...someone gets it. It's not quantum physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Right, but intuitively it seems like a "fair" system is one person, one vote -- since the President represents all the people, I think it would be right if everyone has equal weight in choosing him. The electoral college however makes the vote of someone living in a small state more influential than the vote of a person living in a large state. To me, that seems unfair. Wait a minute...re-read what you just wrote and let that sink in for a moment. Then try arguing why a voter in a smaller state is "more influential than a voter in a larger state." The argument is absurd. Competely and utterly absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Atta' boy...someone gets it. It's not quantum physics. Umm... I can do math. But... A vote in a small state is still more important than a vote in a large state. Explain to me why that's fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well I just think every person's vote should have the same value, straight up. Of course Republicans would never allow this to happen so goodbye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well I just think every person's vote should have the same value, straight up. Of course Republicans would never allow this to happen so goodbye. This coming from a poster that previously said... "Anyone know a good site that thoroughly explains the USA election system because I'm really not sure what an electoral vote or anything like that is? Any help would be great." All voters do have the same imput...you can thank the electoral college for that. More research you must preform young grasshopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 This coming from a poster that previously said... "Anyone know a good site that thoroughly explains the USA election system because I'm really not sure what an electoral vote or anything like that is? Any help would be great." All voters do have the same imput...you can thank the electoral college for that. More research you must preform young grasshopper. LOL I was thinking about that as I was just posting. I still don't see the logic behind this but whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Wait a minute...re-read what you just wrote and let that sink in for a moment. Then try arguing why a voter in a smaller state is "more influential than a voter in a larger state." The argument is absurd. Competely and utterly absurd. No, it's not. North Dakota: 3 Electoral votes 633837 Population 0.0000047 electoral votes/person California: 55 Electoral votes 35484453 Population 0.0000016 electoral votes/person So. Does 47=16? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well if Jackie's math is correct that is f***ed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Alright Kip, I may have been a bit harsh...maybe you don't quite get the electoral college representation... Each state gets as many electoral college votes, as it has congressmen. For example, the great state of Illinois has 21 electoral college votes...19 for its House reps, and 2 for its Senators. Callifornia has 55...53 for its House reps, and 2 for its Senators. The president and vice president are elected by 538 Electoral College voters, one per senator and representative from each state, who usually cast a ballot for the candidate who wins the popular vote. In addition, the District of Columbia has three votes. A candidate must receive a majority of 270 votes to win the election. Therefore, equal representation is a neccessity in this type of election. Fear not, we are all equally represented. Just make sure you get out and vote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well then isn't the amount of congressmen disproportionate from state to state in accordance with population. I'm just going off of Jackie's example here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well then isn't the amount of congressmen disproportionate from state to state in accordance with population. I'm just going off of Jackie's example here. Yes, that was the whole reason for having 2 houses in the Congress. The House is proportionate, but the Senate is intentionally disproportionate. For small states, the overall effect in the electoral college can be important (eg, in 2000). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well then isn't the amount of congressmen disproportionate from state to state in accordance with population. I'm just going off of Jackie's example here. No sir, it is proportionate. I think that is where you are having your problem. In the state of Wyoming...a state with more cows then people...they have 3 Electoral College votes...count em', 3. In the state of Rhode Island...the smallest state in these United States, in terms of land size...they have 4 Electora College votes. The votes are proportinate to the number of citizens in each state...not square milage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 No sir, it is proportionate. I think that is where you are having your problem. In the state of Wyoming...a state with more cows then people...they have 3 Electoral College votes...count em', 3. In the state of Rhode Island...the smallest state in these United States, in terms of land size...they have 4 Electora College votes. The votes are proportinate to the number of citizens in each state...not square milage. No, they are smaller, but they are not proportionate. Just doing the math will show that. 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.