CA may try to kill Electoral College

[santo=dorf]

How would we go about a recount if the final votes came down very closely?

[NorthSideSox72]

The reason they would do this is because its time to change the dialogue of our elections. American elections shouldn't be about the few small parts of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvnia, etc. that are swing areas. Its about the entire country.... People in California, Texas, New York, etc. are disporportionately ignored both during the election cycle and in the way their votes are cast.

 

I think the electoral college system is a stupid way to elect a president. Given recent historical standards, a 55-45% win in the popular vote is a landslide for presidential elections... But under the electoral college, the loser could takes office.

 

Its dumb, the incumbent has a weak mandate, and it shifts the national focus from who the majority think should be president to who the majority of people in 7 counties in ohio think should be president.

 

I hope other states adopt this rule also... enough to drastically change the discourse and tenor of our election cycles.

This pretty much sums it up, as far as why the electoral college should be thrown in the cylindrical filing cabinet. I don't like CA's way of doing it here, because its just stupid. But we do need to get rid of the electoral college.

 

For those of you who seem to think the electoral college helps the smaller states, you'd be mistaken. Check the electoral map. Electoral votes equate to Congressional representation (reps plus senators), which is based on population (except for the 3-count minimum). So I suppose that, perhaps WY gets one more vote than they should. Other than that, rural voters get nothing out of it.

 

The only think the electoral college does, today, is take the vote out of the hands of the voters of 95% of the country. That helps no one in either party.

[vandy125]

This pretty much sums it up, as far as why the electoral college should be thrown in the cylindrical filing cabinet. I don't like CA's way of doing it here, because its just stupid. But we do need to get rid of the electoral college.

 

For those of you who seem to think the electoral college helps the smaller states, you'd be mistaken. Check the electoral map. Electoral votes equate to Congressional representation (reps plus senators), which is based on population (except for the 3-count minimum). So I suppose that, perhaps WY gets one more vote than they should. Other than that, rural voters get nothing out of it.

 

The only think the electoral college does, today, is take the vote out of the hands of the voters of 95% of the country. That helps no one in either party.

 

I remember looking at just that thing a year or so ago, and if I remember correctly, large states such as CA and NY actually get less representation than they would with a strictly popular vote type of thing, and some of the smaller states get more representation than they would with the popular vote. I would like to see something to verify that though.

 

I still like the ability of each state to say what is most important for that state, and to send everything in that direction. Otherwise, there is no point for the state to even be involved.

[NorthSideSox72]

I remember looking at just that thing a year or so ago, and if I remember correctly, large states such as CA and NY actually get less representation than they would with a strictly popular vote type of thing, and some of the smaller states get more representation than they would with the popular vote. I would like to see something to verify that though.

 

I still like the ability of each state to say what is most important for that state, and to send everything in that direction. Otherwise, there is no point for the state to even be involved.

And the states SHOULDN'T be involved, as entities, in a national election. The people, as individuals, should.

 

Mind you, I am usually on the states rights side in federalism discussions. But this is a national election, with each person in the country voting, and all their votes should carry equal sway. Therefore, the electoral college is an unneeded biasing factor.

[vandy125]

And the states SHOULDN'T be involved, as entities, in a national election. The people, as individuals, should.

 

Mind you, I am usually on the states rights side in federalism discussions. But this is a national election, with each person in the country voting, and all their votes should carry equal sway. Therefore, the electoral college is an unneeded biasing factor.

 

I think that this is the point that we would disagree on. My opinion is that the states make up the nation of the United States of America. So, as a member of that nation, the state should have the right to decide who heads up the nation. The people still have a say because it is their vote that determines what their state does, and they can determine how their state sends those votes through.

[southsider2k5]

And the states SHOULDN'T be involved, as entities, in a national election. The people, as individuals, should.

 

Mind you, I am usually on the states rights side in federalism discussions. But this is a national election, with each person in the country voting, and all their votes should carry equal sway. Therefore, the electoral college is an unneeded biasing factor.

 

Why do we bother with state borders and governments then? We are the United STATES of America after all. Historically the only reason some states joined the union was because of the protections afforded the states under our consititution, and the way elections and representations were decided was a huge one. If we are going to start ridding ourselves of states rights, we might as well just get rid of the borders and governments and balance out the inequities that result because of them.

[NorthSideSox72]

Why do we bother with state borders and governments then? We are the United STATES of America after all. Historically the only reason some states joined the union was because of the protections afforded the states under our consititution, and the way elections and representations were decided was a huge one. If we are going to start ridding ourselves of states rights, we might as well just get rid of the borders and governments and balance out the inequities that result because of them.

States rights are not extinguished by removing the electoral college, because they are already non-existent with it. And I agree with you on many issues for the states - states should be the ones making decisions on all things not specifically assigned to the federal government in the Constitution (see the 10th Amendment, which I wrote a legal review on many moons ago in Con Law). But the election of a President is a national concern, and is specified as such. So it is not now, and was not intended to be, a states rights issue. The electoral college was set up as a matter of efficiency and practicality, NOT as a states rights point.

 

See (this article actually manages to wander all over the place on reasoning, but it does give a nice history):

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

 

If you want to push decision making and funding for education, for example, back to the states, I'm all for it (because the Constitution did not say anything about the federal gov't dealing in that). But the electoral college does nothing other than nullify the votes of 95% of the country, in 90% of the states. So protecting it on a states-rights basis just doesn't make any sense.

Edited June 5, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[AbeFroman]

Why do we bother with state borders and governments then? We are the United STATES of America after all. Historically the only reason some states joined the union was because of the protections afforded the states under our consititution, and the way elections and representations were decided was a huge one. If we are going to start ridding ourselves of states rights, we might as well just get rid of the borders and governments and balance out the inequities that result because of them.

 

Wait... your argument in favor of state's rights is that the Federal government should control how State's assign their electoral votes?! So it should be the Federal Government's job to make sure state's rights are maintained by forcing them into a voting scheme they disapprove of?

 

I don't mean to offend you, but the "State's Rights" argument actually supports California's Popular vote plan more than it attacks it. Effectively, you are taking the power OUT of local government and placing it with the Feds. Your post actually advances a strong Federally Controlled electoral college while abrogating the rights of each state to determine the course of its own voting procedure. There is NOTHING unconsitutional about california's proposal.

 

It just strikes me that if you are a "State's Rights" guy, then you ought to permit each state to assign its electoral votes as it sees fit... The purpose of Federalism is to allow each state to govern itself based on the will of its citizens. States presently everything from speed limits to marriage laws; I don't see any reason why electoral voting should be different. Doesn't a "State's Rights" advocate trust the local citizenry to govern themselves?

Edited June 5, 2006 by AbeFroman

[Gregory Pratt]

If this happens the elections will come down to a popular vote. If people think the Flordia mess was something think about it happening in all 50 states any election under 500,000 votes will cause challenges all over the country and maybe a year after the election was over we could finally have a new president. Only in 1876,1888 and 2000 has the popular vote winner lost and all 3 elections the margin was no greater than a 2% win.

 

It's happened four times. Quincy Adams' Presidency doesn't count, I suppose? Andrew Jackson didn't win that popular vote, to be screwed in the House? KNOW YOUR HISTORY!!

 

(I do agree with your point that the Electoral College is fundamentally sound, and I applaud you for it.)

[southsider2k5]

Wait... your argument in favor of state's rights is that the Federal government should control how State's assign their electoral votes?! So it should be the Federal Government's job to make sure state's rights are maintained by forcing them into a voting scheme they disapprove of?

 

I don't mean to offend you, but the "State's Rights" argument actually supports California's Popular vote plan more than it attacks it. Effectively, you are taking the power OUT of local government and placing it with the Feds. Your post actually advances a strong Federally Controlled electoral college while abrogating the rights of each state to determine the course of its own voting procedure. There is NOTHING unconsitutional about california's proposal.

 

It just strikes me that if you are a "State's Rights" guy, then you ought to permit each state to assign its electoral votes as it sees fit... The purpose of Federalism is to allow each state to govern itself based on the will of its citizens. States presently everything from speed limits to marriage laws; I don't see any reason why electoral voting should be different. Doesn't a "State's Rights" advocate trust the local citizenry to govern themselves?

 

Most of that comes out of my belief in the great compromise ensuring that the small states rights get predicted.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Yes, but interestingly, the bill passed with the support of only 1 Republican, despite the fact that this would be about the only method of making it such that CA's electoral votes aren't firmly in the hands of the Democrats every time.

 

 

Ive been in favor of keeping the electoral system but awarding the electoral vote to whoever wins a particular congressional distict and then the 2 for the states senators goes to whoever gets the majority of votes in that state. That puts the whole nation up for grabs so Republicans can get some votes in Cali and Dems can even knock off a few in places like Texas and Kansas.

[Balta1701]

Ive been in favor of keeping the electoral system but awarding the electoral vote to whoever wins a particular congressional distict and then the 2 for the states senators goes to whoever gets the majority of votes in that state. That puts the whole nation up for grabs so Republicans can get some votes in Cali and Dems can even knock off a few in places like Texas and Kansas.

IMO, if you're going to decide to change things, why go from a bad system to an average system when a good system would be just as easy to create?

[Gregory Pratt]

I think people are too quick to ignore the fact that a Democratic nation -- Democratic in the pure, "Voters directly elect" sense -- would be bad in this country, and very much so. Direct elections mean that maniacs like Ross Perot and George Wallace, and idiots like Ralph Nader, can conceivably be elected to the Presidency. It would mean that the rich could TRULY buy an election by spending all their money on advertising -- Perot, as an example -- and a direct popular vote does everything to make it easy for tyranny.

 

Our current system protects us from the Fringe. You might disagree if you're a Conservative who hates Clinton's penis, or a Liberal who thinks Bush Hitler, but I just don't see the reason to replace a system that's worked better than most for two hundred years, has provided for relatively good leadership at every trouble spot in American history (particularly in the worst of times), and prevents the Fringe from taking power.

 

Perhaps I'm just a kook.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I think people are too quick to ignore the fact that a Democratic nation -- Democratic in the pure, "Voters directly elect" sense -- would be bad in this country, and very much so. Direct elections mean that maniacs like Ross Perot and George Wallace, and idiots like Ralph Nader, can conceivably be elected to the Presidency. It would mean that the rich could TRULY buy an election by spending all their money on advertising -- Perot, as an example -- and a direct popular vote does everything to make it easy for tyranny.

 

Our current system protects us from the Fringe. You might disagree if you're a Conservative who hates Clinton's penis, or a Liberal who thinks Bush Hitler, but I just don't see the reason to replace a system that's worked better than most for two hundred years, has provided for relatively good leadership at every trouble spot in American history (particularly in the worst of times), and prevents the Fringe from taking power.

 

Perhaps I'm just a kook.

 

 

No. You're not a kook, you're quite right. The only reason we have all this clamor to replace the electoral college system is because the left is still sore about losing the 2000 election.

[NorthSideSox72]

No. You're not a kook, you're quite right. The only reason we have all this clamor to replace the electoral college system is because the left is still sore about losing the 2000 election.

I hope you don't actually think that is why some of us want to get rid of the electoral college. I want to get rid of it because it effectively disenfranchises the majority of the country.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I hope you don't actually think that is why some of us want to get rid of the electoral college. I want to get rid of it because it effectively disenfranchises the majority of the country.

 

 

When did all this uproar start? December of 2000. Im not saying thats why all people who are against the electoral college feel the way that they do............just most of em.

[Gregory Pratt]

I will say this: I found the 2000 election absolutely deplorable.

 

I like the Electoral College. And that's about all I've got to add to this thread, unless someone else has a history inaccuracy for busybody me to fix.