I've been doing a bit of research on the history of the electoral college recently and I'm really curious as to your opinions on the topic.

Love it? Hate it?

...Anyone know what the heck it's all about and want to share that info w/ the rest of us?

...All opinions and info would be very much appreciated.

quote:

electoral votes are awarded on basis of population not geographic size otherwise alaska would deciede the election

Ya think? I was just noting that NJ has a large population for such a geographically small state.

quote:

and direct election of leaders is not democratic at all it's republican in a republic the people elect their leaders to vote for them if we were a democracy we would not have any elected officals because we would vote on every issue personally

Fair enough. I mispoke. I still believe in direct election of the president, though.

quote:

He got three recounts, each changing the rules to favor his party, and then going into a fourth. If you know of any politician who's gotten so many recounts, do tell.

I do not know of a politician. I admit there should have been recounts in the 1960 election. Gore got recounts in 3 counties and then Miami Dade cancelled its recount. The recounts are within the rules. There should have been a complete recount in Florida. According to US Today:

"Two newspaper projects scrutinizing the balloting found that if the recounts had continued in the four challenged Florida counties, Bush still would have won by a slight margin. Both studies found that if all the disputed ballots were counted statewide — an idea the Supreme Court endorsed but that neither side pursued — Vice President Gore would have won Florida and the election."

If there is any chance of a mistake, there should be a recount. It's just fair.

quote:

So what? The man probably should have won Florida, and, regardless, he should have been given a fair chance/recount.

He got three recounts, each changing the rules to favor his party, and then going into a fourth. If you know of any politician who's gotten so many recounts, do tell.

electoral votes are awarded on basis of population not geographic size otherwise alaska would deciede the election

and direct election of leaders is not democratic at all it's republican in a republic the people elect their leaders to vote for them if we were a democracy we would not have any elected officals because we would vote on every issue personally

quote:

Yeah New Jersy is really a huge state...I can see them dominating everything... whoo gotta look out for them.

They have a lot of electoral college votes for such a geographically small state.

quote:

And all this complaining about 2000, I'm sorry, but Al Gore didn't even win his home state.

So what? The man probably should have won Florida, and, regardless, he should have been given a fair chance/recount.

quote:

Bah, strong democratic traditions... like what?

Like directly electing our legislative leaders. We directly elect our governors...they're like the state president.

Bah, strong democratic traditions... like what? It's always been a representative democracy, and it will always be that way, this country is barely two hundred years old, it's not old enough to have "strong" traditions of anything. It's like saying that America has a strong tradition of slavery.

Yeah New Jersy is really a huge state...I can see them dominating everything... whoo gotta look out for them.

And all this complaining about 2000, I'm sorry, but Al Gore didn't even win his home state.

quote:

But according to the last elections, from what I saw, that is exactly what happenened

California, NJ, etc. would try to control the country if they could. Fortunately, the founders realized that large states would attempt to dominate, and they defused that problem.

quote:

Than you disagree with our form of govermant you see we don't live is a democracy, we live in a republic or representative democracy the other option is that we all vote on every issue that comes up which is hard to do in a nation of over 260 million

No, I do not. That's a ridiculous assumption. We directly elect our senators, our representatives, our governors, etc. Why not our president? I know we don't live in a democracy...the term my history teacher used was democratic republic. I understand that. However, we can democratically elect all of our leaders without changing our form of government.

I am not suggesting that the citizens vote on every single issue. Not at all. I simply believe that a leader that is so influential and important as the president should be chosen directly by the people, so he/she can properly represent the people's wishes while governing. In 2000, George Bush was not the people's choice. His election did not represent what the people wanted. He was not the leader that the people chose to make decisions for them.

quote:

Well, I simply disagree with that approach to government.

Than you disagree with our form of govermant you see we don't live is a democracy, we live in a republic or representative democracy the other option is that we all vote on every issue that comes up which is hard to do in a nation of over 260 million

Often times what happens is that people simply don't go out and vote if they live in solid "blue" or "red" states, because the results are basically predetermined. It's not even worth the bother, because they already know that their candidate will win or lose.

Such is the case in California. Here in the Bay Area, we are something like 75% or more democrat, so much so that we overpower votes from the conservative southern CA. In fact, without us, CA would be a "red" state. So its like the votes for republicans in this state don't even count, because no matter what those 55-whatever electoral college votes are going to the democratic candidate. In a true democratic election, those who are the minority in a state could make the difference nationally.

quote:

Well the US is not a democracy, we are a republic. so technically we should have the people we elect to vote for us vote for president

Well, I simply disagree with that approach to government. We have strong democratic traditions in this country...I see no reason why they can't carry over to the election of the president.

Well the US is not a democracy, we are a republic. so technically we should have the people we elect to vote for us vote for president

quote:

While PA, OH, and FL may have been the dramatic highlights of these elections, they by no means singly determined the elections

It felt like they did. Though, of course, you're right...they didn't. We already knew ahead of time that election would come down to those 3 states. We could already predict which way most states would vote.

quote:

The question Blue, is are we a direct democracy?

I feel like we should be. We directly elect our senators, our representatives, our governors...why not the president? This just may be a personal preference, but I feel like the canidate who recieves the most votes, across the country, should be president. To me, it doesn't make any sense that one canidate who recieves less votes than his competition can become president. We're rewarding the "loser".

quote:

The idea behind the Electoral College is so that a couple of states don't control the destiny of the entire country.

But according to the last elections, from what I saw, that is exactly what happened.

quote:

Originally posted by bluedemocrat:
It's more democratic to have the people elect the president directly.

The question Blue, is are we a direct democracy? There has to be checks and balances, and the Electoral College is one of them. It doens't work the same way as it was intended 240 years ago, but it works nonetheless. I've discussed with you and others as to why.

quote:

While PA, OH, and FL may have been the dramatic highlights of these elections, they by no means singly determined the elections.

*applauds*

There were 47 other states that decided the last election. Those three states' electoral votes are a small fraction of the total. Combined they are a quarter of the 270 needed in '04. Florida provided less than 10% of the 270 needed in 2000.

While PA, OH, and FL may have been the dramatic highlights of these elections, they by no means singly determined the elections.

quote:

The idea behind the Electoral College is so that a couple of states don't control the destiny of the entire country.

That's what happens now, though. Florida, Ohio, and Pensylvania essentially chose the presidency in the last election. In the 2000, Florida did.

It's more democratic to have the people elect the president directly.

Then the value of votes in Massachusetts through DC and California should be 1/10 what they are now, to even things out.

The idea behind the Electoral College is so that a couple of states don't control the destiny of the entire country.

The electoral college serves no purpose anymore. It should be eliminated and elections should return to the good 'ole popular vote.