comic sansLast election Gore won the poplar vote yet bush won the election. Alot of you may be going What is she on crack? no i can assure i am not. Bush won by electoral votes, these vote are suppose the represent how everyone feel about the canidate right? so how the hell did bush win? Because in my opinion we dont need the electoral collage!! When it was first put into action people we ignorate, illiturate and mostly farmers! Now 85% of the people in the U.S. are liturate(most of the 15% that aren`t are in school) and 2% of the poulation are farmers!! Most people are well-educated, well-read and liturate!! Now thew electoral collage just undermindes are votes and makes them less valuble in my opinon!!!Plus do we even know who these electoral people are? No, think about it do you want some person un-know to you representing you?

Okay, areyouallergic,To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place. Notice that the country is named the "United States", not the "United People". Independent sovereign states/natioms once inhabited this land. They had their own independent governments. They had militaries which defended their borders. They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.

Going back to the American Revolution, at that time, there were 13 colonies under British control. These 13 colonies did not want to remain under the control of the King of England, so they basically "teamed up" and declared their independence from England. A war ensued and their defeat of England won their independence outright. But the colonial governments knew that this was not permanent. They knew that England would one day come to regain control over the rich, fertile colonies in the New World. The colonies knew that the only way to thwart such an attack in the future was to start building strong alliances with each other in the present. Over the next 10+ years after the war, the colonies explored different ways of strong unions that would not only guard against future invasions by Mexico, France, and England, but would be strong enough to discourage those invasions in the first place. Hence, the conclusion was that a permanent union needed to be formed, a union of independent sovereign states with a centralized limited government that could call on the states to defend each other in the future when necessary. Legal docments would be needed to establish such a union, something that required the leaders of all states to sign and be bound to. The Constitution was born and so was the United States.

Man, my hand hurts, i think i'll go make a smoothie. After looking up stuff and putting it together, i hope you are grateful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by uptowngirl904:
If the election was simply decided by the popular vote, then the political parties would then just concentrate on only the places where there is a large population and basically buy the vote. That would then leave the smaller states out to dry because the politicians wouldn't care about the issues of the smaller states.

---

I didn't say that. I'm very confused by your post, with you taking what I said, and claiming I said something I didn't. And who are you calling a stupid newbie?

quote:

---

Originally posted by uptowngirl904:
If the election was simply decided by the popular vote, then the political parties would then just concentrate on only the places where there is a large population and basically buy the vote. That would then leave the smaller states out to dry because the politicians wouldn't care about the issues of the smaller states.

---

Stupid. Newbie. The entire problem with the system is that it destroys the importance of the smaller states. The politicians duke it out under the current system in the large states-California, Texas, New York, Illinios, ext...If the system were to be eradicated, then the politicians would have to battle, not over states, but population centers. So, with the Electoral college, the large southern states win, and with a popular vote, the urban centers of the north, and florida, win.

It also was designed to shift political power to Southern states who could count 3/5 of their slaves toward their representation in Congress and get more electoral votes.

quote:

---

If the election was simply decided by the popular vote, then the political parties would then just concentrate on only the places where there is a large population and basically buy the vote. That would then leave the smaller states out to dry because the politicians wouldn't care about the issues of the smaller states.

---

It also was designed to shift political power to Southern states who could count 3/5 of their slaves toward their representation in Congress and get more electoral votes.

OK, now first i am offended by you calling our founding fathers idiots. Now, let mne explain their thinking in the electoral college. If the election was simply decided by the popular vote, then the political parties would then just concentrate on only the places where there is a large population and basically buy the vote. That would then leave the smaller states out to dry because the politicians wouldn't care about the issues of the smaller states. It gives the states a say in government.

I think it should be altered- like how Maine and Nebraska (where the votes are divided up) work. Something should change. I mean, there could have been a tie and then we could have President Kerry with VP Cheney, or Cheney could be uprooted and replaced by Edwards. How screwed up would THAT be?

quote:

---

What is she on crack? no i can assure i am not.

---

*Eyes suspiciously* Hmm...

quote:

---

Because in my opinion we dont need the electoral collage!!

---

Ok, I'll attempt to speak in what seems to be your dialect--*clears throat.* Like, oh my gosh, you are like, SUCH an IDIOT! Like, you don't even like, know like, what you're talking about, like, so like please don't like, sicken me with your attempts to like, sound like you like know what you're talking about, like. *gags at own speech*

quote:

---

Now 85% of the people in the U.S. are liturate

---

Obviously, you must realize at this point that you don't fit into that percentile. Well, at least in terms of grammar.

quote:

---

Most people are well-educated, well-read and liturate!!

---

Like, no way! Because you like, totally had me fooled!

quote:

---

Now thew electoral collage just undermindes are votes and makes them less valuble in my opinon!!!

---

And you are like, totally driving me A-wall with your grammatical errors, like! Go take a freaking English class and THEN come back, like!

quote:

---

Plus do we even know who these electoral people are?

---

Read up a little bit and you just might learn something. You know that whole voting-election thing? Yeah, that's to vote represenatives to cast electoral votes for the candidate you want. Remember...reading is good.

quote:

---

No, think about it do you want some person un-know to you representing you?

---

I can't really say if I would want someone "un-know" to me to represent me, as I have no idea what that is.

that sounds good

There is a solution to this problem. Here is my proposal.

To begin with, the President will be elected by Direct Popular Vote. However, only the candidate with 50.1% of the DPV will be elected President.

If no candidate wins 50.1% of the DPV, then a runoff shall be held between the top two candidated. The candidate that wins the most states shall be elected President.

This way, every vote counts, minor parties will have a fighting chance, and the candidates will have to campaign in every state.

quote:

---

True however if a candidate took all of the large cities in America, they'd have an easy win. Its still not fair to all the folk out in smaller communites.

---

Again, NOT EVERYBODY VOTES FOR THE SAME CANIDATE. Moot point when you apply it to direct vote system. Furthermore how is it not fair? I forgot we are supposed to punish people for living in larger cities.

quote:

---

America is America. It doesn't matter where you live in America you deserve the right to live wherever you want while getting the same benefit as larger communites.

---

The do get the same benefit, they have the right to vote and their vote is treated the same.

quote:

---

In smaller states, their vote would not be more (if we reformed the system), it would simply be off setting the large population advantage that some areas have.

---

Again this is faulty seeing as if it were a direct vote the large cities wouldn't have any more of advantage because it is divided into INDIVIDUAL votes; there is no winner takes all. Furthermore I never said under a direct vote a more rural person vote counts as more. The simple fact is I said the opposite; in the current system their vote counts more. Simply look at the amount electoral votes per person smaller states get in comparison to larger states. This blatantly shows the bias.

quote:

---

if 2% of the the population (specifically farmers), 98% starve. EVERY person is important.

---

The problem with this idea is it is an extremely general outlook. What about the public utility workers who make the sure water gets to the farmers? What about the fertilizer manufactures? What about the manufactures of the equipment the farmers use? The list goes on and on because the simple fact is our economic system is extremely intertwined. A direct vote makes everybody’s vote EQUAL, it doesn't lessen anybodies.

quote:

---

I don't know where this little arguement came up from, but what does it matte?. Its the candidates choice what their battle plan is. I really do not care.

---

It matters because proponents of the Electoral College spout on about smaller states being ignored if a direct vote was implemented. That argument is extremely hypocritical seeing as the little states are already being ignored. Reread the comment in full context and it makes sense.

quote:

---

False, the top three states (California, New York and Texas) with there populations combined equal 76,793,077.
In Comparison with the United States total population of 290,809,777 that is hardly a majority; that’s only 26%. Furthermore this is further reduced because NOT EVERYBODY VOTES FOR THE SAME CANIDATE.

---

True however if a candidate took all of the large cities in America, they'd have an easy win. Its still not fair to all the folk out in smaller communites.

quote:

---

Why is it alright for the people in the smaller states to have a vote that is worth more then mine; especially due to the fact that they pick their place of residence?

---

America is America. It doesn't matter where you live in America you deserve the right to live wherever you want while getting the same benefit as larger communites. In smaller states, their vote would not be more (if we reformed the system), it would simply be off setting the large population advantage that some areas have. As Bauhus said in earlier posts, if 2% of the the population (specifically farmers), 98% starve. EVERY person is important.

quote:

---

If you are taking about campaigning a large majority of the states ARE being ignored. Hell one only needs to look to the present election.
Furthermore the idea of them being ignored if the Electoral College is dissolved is asinine and is fundamentally a contradiction to your own logic.

---

I don't know where this little arguement came up from, but what does it matte?. Its the candidates choice what their battle plan is. I really do not care. It only allows more room for grassroots action. I don't think I've ever even seen a presidential ad on tv in my life because I've only lived in Illinois and California which are two predicatably democrat states (Although Bush seems to be holding some ground in California currently).

quote:

---

The Electoral College is made up of representatives the people elect and are supposed to, but are not required to vote the way of the popular vote in the state they represent

---

This so rarely happens. Sure it does happen, but it hasn't created much of a difference so far. When it does make a difference though, there will be pople objecting against it anyways so I don't really think that that is the biggest thing we need to worry about in the electoral college.

quote:

---

you do have a good point. if every vote actually counted, only three states (i think new york, california, and florida) would actually decide who wins the election because of their population.

---

False, the top three states (California, New York and Texas) with there populations combined equal 76,793,077.
In Comparison with the United States total population of 290,809,777 that is hardly a majority; that’s only 26%. Furthermore this is further reduced because NOT EVERYBODY VOTES FOR THE SAME CANIDATE.

quote:

---

We need the electorial college because New York, California, and Florida alone can decide who wins the election in a popular vote.

---

As I have pointed out this is false.

quote:

---

I still don't see how you think its right to ignore 47 states.

---

This could equally be as applicable to the Electoral College. Under the Electoral College only 11 states are needed to win, so why is it alright for 39 of the states to be ignored?

Why is it alright for the people in the smaller states to have a vote that is worth more then mine; especially due to the fact that they pick their place of residence?

If you are taking about campaigning a large majority of the states ARE being ignored. Hell one only needs to look to the present election.
Furthermore the idea of them being ignored if the Electoral College is dissolved is asinine and is fundamentally a contradiction to your own logic.

quote:

---

The Electoral College is made up of representatives the people elect and are supposed to, but are not required to vote the way of the popular vote in the state they represent

---

It's true that no constitutional law is in place that requires them to vote for the candidate they pledged to vote for, but most STATE laws require them to. Most states require the slate of electors who pledged their vote to a certain candidate to uphold that pledge under state law.

quote:

---

The Framers of the Constitution felt that a simple majority of the people was not to be trusted to make responsible decisions that would benefit the entire country.

---

The framers of the Constitution also believed in slavery and that senators should be elected by the house but we don't uphold that part do we?

the candidates DO ignore the smaller stats under the electoral college system, and they only visit the "swing" states with a lot of vates...

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeRtiCaLxLiMiT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bauhaus:
I still don't see how you think its right to ignore 47 states.

---

you do have a good point. if every vote actually counted, only three states (i think new york, california, and florida) would actually decide who wins the election because
of their population.

---

exactly and presidents wouldnt even need to go to the "loser" states because there arent enough people to make a difference.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bauhaus:
I still don't see how you think its right to ignore 47 states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well, that means that you think that the STATES not the PEOPLE whould be the ones electing the president. its the whole issue of states rights, which is part of teh reason for the electoral college. Anyways, the states didnt want too strong of a central government, like an all powerful executive, but the people would still choose the president, and its not like a popularly elected president is going to remove all the rights that a state has. so you ARE ignoring the states, all 50 of them, because they are just dividing lines between people when it comes to electing the federal executive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bauhaus:
I still don't see how you think its right to ignore 47 states.

---

you do have a good point. if every vote actually counted, only three states (i think new york, california, and florida) would actually decide who wins the election because of their population.

I don't necessarily think that we need the electoral college either, but there are many reasons that they put it into action. It is because just voting didn't cut it years ago. Now, maybe we need to try new ways, but I don't believe that we should bash the way it is run. Don't get me wrong, I used to do the same thing. I didn't necessarily like Bush, but I thought of what I might do in the situations that he has been presented with. I might not have done the same things he is doing, but I can imagine the pressure and stress it puts on him. I was a strong democrat until about two weeks ago, when friends close to me began talking to me and asking me questions that I did not know how to answer. I do not know where I stand now but I know that I can't "bash" either side. It is wrong and everyone deserves a chance. Yes, they got elected to be Presdident and I do think that the election of 2000 was a little bit of a scam, but God works out a plan for everything and everything will be ok in the end. Like one of my favorite quotes goes "Everything is okay in the end; if it's not okay then its not the end". I just think that we need to stop and think about the position people are in before we go and make fools of ourselves. Maybe we learn something from it, maybe we don't. In my opinion it will all work out...WE need to be the ones making the difference and giving suggestions instead of just saying that it is wrong. We need to take action!!

i think that we dont need the electoral college. all it is is a bunch of old people voting on the issues that concern them (healthcare, stem cell research, etc.) i think we need to ditch the electoral college. its sending our country down the drain. see what bush has done for our country? made us the hated nation of the world.

The Falconist Party has a compromise solution to this problem in a proposed constitutional amendment.

In our proposal, the President will be elected by direct popular vote. Any candidate that garners 50.1% of the direct popular vote will be elected President.

However, if no candidate attains 50.1% of the direct popular vote in the first round, a runoff will be held between the top two candidates and whomever wins the most states will be elected President.

This way, every persons vote counts and all candidates will have to campaign in the large and small states.