quote:

---

"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

---

and your point is?

If we could evenly distribute the population - force people out of the cities, and place an even number throught the states - then the evenness of "democracy" would work. Wew could even get rid of the need for a Senate, too. However, the real world isn't like that; hence the need for the Electoral College.

"ITs retarded"-Just when I thought I had seen the lowest of childishness...


Read this report done on electoral reform and the electoral college done by the Cato Institute.
Election 2000 study

"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

ITs retarded

It's a democratic election, it should be one man, one vote, what state your from doesn't matter if the electoral college doesn't exist. It would work so much better that way. THen the president would do what was in the best interests of the nation as a whole rather than politically arranging his agenda to get him the electoral votes he needs.

I agree, why DO we need the electorial college? Really, the voters dont need to vote for someone to pick their man. We want direct results, not the electorial college.

And would that be a bad thing? That way, a candidate would almost always have to deal with both small and large states in an election. But in the first round, everyone's vote will matter because their vote could be the one that puts a party in a runoff election.

I thought about lowering it to 50.1% or 55%. But if a candidate did win 60% of the vote, then he absolutely should br President.

if that was the way it worked we would almost always have a run off election cause it's rare that a president actually get's 60%.

I have a solution to this problem.

First, I propose that the President should be elected by direct popular vote. Anyone who attains 60.0% of the direct popular vote shall be elected President. Every political party has a shot of being elected in the first round.

If no candidate has attained 60.0% of the DPV, then a runoff shall be held among the top two candidates and whomever wins the most states wins.
To win the most states, a candidate has to win small states as well as large states.

quote:

---

This of course, is due to state law and/or tradition. No where in the constitution does it say the electors are required to vote for whoever wins the popular majority.

---

But most states have a law that requires that whatever slate of electors, which gets selected by the plurality of the vote, must vote for the candidate they pledged to vote for. That�s why I raised the question, this is the particular reason I question the current state of the Electoral College. It seems like state law and the party system have messed with the general idea too much.

quote:

---

Well, that's what you get for being a small state. and small states can be powerfull if enough of them get pissed off.

---

Whoa, whoa, are you insane? "That's what you get for being a small state"? I'm from rural Iowa, and it so happens that our needs are every bit as important as those of New York or Boston or whatever the hell the big cities are now. And if a President runs on the campaign promise that he'll dump the largest cities' toxic waste into Nebraska, for instance, it shouldn't take the 40 smallest states just to vote him down.

The idea is repugnant.

quote:

---

hah, bushs. and nushoes, you failed to mention one important flaw, in congress, it's not winner takes all... in the electoral college, it is.

---

This of course, is due to state law and/or tradition. No where in the constitution does it say the electors are required to vote for whoever wins the popular majority.
Therefore, the system is still legitimate, but it may need some tweaking.

hah, bushs. and nushoes, you failed to mention one important flaw, in congress, it's not winner takes all... in the electoral college, it is.

I have a biracial friend who thinks I'm racist because I say things like what up white girl and make jokes about how black and white people are different.She's Vietnamese and white. I have never said any kind of offensive words besides white or I never try to offend someone on purpose. She said I wouldn;t like it if someone called me a n*gg*. I said I never said an offensive remark like cracker or anything and if they call me a n*gg* I didn't deserve it and they will be beat down. I never said anything about not liking white people or meant to offend anybody. I told her if my white friends want me to stop or have a problem with it they can talk to me about it.I think being racist is not liking a certain race. I don't dislike any race. What she is bringing up happened last year. People do change. She stuck in the past. I haven't said any new remarks. Plus I don't go bringing up slavery because that happened years ago.

"That's what you get for being a small state." My disgust has no bounds. Nu shoes is exactly right on.

"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

Our system was intended to permit fair and equitable distribution of representation. That's why we have a bicameral legislature. The Electoral College is just an extension of that.

Well, that's what you get for being a small state. and small states can be powerfull if enough of them get pissed off.

Dr. Stranglelove has it right. If the Electoral College were to be abolished, candidates wouldn't need to even campaign in or care about states like Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, and the list goes on. A president could propose a tax hike on farmers to pay for urban policies and programs just to pander to the people in urban centers like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and others. The 2000 census reported that 69% of the US population live in Urban areas, as opposed to rural areas. Abolishing the EC would make it so 50 million+ votes don't count. This would be wrong, and create a system of unfair electoral democracy in this country that is a role model for all other countries in the world.

"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

I think it comes down to the absolute basics. Our politicians continute to tell us that every single vote makes a difference, yet with the Electoral College this doesn't happen. Logically, the president should be chosen based on what the people's vote says. If every vote really counted, then we would have no need for the Electoral College.

Then the most densely populated states either should be removed from the union or live with the EC.