Anything Forums

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...electoral_x.htm

This is good, this is the problem with the electorial college, somewhere in our history, politicians pulled a fast one and decided all the electorial votes would go towards one person per state, regardless of how the district that vote came from voted. I think, as it states in the article, Maine's and Nebraska's system, which gives 2 senate electorial votes to the overall winner of the state, is the best way. Here is a letter from a Colorado representative that explains why and how this system works.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12316

b
u
m
p

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12443

Republican Gov. Bill Owens and Republican State Party Chairman Ted Halaby have criticized the Colorado proposal, saying it would lessen the state's clout in presidential elections. They warn that candidates will ignore the state and its nine electoral votes if the measure passes.

That'd be a stupid thing to do. I think the electoral college is antiquated and badly designed. I'd be glad to see it go.

Katy Atkinson, a spokeswoman for the opposing Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea, promised to challenge the measure if it passes and it is applied in this year's presidential race.

What a clever name

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12449

I disagree, the electorial college serves a purpose and, if use correctly, works fine as a check on democracy.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12458

MrSelf wrote: I disagree, the electorial college serves a purpose and, if use correctly, works fine as a check on democracy.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2417582

Seeing as I live in Idaho, a traditionally Republican state, if I vote Democratic, my vote is worth diddly with the electoral college system the way it is.

Perhaps the system that Colorado is adopting would help me out, maybe not, I'm still not too clear on the whole system, too tired

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12461

Yeah, sintekk, I know what you mean, living in Texas and all.

The electorial college is really a way to break down voting to the smallest possible divisions but still have accountablility. Each state breaks down its areas, according to population, into districts that have 1 electorial vote. Whoever the people vote for in that district, the electorial representative votes their vote towards that person. Then the state itself has 2 votes via it's senators, and that's how the electorial votes are distributed. I think it's quite unfair that I don't have a say in many things because the state has hijacked the electorial college and ruled that all votes must go one way. I'm going to write my representative.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12463

Well, I still don't quite see how the average Joe benefits from the electoral college, but the colorado thing, after further reading, is a step in the right direction.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12500

The average Joe doesn't benefit, but America does. The idea comes from a time when cities were the cornerstone of society. If one city's population was so large that it didn't matter what the rest of the people wanted, that city, or a group of cities like that, could completely control the direction of the government, this way rural communities get a say as well.

If it were completely by popular vote, NYC and select Californian cities would be the only ones that saw presidential candidates, the rest of America really would not be heard. This allows for everyone to be important enought to try to get, or it would if it worked the way it is suppose to, not the way corrupt officials and uneducated policymakers have made it into.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12512

How would the Colorado solution work in a hypothetical situation such as this. Suppose a state has seven Congressional districts. One of the districts contains 60 per cent of the population and they vote unanimously for Kerry. The other districts all vote for Bush. Kerry would win the popular vote, but would he get just 3 electoral votes while Bush gets 6? Hey, I guess I kind of like that system.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12545

Bookworm wrote: How would the Colorado solution work in a hypothetical situation such as this. Suppose a state has seven Congressional districts. One of the districts contains 60 per cent of the population and they vote unanimously for Kerry. The other districts all vote for Bush. Kerry would win the popular vote, but would he get just 3 electoral votes while Bush gets 6? Hey, I guess I kind of like that system.

I just said it was a step in the right direction, I didn't say it was Bushproof

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12566

Bookworm wrote: How would the Colorado solution work in a hypothetical situation such as this. Suppose a state has seven Congressional districts. One of the districts contains 60 per cent of the population and they vote unanimously for Kerry. The other districts all vote for Bush. Kerry would win the popular vote, but would he get just 3 electoral votes while Bush gets 6? Hey, I guess I kind of like that system.

You would never had a district that had that much of the population, excluding very small states where there are only 2 or 3 votes to be divided among population. The 'Electors', as our constitution calls them, are divided up according to state population. The area where I'm in (thanks to that famous Texas redistricting...), Travis County, is part of 3 districts now.

Either way you look at it, it is more fair than the current system, which was divised as a way smaller states could attract candidates that would normally skip a state where they may only receive 1 vote. Now with 5 votes going to one person, that smaller state does matter.

If you look at the problems the EU has been having, it's very similar to early American history. They are having the same problem we did as far as how much power 'states' will have. The smaller countries don't want to give up their right to make decisions, but if you went completely off of population, they would lose everytime and then there is no incentive for smaller countries to be a part of that. The solution America came up with was electors: smaller states have more electors for fewer people, and while larger states have even more electors due to a larger population, the elector to person ratio is lower. It's a progressive scale, much like most of America's ideology, something most Americans don't understand. America is not a true democracy and was never meant to be. As many have pointed out through history, true democracy is very dangerous and extremely easily corruptable. In a true democracy, we could vote our bill of rights away.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1025, old post ID:12589