Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you think that doing away with the electoral college will make the vote in Montana count more? The electoral college was designed so that Presidential candidates didn't focus their attention solely on urban centers. If you do away with the electoral college, look at where the population in this country is concentrated. Those people will be selecting the President, and the voter in Montana won't count at all.
I think every state should do like Maine and Nebraska and split up their votes according to districts.
There's a problem when the someone wins the popular vote yet is not elected President. Yes, Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral vote and thus was named President. I voted for Bush in that election but it certainly felt a bit tainted even before Chadgate.
It is frustrating, but the electoral college serves a very legitimate purpose. It enhances the votes of people living in rural areas. During the recent election cycles, that's tended to benefit the Republican candidate. But here's the thing, it's not in the Constitution that the electors have to be winner-take-all on the state level, that decision rests with the state. What does this mean?
It means that YOU can join with others in your state and change the rules. YOU can get the electors from your state to represent your state's electorate on a proportional basis, if that's what you would like. The rules are made on the state-level, they aren't imposed from the federal level.
I think the entire election process needs to be reformed. Elections should be based on popular votes, not on the electoral college.
I live in Florida which has 27 electoral votes- why should my vote possibly count 9 times more than someone who lives in Montana which only has three?
It makes no sense to me.
I agree. I'm in Massachusetts, and even though I do vote Democrat, if you're a Republican here, it doesn't count. So, I guess mine does count, in a way, but no matter what I did, Massachusetts is solidly Democratic and I can't imagine it changing.
It is frustrating, but the electoral college serves a very legitimate purpose. It enhances the votes of people living in rural areas. During the recent election cycles, that's tended to benefit the Republican candidate. But here's the thing, it's not in the Constitution that the electors have to be winner-take-all on the state level, that decision rests with the state. What does this mean?
It means that YOU can join with others in your state and change the rules. YOU can get the electors from your state to represent your state's electorate on a proportional basis, if that's what you would like. The rules are made on the state-level, they aren't imposed from the federal level.
I don't see how it helps rural areas. I'm from upstate NY originally, and most of NY is rural, but it usually goes Democrat because of NYC, which is like a whole other planet.
I'm in Massachusetts now, which also has a huge rural population, but it goes Democrat because of liberal Boston and the surrounding suburbs.
Can someone explain exactly the difference between the electoral college & popular votes?
Popular vote is just that, it's based off of actual votes. 3 million people = 3 million votes. Electoral college is a system that is based off of population by state. the more people in your state, the higher number you are given (California has like 50 compared to 3 for Montana). Thus the candidate with the higher number of electoral votes, wins even if when adding up all the individual votes in the nation the loser of the electoral vote has more popular votes (Gore v. Bush in 2000).
Can someone explain exactly the difference between the electoral college & popular votes?
OK-
When you vote, your vote is tabulated in your state. Whomever wins your state, gets your state's electoral votes.
I live in Florida so whomever wins in Florida gets 27 electoral votes. 270 are needed to win the election. So winning florida wins you 10% of the electoral college.
Furthermore, if the party you voted for did not win in your state, your vote goes no further because your state's electoral votes go to the other candidate.
Each state has a number of electoral votes- and it's all or nothing with one or two exceptions, I believe. Some states have much fewer- for instance, Montana only has three.
So if a candidate wins enough large states with high electoral counts, they can win less than 25 states and win the electoral college.
And it is very possible- and has happened that a candidate won 270 electoral votes but lost in popular votes.
That is very wrong.
Specific example.
I voted Obama in Florida. If he doesn't win the popular vote in Florida, the 27 votes for Florida will go to McCain. Therefore my vote will not count on a national level.
I agree. I'm in Massachusetts, and even though I do vote Democrat, if you're a Republican here, it doesn't count. So, I guess mine does count, in a way, but no matter what I did, Massachusetts is solidly Democratic and I can't imagine it changing.
I think it should definitely be popular vote.
And you live in one of the most densely populated states. So that makes sense, because a straight popular vote will benefit the most densely populated states, making sparsely populated states like Idaho, Montana, South Dakota neglible at best in terms of the Presidential election. And that fact won't be lost on those states residents, who won't bother to vote in Presidential elections, because their votes will truly be meaningless on Election Day.
Besides the fact that our Founding Fathers were legitimately concerned with democracy becoming a de facto mob rule, they were also concerned that political power rooted in elections would become centered in urban areas, and that rural areas, where farms and ranches that supply urban areas with the essentials for survival, would be rendered politically powerless. The electoral college is an extremely small weighting on behalf of rural areas, but that weighting can be critical. And it serves the purpose of drawing candidates to rural areas, not so that the candidates can pass on their message to rural residents, but so that the candidates can hear the voices of rural residents, can hear what issues are important to those people. Why does that matter, because education doesn't stop at the borders of large cities, because roads and telephone service and the internet and television are connections between all Americans, not just those who live in big cities, because people who live in rural areas pay taxes, too, and need hospitals and fire stations, police stations and libraries and streetlights and clean water. They need a chance, every four years, to talk to the candidates and make the choice that is most relevant to their lives, just like you do. And their vote won't count as much as the vote of someone of lives in a populous state, but the chance they had to tell McCain or Biden or Palin or Obama about what was important to them, that chance is invaluable.
I don't see how it helps rural areas. I'm from upstate NY originally, and most of NY is rural, but it usually goes Democrat because of NYC, which is like a whole other planet.
I'm in Massachusetts now, which also has a huge rural population, but it goes Democrat because of liberal Boston and the surrounding suburbs.
I know what you are saying, but the problem you have an issue with is not about the electoral college, it's with the way your state selects its electors. The state can choose to send electors proportionally, which would mean if you lived in a state that votes 60% Democratic, 40% Republican, that the electors would be 60% Democratic, 40% Republican. Then, you would feel that your vote did carry weight. The electoral college is not the problem for you, it's how you state determines its electors.
It will take a Constitutional Amendment and years to get rid of the electoral college, and the electoral college is really not the issue. YOU as a voter in your state can start changing this on a state level. And doesn't that make more sense than changing the Constitution. Ridding the United States of the electoral college isn't going to make the voter in rural NY or rural MA or rural SD have a greater voice, it will make the voters in LA, Chicago, NYC, Miami, Houston, Atlanta have the greater voices. Their votes will count more, because our President will be elected by people in urban centers.
MA here. The ONLY state that voted for McGovern years ago. They should just save themselves the trouble and mark the state blue now so they don't have to spend time on it come election night.
I think every state should do like Maine and Nebraska and split up their votes according to districts.
In theory this is a good compromise between state-based electoral count and direct popular vote. Two big problems:
(1) Unless ALL states worked this way, big states like California, Texas, New York, and Florida would not want to dilute their major influence on the outcome.
(2) There would be too much temptation from partisan state legislatures to gerrymander congressional districts as happened in Texas by Tom Delay in order to manipulate (e.g. "fix") future presidential elections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
