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.
It is beginning to look as if either candidate has the possibility of winning a majority of electoral college votes while losing in the popular vote.
Coming so soon -- relatively speaking -- after Bush/Gore, what effect do you think this outcome might have on the country? On our political system? On our image around the world?
I'm not sure, but sometimes I think it would be better to go with popular vote instead of electoral votes. That way everyone's vote really would count; they wouldn't feel like it was useless to vote if they lived in a red or blue state and they were the opposite. I think more people would come out to vote if they knew every vote counted.
it does seem wrong that my obama vote in idaho will hold essentially no weight in the election.. and it also seems wrong that people in states like ohio iowa and wisconsin get to matter more than anyone else's. But we are a republic with representative voting in many areas.. so.. long story short.. I'm torn... I really think the president should be the popular vote so that everyone's individual vote has value. I think it would also encourage better voter turn out.
Without the electoral the Cons would never get into the white house.
As presently constituted, because the GOP has become geared to the particular interests of the red-state bloc. But if abolition of the EC were to move both parties toward the national center, rather than their red/blue sectional interests, I think many people in the US would approve the change.
In general, the Electoral College is an absurd anachronism and has been acknowledged as such for at least a century by virtually everyone who has seriously considered the issue and do not have a partisan stake in the status quo. The Madisonian constitution we're stuck with is virtually impossible to change - only two amendments (12 & 17) have changed the actual constitutional structure, as opposed to limitations on power, or the relationship of the state to the citizen, or amendments dealing with social-structure or purely social issues such as civil rights or prohibition. So the chance of an amendment abolishing the EC is very remote. But that chance goes up slightly if the GOP loses this year, and begins to re-think its red-state strategy in favor of seriously competing nationwide, including in the high-population northeastern and western "blue" states. Because the only way the GOP gets at conservative voters in NY or CA is through a direct election.
Odds are the winner of popular vote will also win EC BUT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
It is beginning to look as if either candidate has the possibility of winning a majority of electoral college votes while losing in the popular vote.
Coming so soon -- relatively speaking -- after Bush/Gore, what effect do you think this outcome might have on the country? On our political system? On our image around the world?
If 1 candidate wins the popular vote and loses the election, if will be BO because Romney is going to win 20 more of the 2 votes awarded to the states for the Senators....just like Bush did in 2000.
it does seem wrong that my obama vote in idaho will hold essentially no weight in the election.. and it also seems wrong that people in states like ohio iowa and wisconsin get to matter more than anyone else's. But we are a republic with representative voting in many areas.. so.. long story short.. I'm torn... I really think the president should be the popular vote so that everyone's individual vote has value. I think it would also encourage better voter turn out.
I was in favor of a popular vote untill I saw what happened in 2000. We know that Dems are more dishonest than Reps....that's a given. If you let Dem run areas like Chicago go, they'll have millions more votes than residents so their weight on the election will exceed their population.
As presently constituted, because the GOP has become geared to the particular interests of the red-state bloc. But if abolition of the EC were to move both parties toward the national center, rather than their red/blue sectional interests, I think many people in the US would approve the change.
In general, the Electoral College is an absurd anachronism and has been acknowledged as such for at least a century by virtually everyone who has seriously considered the issue and do not have a partisan stake in the status quo. The Madisonian constitution we're stuck with is virtually impossible to change - only two amendments (12 & 17) have changed the actual constitutional structure, as opposed to limitations on power, or the relationship of the state to the citizen, or amendments dealing with social-structure or purely social issues such as civil rights or prohibition. So the chance of an amendment abolishing the EC is very remote. But that chance goes up slightly if the GOP loses this year, and begins to re-think its red-state strategy in favor of seriously competing nationwide, including in the high-population northeastern and western "blue" states. Because the only way the GOP gets at conservative voters in NY or CA is through a direct election.
States are free to apportion electors based on the vote which would be something akin to a popular vote.
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.
Odds are the winner of popular vote will also win EC BUT:
