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.
This issue has nothing to do with party politics. The continued use of the Electoral College System allows the Republicans and the Democrats to retain their duopoly in American government.
Contrary to what others have postured, election by popular vote doesn’t leave anyone out of the process. A vote cast by a California citizen would have exactly the same value as one cast by a Wyoming citizen. A voter in Jessamine County, Kentucky would have the same electoral power as a voter in Brooklyn.
Of course more populous states would have more collective power than less populous states. The math is easy: more individual voters equal more votes. It’s no different than suggesting that women, as a demographic group, have more power than men…there are more of them voting!
On the other hand, the current electoral system causes an extreme disparity in voting power. Consider the seven least populous states (WY, VT, ND, AK, SD, DE, and MT). Each of them receives three electoral votes—twenty-one votes among them. The collective population of these seven states is about five and a half million. Contrast that to my home state. Minnesota has about the same population as those seven states combined, yet it receives only ten electoral votes. This means that, in effect, a vote cast by a Minnesota citizen has only about half of the value as a vote cast by one our Dakota neighbors.
The problem doesn’t stop there. Like forty-seven other states, Minnesota is a winner-take-all state. This means that, in a system designed to keep third parties out of the picture, all of Minnesota’s electoral votes go to one of two specific political parties. If you don’t subscribe to that party’s platform, you are automatically disenfranchised.
As for the notion of an urban/rural imbalance of representation, eight of Minnesota’s ten 2008 Electoral College Assembly members were from the Minneapolis-St Paul metro area. The two who weren’t, were former state legislators with strong ties to the city. This leaves the non-metro population (about a third of the state population) with disproportionately low representation within the assembly. The Electoral College Assemblies of most mid-size, and even small states, tend to be dominated by city dwellers.
So, what happens if a third party candidate is able to break into the system and prevent both the Democrat and Republican candidates from reaching 270 electoral votes? The answer is in the Twelfth Amendment: the incoming House of Representatives elects our new president and vice-president…I’m sure there wouldn’t be any partisan politics in that process!
We should also remember that Electoral College member are not constitutionally bound to any specific candidate. They can cast a vote for whomever they choose. This is largely why Democrats and Republicans alike make sure that the electoral voters are party insiders.
If you are heavily invested in the political machinery of the Republican or Democratic parties, you will find the Electoral College System does a fine job of maintaining that status quo. If not, you might see the problems inherent in the system
Republicans will never let us get rid of the electoral college...that is until Florida permanently tips to the Democrats. By the time the Democrats completely take Texas, you'll see every Republican who talked about how important it is to the foundation of our country start calling it an evil liberal conspiracy
Actually, it would take a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of the States. Since more than 25% of the states have less than 10 electoral votes and thus stand to lose influence, it's not going to happen any time soon.
Thus, it's not worth even discussing.
Finally some one from the left tries to tell these poor souls what the real truth is. They don't have much idea about how the Constitution is amended so they think that their way of thinking can happen. Thanks for trying,.
Nomad has no idea about what it would take to get rid of the Electoral College. MTATech tried to tell them but I don't think they will believe even one of their own.
There is nothing wrong with the Electoral College, it would take a constitutional amendment to change it.
There is about 1/3rd of voters that will vote party line regardless of the candidate for that party.
We are going to change the foundation of our Presidential elections for a few elections that worked out differently that some people think is "correct".
This issue has nothing to do with party politics. The continued use of the Electoral College System allows the Republicans and the Democrats to retain their duopoly in American government.
Contrary to what others have postured, election by popular vote doesn’t leave anyone out of the process. A vote cast by a California citizen would have exactly the same value as one cast by a Wyoming citizen. A voter in Jessamine County, Kentucky would have the same electoral power as a voter in Brooklyn.
Of course more populous states would have more collective power than less populous states. The math is easy: more individual voters equal more votes. It’s no different than suggesting that women, as a demographic group, have more power than men…there are more of them voting!
On the other hand, the current electoral system causes an extreme disparity in voting power. Consider the seven least populous states (WY, VT, ND, AK, SD, DE, and MT). Each of them receives three electoral votes—twenty-one votes among them. The collective population of these seven states is about five and a half million. Contrast that to my home state. Minnesota has about the same population as those seven states combined, yet it receives only ten electoral votes. This means that, in effect, a vote cast by a Minnesota citizen has only about half of the value as a vote cast by one our Dakota neighbors.
The problem doesn’t stop there. Like forty-seven other states, Minnesota is a winner-take-all state. This means that, in a system designed to keep third parties out of the picture, all of Minnesota’s electoral votes go to one of two specific political parties. If you don’t subscribe to that party’s platform, you are automatically disenfranchised.
As for the notion of an urban/rural imbalance of representation, eight of Minnesota’s ten 2008 Electoral College Assembly members were from the Minneapolis-St Paul metro area. The two who weren’t, were former state legislators with strong ties to the city. This leaves the non-metro population (about a third of the state population) with disproportionately low representation within the assembly. The Electoral College Assemblies of most mid-size, and even small states, tend to be dominated by city dwellers.
So, what happens if a third party candidate is able to break into the system and prevent both the Democrat and Republican candidates from reaching 270 electoral votes? The answer is in the Twelfth Amendment: the incoming House of Representatives elects our new president and vice-president…I’m sure there wouldn’t be any partisan politics in that process!
We should also remember that Electoral College member are not constitutionally bound to any specific candidate. They can cast a vote for whomever they choose. This is largely why Democrats and Republicans alike make sure that the electoral voters are party insiders.
If you are heavily invested in the political machinery of the Republican or Democratic parties, you will find the Electoral College System does a fine job of maintaining that status quo. If not, you might see the problems inherent in the system
I hope you don't think that parties had anything with the establishment of the electoral college by the founders. Neither of them existed then or had anything to do with that. Also, I don't think that anyone back then was leaning any direction.
If you really want to do away with the EC maybe you should count a few more of the smaller states and then consider how they will be able to give away what power they have now.
Nomad has no idea about what it would take to get rid of the Electoral College. MTATech tried to tell them but I don't think they will believe even one of their own.
I have a fool proof plan. (get the pun?)
Considering your alliance of angry, scared, older, white people, we don't really need to do anything.
As someone else pointed out earlier, each day that passes, there are are more of us, and less of you.
All we need to do is sit back and relax. This will all take care of itself, in due time.
We are the future. You are the past.
Last edited by Nomad58; 06-19-2012 at 10:05 PM..
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.
Dictatorship definition?
