do you think they shoud do away with the electoral college (Reagan, polls)

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by hawaiiancoconut

Should the Democrats change the rules because they can’t beat Republicans at the ballot box due to their crappy policies.

The Republicans hate the electoral college just as much as the Democrats when they are out of power in Congress and the White House.

This discussion is ancient. That hatred has been going on ever since the mid-20th century when the rural states began losing substantial population for the first time.

The fact is: Though a rural state may lose most of its population to the cities, none of them will ever become totally abandoned. People will always live in them all, and those folks still have the same rights of representation and the same needs of governance as the big-city states.

And time has shown that big cities can and do fail. And when they fail, they are abandoned just as quickly as the folks once left their rural homes before.

So, in time, who knows? It's very possible that a state that's small now could become a new population magnet in the future. I live in a state that has always been small and pretty unknown, and is now a really hot place to move to. That change only took less than a decade to come about.

So while I don't like the electoral college any more than most folks, I believe it still serves a good purpose in it's balancing, even though that purpose wasn't the founding father's intention for the college's creation.

There are many ways that can make the electoral college more representative of one man, one vote. Some states are quite fair already in this by their laws that govern the college and how it functions, while other state laws are not as fair.

Since the electoral college's governing laws were left up to the states to decide, I think there should be a conference of state representatives that should be gathered to settle the issue for once and all.

But since the electoral college is an easy plum to pick for gerrymandering when one party holds solid power over the other in a state, I doubt such a conference will ever happen anytime soon.

Despite all the discontented moaning about it, as long as there's an advantage that's built in by law to keeping the electoral college is it is, there will always be one party or the other that will want to gerrymander.

The only way to stop that is the willingness to vote your favorite rascal out of his job. If you want to throw all the bums out, that always means throwing your favorite bum out of office too. We all have a few of them.

They're the ones we think do a pretty good job despite themselves.

[Tall Traveler]

Hell no....our Founding Fathers knew the majority mob cannot be trusted.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by Tall Traveler

Hell no....our Founding Fathers knew the majority mob cannot be trusted.

Majority mob? So what do you think was going on when Reagan won the Electoral College 525 to 13? You sure as hell can not get a presidential victory from the popular vote by such a huge margin.

[BeerGeek40]

Originally Posted by Tall Traveler

Hell no....our Founding Fathers knew the majority mob cannot be trusted.

This is the bottom line.

It was this way in the 1700's and even more so today.

[LordSquidworth]

Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson

Nope, because it would disenfranchise the rural areas since they tend to be more conservative. If there was a change to a popular vote, why would they bother? Just hand the election to the liberal side on a silver platter.

I would, however, like to see a different way of voting to see who becomes a candidate. I think all states should have nothing but primaries. Caucuses are for the birds -- so is a combination of primary and caucus!

You say that and yet the current system disenfranchises the voters in larger states. 2/3 last three presidents were elected losing the popular vote.

They need to do away with winner-take-all. Electoral votes should return to being divided up based on how voters voted. The recent push for states agreeing their electoral votes should go to winner of popular vote jumps over that to the opposite side.

[ottomobeale]

I would like it to be amended so that it forces campaigning in all states.

As of right now, Dems can ignore TX and GOP can ignore CA.

Maybe proportional +2 for winning the state?

They talk about a national popular vote causing candidates to ignore anything but CA and NY etc... Currently the majority of states are ignored. Perhaps 15 can go either way.

[Tall Traveler]

Originally Posted by BeerGeek40

This is the bottom line.

It was this way in the 1700's and even more so today.

True and thanks to Idiocracy, even more so in the future.

[Hesychios]

do you think they should do away with the electoral college [?]


I am going to say no, with qualifications.

I understand the reason the electoral college was set up, and I think the reason is still valid. It was part of the original compromise which protected smaller states like Delaware and Rhode Island.

It certainly is not a part of the theories of pure democracy, it was a means to an end, a practical mechanism put into place for a purpose. It's a tie-rod.

It could be modified, I suppose, to help it become more representative of the will of the people but I would not be comfortable with the long term ramifications of eliminating the Electoral College entirely.

[USMC1984]

If the Dems had theirway they'd let the whole world vote. They know by going on world apology tours and giving the house away they'd get all the votes.


The rest of the world resents a strong America.


Might as well let children vote on how they're raised too.

[markg91359]

A vote from New York City is the same as a vote from rural Wyoming.

Both voters should have equal say in who becomes the next President.

Those who defend the electoral college are defending rule by something other than the majority. That is antithetical to the whole purpose of an election where the candidate with the most people voting for him is supposed to win.

I've seen this sophistry spun a dozen or more times here on CDF where people allege that its somehow wrong for California and New York to control the outcome of the election. Nothing wrong with that--if that's where the most people are voting. Its the way an election is supposed to work. In fact, every other election in the USA works that way.

What would happen if we had a presidential election determined by popular vote? For one thing, people like me, who live in a state where the opposing political party always wins would feel that it is important for us to vote. An election determined by popular votes would rejuvenate interest in the presidential elections among people of both parties who feel we are "shut out". Republicans in California who have not bothered in the past would suddenly show up to vote in the presidential elections. Democrats in deep red states would start taking the time to vote as well.

Thumbs up for national popular vote. Let's eliminate the electoral college. The sooner the better.