Electoral Vote: Possible Bullshit?

[Cootie]

Does anyone else here really not like the concept of the electoral vote and wish we would only use the popular vote?

I feel as though as long as the electoral vote decides who becomes President my votes really don't matter. What is the point in me voting given that Romney is damn near guaranteed to win my state of Alabama no matter what? It still counts as a vote under popular vote which I like, but when (not if) Romney wins my state if I vote for Obama it doesn't count for donkey dick. I am sure republicans that live in California have to feel the same way.

[JMHX]

So move. We ain't uprooting the Constitutional system for you.

[Camarohusky]

Not to mention that Wyoming voters are over 3 times more important than those in California.

[Dawnslayer]

Seemed like a good time to post this video. I make no claims about its accuracy, but I'm interested to hear what people think about the points made in it.

Personally, I think a lot of the points made are valid, if not necessarily the proposed solutions (read in the comments somewhere that his population figures for the biggest cities didn't account for the metropolitan areas). I don't remember the last time a presidential candidate came to visit my state, and if they did I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter, because while their body was here their brain would be in Ohio trying to convince people there that they're the real supporter of coal workers (even though they spoke out against coal the last time they were running for something).

[Cootie]

At 10/18/12 08:39 PM, JMHX wrote: So move. We ain't uprooting the Constitutional system for you.

How would that help? So I can vote for a guy who was going to win that state regardless and my vote is again null?

[JMHX]

At 10/18/12 10:52 PM, Cootie wrote:

At 10/18/12 08:39 PM, JMHX wrote: So move. We ain't uprooting the Constitutional system for you.

How would that help? So I can vote for a guy who was going to win that state regardless and my vote is again null?

Your vote has always been null anyway. Its odds of swaying even a local election are so small as to be nearly a null set. Besides, the entire purpose of the electoral college is to distance a president from direct popular election. We already have a branch with direct popular election.

Read your Federalist - we're in a system that mixes the state and the people together to elect its leaders.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/18/12 11:04 PM, JMHX wrote: Your vote has always been null anyway. Its odds of swaying even a local election are so small as to be nearly a null set. Besides, the entire purpose of the electoral college is to distance a president from direct popular election. We already have a branch with direct popular election.

Well, that was with the thought that the the electoral college voters would make the better decision when the people did not. Nowadays, with the electoral voters following the state popular votes the electoral college has become little more than a distorter of votes, both just because of how the system was built and by political manipulation (gerrymandering).

[JMHX]

Electors follow population, and beyond that they follow the popular vote. They're voting the same way the state did, with two state exceptions where they're decided by how the congressional districts turned out.

You can always run for elector, then you can say you actually voted for president.

[WoogieNoogie]

The entire reason our country started as a democratic republic is to eliminate the "rule by mob" mentality that popular vote opens up to. It really makes more logical sense.

[TheMason]

At 10/18/12 11:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, that was with the thought that the the electoral college voters would make the better decision when the people did not. Nowadays, with the electoral voters following the state popular votes the electoral college has become little more than a distorter of votes, both just because of how the system was built and by political manipulation (gerrymandering).

It's not the only thought.

It is also a check on the states with big populations from running over states with small populations. While California and Texas are going to figure in big with any elected leader just because of their size and representation in the House...states like Iowa, Nebraska, and itty-bitty Vermont could be neglected as well as states with mid-range electors such as Missouri.

This gives the people running for president a reason to pay attention to the needs of the fly-over states.

[TheMason]

At 10/18/12 11:04 PM, JMHX wrote: Its odds of swaying even a local election are so small as to be nearly a null set.

Depends on where you live. In my local elections people usually win by votes in the teens or single digits....unless they are running during a presidential election.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/20/12 10:23 AM, TheMason wrote: It is also a check on the states with big populations from running over states with small populations. While California and Texas are going to figure in big with any elected leader just because of their size and representation in the House...states like Iowa, Nebraska, and itty-bitty Vermont could be neglected as well as states with mid-range electors such as Missouri.

That idea is both extremely misplaced and just flat out wrong. That idea fits in congress where the is on ehouse where each state has an equal share in the law. But for President all the electoral college does is distort the value of the American voter.

The idea is completely and wholly wrong. The average popular vote differential for the past 6 elections (those after Reagan's 84 landslide) was about 5.5 million. The lowest 10 red states in population have 17.4 million residents. This shows that the little states are more important under a popular vote system than you theory gives them credit for. If Romney focused solely on the big guys and Obama came in and swooped up the littles, Obama would absolutely crush Romeny in popular vote. Same if Obama focused only on the big states.

This gives the people running for president a reason to pay attention to the needs of the fly-over states.

Actually, the electoral college has made every state but Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada a fly-over state.

[Insanctuary]

Leave it to a system that can be accessed by the mass retards of our world who kiss ass to lies and everything they want to hear and not what is actually going on beyond what they want to hear.

It is time we make sure we have eligible people voting for a system that shapes our country and not have dumbasses shape our country when they can't even shape a single idea for themselves.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/20/12 12:06 PM, Insanctuary wrote: It is time we make sure we have eligible people voting for a system that shapes our country and not have dumbasses shape our country when they can't even shape a single idea for themselves.

While I agree that a huge chunk (definitely a majority) of Americans are too damn stupid to be in touch with government at all, let alone to be trusted with any details, I am not willing to strip them of all power. Laws effect all people, especially those that deny or take, and as was the argument with the 26th Amendment, anyone who is subject to such detrimental alws should have some right in dictating whether those laws are made.

[Insanctuary]

At 10/20/12 03:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: While I agree that a huge chunk (definitely a majority) of Americans are too damn stupid to be in touch with government at all, let alone to be trusted with any details, I am not willing to strip them of all power. Laws effect all people, especially those that deny or take, and as was the argument with the 26th Amendment, anyone who is subject to such detrimental alws should have some right in dictating whether those laws are made.

This is the way I see it; Suck dick, or cut it off for good.

Right now the system is no longer reliable and it would only bode terrible things for us to come. We have to put an end to this fuck parade once and for all. I'm sick of seeing parents treat their kids like prisoners in schools and households, but when it comes to a system that shapes our mother fucking country, all you get is ''So?''.

[DingoWalleyStudio]

When the Electoral College was created, it was thought of by the Founding Fathers as a way to prevent people from voting in a Dictator or a King; by having the States determine the President, they can make sure people simply don't for a Hitler. The Electoral system changed by having the Electorates be determined from actual Votes. The problem is, not everyone votes, and the Winner-Take-All style of the Electoral College doesn't represent everyone.

However, this does not mean the Electoral College needs to go away. Instead, it needs some minor tweaking. I think that if everyone who could were forced to vote in National and State elections, and all states fallowed a District by District model instead of a State by State one, the Electoral College system would be fixed, and 3rd parties could actually start making appearances in certain areas.

[JMHX]

At 10/22/12 09:08 PM, DingoWalleyStudio wrote:

I think that if everyone who could were forced to vote in National and State elections, and all states fallowed a District by District model instead of a State by State one, the Electoral College system would be fixed, and 3rd parties could actually start making appearances in certain areas.

Yes, mandatory voting doesn't undermine the ideals of the United States at all.

[TheKlown]

Mitt Romney is probably going to win the Popular vote, a lot of experts are expecting Romney to win the Popular vote and President Obama to win the Electoral College.

[JMHX]

At 10/23/12 12:48 AM, TheKlown wrote: Mitt Romney is probably going to win the Popular vote, a lot of experts are expecting Romney to win the Popular vote and President Obama to win the Electoral College.

>A lot of experts
>0.4% chance

[TheKlown]

At 10/23/12 12:53 AM, Profanity wrote:

>A lot of experts
>0.4% chance

>Replying to a person whose father tunes the TV to FOX news.

??? What are you talking about??? You MSNBC viewer.

[JMHX]

At 10/23/12 12:53 AM, Profanity wrote:

At 10/23/12 12:49 AM, JMHX wrote:

At 10/23/12 12:48 AM, TheKlown wrote: Mitt Romney is probably going to win the Popular vote, a lot of experts are expecting Romney to win the Popular vote and President Obama to win the Electoral College.

>A lot of experts
>0.4% chance

>Replying to a person whose father tunes the TV to FOX news.

IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE

I did find one New York Times analyst who has the following:

Romney wins popular vote 30.1%

[JMHX]

America. America is my source.

[ZJ]

I'm sure that if another electoral college debacle like we had in 2000 happens again, this whole movement to get rid of the electoral college will get started again. Otherwise, people just take the system as it is.

And let's be honest here. Do you really think that in today's bureaucratic world, that the government is going to take away tons of elected positions from its cronies? I can't say that I see that really happening.

[Cootie]

At 10/23/12 09:39 AM, ZJ wrote:

And let's be honest here. Do you really think that in today's bureaucratic world, that the government is going to take away tons of elected positions from its cronies? I can't say that I see that really happening.

Hell no. The government seems to care about help their buddies out more than helping out all of us and doing what is right. So far 5% of elections have been decided by the electorial vote. I think that is FAR too often.

[JMHX]

At 10/23/12 12:13 PM, Cootie wrote:

At 10/23/12 09:39 AM, ZJ wrote:

And let's be honest here. Do you really think that in today's bureaucratic world, that the government is going to take away tons of elected positions from its cronies? I can't say that I see that really happening.

Hell no. The government seems to care about help their buddies out more than helping out all of us and doing what is right. So far 5% of elections have been decided by the electorial vote. I think that is FAR too often.

I'm pretty sure all elections end up decided by the electoral vote, considering electoral vote is the SOLE measure for deciding an election under the Constitution, even if it ends up causing a deadlock that reverts to the House and Senate.

[TheMason]

At 10/20/12 12:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That idea is both extremely misplaced and just flat out wrong. ...

The idea is completely and wholly wrong. ...

Actually...it is Poli Sci/American Government 101 and it IS one of the main reasons that the Founding Fathers created the EC. Rather than just go to the population centers, this forces the president (in the execution of the domestic policies the Congress enshrines into law) to use his power evenly across the states and not just focusing on the richest or largest...or to apply a universal solution to problems with a multitude of unique causes.

This gives the people running for president a reason to pay attention to the needs of the fly-over states.

Actually, the electoral college has made every state but Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada a fly-over state.

Yes and no. The electoral map is constantly changing. Within the next decade the swing states will shift again.

[JMHX]

An interesting aside: One of the reasons Jeb Bush is under so much pressure from the Republican Party to run in 2016 (he personally regretted not running in 2012, per an interview out this month in New York Magazine) was because Republican internal analytics have Texas trending blue between 2016 and 2022.

The Texas Republican Party is already flustered that they're going to need to actually spend money on campaigning in 2014, thanks to the influx of LIBRULZ into the tech hub of Austin. It won't be a sudden Democratic sweep, but it'll definitely make the map more competitive if Republicans and Democrats are spending nationally in Texas.

[Feoric]

Texas won't be blue in 2016, but it almost certainly will happen.

Check out this chart that breaks down Texas by county (note: blue is Republican and red is Democrat in this chart). Texas is a huge state where most of it is desolate with nobody living in it, hence so much blue. The red part is where minorities live, and there will certainly be a massive influx of Mexican immigrants within the next 10 years, so it will only become larger.

[JMHX]

At 10/25/12 09:47 AM, Feoric wrote: Texas won't be blue in 2016, but it almost certainly will happen.

Check out this chart that breaks down Texas by county (note: blue is Republican and red is Democrat in this chart). Texas is a huge state where most of it is desolate with nobody living in it, hence so much blue. The red part is where minorities live, and there will certainly be a massive influx of Mexican immigrants within the next 10 years, so it will only become larger.

I agree. If you look at the trend since Carter won Texas in '76, Republicans nationally have gone from a high of R+23 in Texas to R+12 in 2008, when McCain actually decided to spend money in some of the major Texas markets. It's looking to be another R+12 year for Texas nationally. What's going to hurt them is the redistricting from the 2010 Census -- a significant Latino bloc now exists in quite a few of the four new districts.

[Warforger]

At 10/25/12 10:54 AM, JMHX wrote: I agree. If you look at the trend since Carter won Texas in '76, Republicans nationally have gone from a high of R+23 in Texas to R+12 in 2008, when McCain actually decided to spend money in some of the major Texas markets. It's looking to be another R+12 year for Texas nationally. What's going to hurt them is the redistricting from the 2010 Census -- a significant Latino bloc now exists in quite a few of the four new districts.

Don't talk about the 1976 election like it's a trend setting election. The country back then along with both parties were completely different than they are today. For one, the incumbent President wasn't elected , there was still the aftermath of Watergate which ruined the reputation of the Republican party and many of the states are not like they were in 1976. For example, California was a Republican stronghold until 1992. That's not even mentioning the Republican party itself was alot more moderate than it is today and at the time the Liberal wing was still there but in its final hours as its final leader Nelson Rockefeller died.

As for Latino's, they're actually quite special and they're a group Republicans can grab ahold of. The main reason being that they're Socially Conservative, all you really have to do from there is change their economic viewpoints. Which I think is happening in some districts in California, as they settle down they turn into Economic Conservatives and now I think a district which previously was a Democratic haven has now 2 Republican candidates for the House Seat.